Texas EduBoard won't put creationism in textbooks, after all

[Napkiraly]

Oh thank lanta for this.

[Blasted Craigs]

Are you saying that the decision to reject creationism is good or bad? I can't tell.

I think it is bad, I wish they would at least mention creationism as a possibility.

If one mentions creationism as a possibility, should one not also list The Prose Edda, the Norse creation theory(myth)?
I mean, saying that the Earth came about because the lands of fire and ice touched they created a giant named Ymir and from the sweat of Ymir's armpits the first man and woman were made has the same legitimacy as creationism, and in my opinion they are both equally factual.

[Hurdegaryp]

Debating on the internet seems to be a synonym for "screaming opinions without bothering to get educated", so I can see why you think that Regnum Dominae is not doing it right.

Or maybe it's spamming links.

Those are all very educational links, also they are relevant. I do not see the problem.

[Dyakovo]

Or maybe it's spamming links.

Those are all very educational links, also they are relevant. I do not see the problem.

Apparently "you're wrong, and here's proof" is a Bad Thing™…

[Hurdegaryp]

Those are all very educational links, also they are relevant. I do not see the problem.

Apparently "you're wrong, and here's proof" is a Bad Thing™…

And impolite, too. Showing people how ignorant they are and forcefully rubbing their stupid faces in it is generally considered a faux pas.

[The Emerald Legion]

Apparently "you're wrong, and here's proof" is a Bad Thing™…

And impolite, too. Showing people how ignorant they are and forcefully rubbing their stupid faces in it is generally considered a faux pas.

The fact that a ton of them may be educational, but are only relevant in the barest sense.

Though I probably should have just bombarded you with links on how interpersonal communication principles say bombarding people with information is bad.

[Dyakovo]

And impolite, too. Showing people how ignorant they are and forcefully rubbing their stupid faces in it is generally considered a faux pas.

The fact that a ton of them may be educational, but are only relevant in the barest sense.

Though I probably should have just bombarded you with links on how interpersonal communication principles say bombarding people with information is bad.

You definitely should have.

[Hurdegaryp]

The fact that a ton of them may be educational, but are only relevant in the barest sense.

Though I probably should have just bombarded you with links on how interpersonal communication principles say bombarding people with information is bad.

You definitely should have.

We could have learned so much more! Unfortunately this is now not the case.

[The Emerald Legion]

Here you go.

[NERVUN]

Something tells me that Andeer is not here to have a proper discussion, he's just here to provoke.

It's not possible to have a proper discussion with a liberal, I answered what the OP asked

Knock off the baiting.

[Shnercropolis]

I think the review board tore apart the creationist argument in their first day, and for the rest of the time looked for actual factual errors in the book.

[Shnercropolis]

Once again, leftists show that they're completely intolerant of views that contradict theirs, no surprise really

Most people are, including rightists.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Once again, leftists show that they're completely intolerant of views that contradict theirs, no surprise really

Most people are, including rightists.

Tru' 'nuf. The only reason I tend to agree with Andeer (and others like him) is that many on the left talk a good game about tolerance, but they're no better than those on the right, who are at least open about their intolerance. Obviously, that could be less the truth and more my perception of the situation. (I try to be open-minded, but I'm probably no better at it than most people: I've got a collection of biases in a little box under my bed, and I take them out and fondle them every day. )

Anyway, WRT the topic, I am curious what would happen if other religious people (say, devout Hindus) demanded "equal time" for their creation myths. Would the Bible-thumpers lose interest at that point? Would they start asking for *gasp* proof of the stories which contradict their Official Myth?

[Shnercropolis]

Most people are, including rightists.

Tru' 'nuf. The only reason I tend to agree with Andeer (and others like him) is that many on the left talk a good game about tolerance, but they're no better than those on the right, who are at least open about their intolerance. Obviously, that could be less the truth and more my perception of the situation. (I try to be open-minded, but I'm probably no better at it than most people: I've got a collection of biases in a little box under my bed, and I take them out and fondle them every day. )

Anyway, WRT the topic, I am curious what would happen if other religious people (say, devout Hindus) demanded "equal time" for their creation myths. Would the Bible-thumpers lose interest at that point? Would they start asking for *gasp* proof of the stories which contradict their Official Myth?

They would demand proof, thus contradicting themselves and losing their strongest argument. I want to become a Hindu now just so I can do this.

[Dyakovo]

Most people are, including rightists.

Tru' 'nuf. The only reason I tend to agree with Andeer (and others like him) is that many on the left talk a good game about tolerance, but they're no better than those on the right, who are at least open about their intolerance. Obviously, that could be less the truth and more my perception of the situation. (I try to be open-minded, but I'm probably no better at it than most people: I've got a collection of biases in a little box under my bed, and I take them out and fondle them every day. )

Anyway, WRT the topic, I am curious what would happen if other religious people (say, devout Hindus) demanded "equal time" for their creation myths. Would the Bible-thumpers lose interest at that point? Would they start asking for *gasp* proof of the stories which contradict their Official Myth?

Preventing and/or denouncing bigotry isn't intolerance.

[The Emerald Legion]

Tru' 'nuf. The only reason I tend to agree with Andeer (and others like him) is that many on the left talk a good game about tolerance, but they're no better than those on the right, who are at least open about their intolerance. Obviously, that could be less the truth and more my perception of the situation. (I try to be open-minded, but I'm probably no better at it than most people: I've got a collection of biases in a little box under my bed, and I take them out and fondle them every day. )

Anyway, WRT the topic, I am curious what would happen if other religious people (say, devout Hindus) demanded "equal time" for their creation myths. Would the Bible-thumpers lose interest at that point? Would they start asking for *gasp* proof of the stories which contradict their Official Myth?

Preventing and/or denouncing bigotry isn't intolerance.

And there's a difference between holding a belief that requires action and bigotry.

[Hurdegaryp]

Preventing and/or denouncing bigotry isn't intolerance.

And there's a difference between holding a belief that requires action and bigotry.

Bigotry and belief often go hand in hand, something doesn't stop being a hatecrime just because the horrible bastards quote holy books.

[Tekania]

Tru' 'nuf. The only reason I tend to agree with Andeer (and others like him) is that many on the left talk a good game about tolerance, but they're no better than those on the right, who are at least open about their intolerance. Obviously, that could be less the truth and more my perception of the situation. (I try to be open-minded, but I'm probably no better at it than most people: I've got a collection of biases in a little box under my bed, and I take them out and fondle them every day. )

Anyway, WRT the topic, I am curious what would happen if other religious people (say, devout Hindus) demanded "equal time" for their creation myths. Would the Bible-thumpers lose interest at that point? Would they start asking for *gasp* proof of the stories which contradict their Official Myth?

Preventing and/or denouncing bigotry isn't intolerance.

Indeed, tolerance is tolerating intolerant people, but not tolerating intolerance itself.

[The Alma Mater]

I think it is bad, I wish they would at least mention creationism as a possibility.

If one mentions creationism as a possibility, should one not also list The Prose Edda, the Norse creation theory(myth)?
I mean, saying that the Earth came about because the lands of fire and ice touched they created a giant named Ymir and from the sweat of Ymir's armpits the first man and woman were made has the same legitimacy as creationism, and in my opinion they are both equally factual.

No, that most definately is not what creationists want. Because then it is no longer a question of "both sides of the argument", but "this opinion out of millions". Which means they can no longer just bash evolution but have to come up with something of value of their own.

[European Socialist Republic]

Tru' 'nuf. The only reason I tend to agree with Andeer (and others like him) is that many on the left talk a good game about tolerance, but they're no better than those on the right, who are at least open about their intolerance. Obviously, that could be less the truth and more my perception of the situation. (I try to be open-minded, but I'm probably no better at it than most people: I've got a collection of biases in a little box under my bed, and I take them out and fondle them every day. )

Anyway, WRT the topic, I am curious what would happen if other religious people (say, devout Hindus) demanded "equal time" for their creation myths. Would the Bible-thumpers lose interest at that point? Would they start asking for *gasp* proof of the stories which contradict their Official Myth?

They would demand proof, thus contradicting themselves and losing their strongest argument. I want to become a Hindu now just so I can do this.

Nah. I think they would come up with something like "this is a Christian nation so only the Creation story of the Bible should be taught!"

[Hurdegaryp]

They would demand proof, thus contradicting themselves and losing their strongest argument. I want to become a Hindu now just so I can do this.

Nah. I think they would come up with something like "this is a Christian nation so only the Creation story of the Bible should be taught!"

There were religious systems with creation myths active in the territories now know as the USA before the Europeans came, so that argument just don't fly.

[Tekania]

They would demand proof, thus contradicting themselves and losing their strongest argument. I want to become a Hindu now just so I can do this.

Nah. I think they would come up with something like "this is a Christian nation so only the Creation story of the Bible should be taught!"

I agree, "only the Creation story of the Bible should be taught!"... however I'll offer a compromise. We'll teach it, but we'll only use the Theistic-Evolution/Evolutionary-Creationist hermeneutic.... and for the sake of keeping it sciency we'll eliminate the specifically theological elements of it.

(For those that didn't get all the big words, we'll basically just teach scientific evolution).

[The Emerald Legion]

Nah. I think they would come up with something like "this is a Christian nation so only the Creation story of the Bible should be taught!"

There were religious systems with creation myths active in the territories now know as the USA before the Europeans came, so that argument just don't fly.

But... they were wrong. And dead now because god smote them for their heresy.

[Hurdegaryp]

There were religious systems with creation myths active in the territories now know as the USA before the Europeans came, so that argument just don't fly.

But... they were wrong. And dead now because god smote them for their heresy.

That's not how it works & you know it!

[Genivaria]

So wait....Texas....do good?