At 07:59 AM 11/9/98 -0700, Rick Romea wrote:
> Bottom line: all the popular plays and
>stories notwithstanding, the Darrow-Bryan debate and the resulting trial
>didn't settle anything; in fact, fundamentalists emerged more energized then
>ever. And they have grown stronger ever since. Seems like creationists are
>a bit like House Sparrows; they are here to stay, and they do represent a
>real threat in some sense, but in this deteriorating world, we probably
>should learn to love them.

In fact, scientific creationism is a reaction to the supposed victory of
scientists in the classroom. Scientific creationism is as much about
politics in the classroom as it is about religon (and of course has
nothing to do with science). Their argument is that, since they practice
science, they have every right to teach scientific creationism
AS SCIENCE in public schools. Thus far, courts have ruled that the
obvious is true, i.e. it ain't science and there's no basis for teaching
it as science in biology classes. Most recently in the South, where
among others Steven Jay Gould testified.

Teaching creationism as religous faith is another thing altogether.
One could teach creationism in a comparative religon class, for
instance (and the comparison of creation myths is an interesting
subject, as is the evolution of the Genesis version which has its
roots in Zoraster's teachings). However, creationists wish to
remove evolution from science classes, not present information on
their faith in a more appropriate setting. Say, in church rather
public schools...



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net