04 Sep 05
5 edits
This comes from an article from the NCSE and I completely agree. Read the whole article at http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/996_intelligent_design_not_accep_9_10_2002.asp
"If the scholarly aspect of ID becomes established –- if ID truly becomes incorporated into the scientific mainstream -– then, and only then, should school boards consider whether to add it to the curriculum.
Until that day, proposals to introduce ID into curricula should be met with polite but firm explanations that there is as yet no scientific evidence in favor of ID, that ID supporters are wrong to allege that evolution is intrinsically antireligious, and that the sectarian orientation of ID renders it unsuitable for constitutional reasons."
05 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowThere's no if ID becomes part of the scientific mainstream, it exists in it's own stagnating backwater upon the banks of which people with circular family trees play the banjo. This won't change.
This comes from an article from the NCSE and I completely agree. Read the whole article at http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/996_intelligent_design_not_accep_9_10_2002.asp
"If the scholarly aspect of ID becomes established –- if ID truly becomes incorporated into the scientific mainstream -– then, and only then, should school boards consi ...[text shortened]... us, and that the sectarian orientation of ID renders it unsuitable for constitutional reasons."
EDIT: Squeal Piggy.