tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post603830472734251362..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: PZ Myers is a witless wanker who peddles pablumUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger115125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63164925842918027182010-09-10T01:11:11.516-04:002010-09-10T01:11:11.516-04:00Funny. Last July I attended PZ's speech and f...Funny. Last July I attended PZ's speech and following discussion at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and was amazed by the difference between his face to face conversation (calm and polite) and his writings.gralmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09173653406724173051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71431841139025121412010-04-26T21:09:15.378-04:002010-04-26T21:09:15.378-04:00Dale: "Morten, Ramsey, all -- Several days ba...Dale: "Morten, Ramsey, all -- Several days back, Russell Blackford put to rest the notion that using the word 'myth' automatically violates church-state separation"<br /><br />Fair enough, Dale. That said, the broad strokes of Blackford's views and DeDora's are the same, that is, a public school teaching material in a religion-blind fashion is fine, while going out of one's way to attack religion is a church-state breach. Where DeDora and Blackford differ is largely in the details of how much leeway a teacher has, and I'm quite content to go with Blackford on the matter.<br /><br />More importantly, Blackford actually sought to deal with the facts of the matter as fairly as possible. Contrast this behavior with that of PZ Myers, who acted in bad faith and <a href="http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2010/04/of-cats-and-dogs.html" rel="nofollow">grossly misrepresented DeDora</a>.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19616919060226897812010-04-26T16:39:21.045-04:002010-04-26T16:39:21.045-04:00Morten, Ramsey, all -- Several days back, Russell ...Morten, Ramsey, all -- Several days back, Russell Blackford put to rest the notion that using the word 'myth' automatically violates church-state separation: <br /><br />http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2010/04/capistrano-case-qualified-immunity.html<br /><br />Standing constitutional jurisprudence does not support De Dora / Ramsey view.Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10523307255698594696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19173778074006297602010-04-26T14:41:08.978-04:002010-04-26T14:41:08.978-04:00Hm Ramsey, I think further discussion is futile. Y...Hm Ramsey, I think further discussion is futile. You seem to be so completely in love with De Dora and so determined to argue that PZ is wrong that it affects your reading skills. Nothing much I can do about that I think.Mortenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10759256586095218454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3220039627554967512010-04-25T14:19:58.717-04:002010-04-25T14:19:58.717-04:00Morten: "And of course there is philosophical...Morten: "And of course there is philosophical babble to refer to. Here is some from De Doras original post"<br /><br />Uh, Morten, you really shouldn't use that as a counter to a response I made to the following claim of yours:<br /><br />"PZ is of course not talking about De Dora in that last part of the sentence. He talks about "philosophers" and De Dora is no philosopher. Actually, the blogpost that the quote is taken from is a response to Massimos post, where he defends De Dora, so PZ is of course referring to Massimos philosophical babble."<br /><br />So is PZ referring to DeDora or not? Indeed, the quotes that you gave of supposed "philosophical babble" support my claim that PZ is horribly muddled. DeDora writes:<br /><br />"It is important to note that creationism and related ideas like intelligent design do belong to the field of religion, not science; they are theology and philosophy (bad theology and philosophy, but that's another matter). Hence, science cannot reject them <i>in full</i> [emphasis added]"<br /><br />Note the "in full" there, with no parentheses and no commas. This is not a parenthetical aside, but a modifier, and one that implies that science can reject creationism partially. And what are DeDora's examples of creationist ideas that science cannot reject?<br /><br />"for how does the scientist answer the claim that God made it look like there's been evolution, and that we are merely natural products, to test our faith?"<br /><br />Here DeDora speaks of a version of Last-Thursdayism, a view that is consistent with any empirical evidence whatsoever--which makes it immune to scientific disproof. And then there's this example:<br /><br />"Or that God has been the hand behind the process of evolution?"<br /><br />That's basically a vague kind of theistic evolution.<br /><br />Both of these are examples where empirical evidence has no sway, and neither example supports the idea that the age of the universe--on which evidence has a lot to say--is "philosophy or theology, and not to be discussed in science class."<br /><br />Morten: "And of course this kind of philo-babble is the basis of the claim, that criticizing creationism in science class is a violation of the separation of church and state (because it says that no matter the amount of evidence, science cannot show with absolute certainty that creationism is false)."<br /><br />This is nonsense. Suppose that science could provide such absolute certainty. It would still violate separation of church and state to <i>go out of one's way</i> to single out a particular religious claim for disparagement. (Teaching science in a religion-blind fashion, however, even if it happens to conflict with a religion, is perfectly legal, however, and DeDora said as much.)J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58510836618649828832010-04-25T14:19:58.718-04:002010-04-25T14:19:58.718-04:00Morten: "And now you're at it again."...Morten: "And now you're at it again."<br /><br />Yes, I know. It's so awful for me to recognize "not 6000" as a parenthetical phrase, that is, a phrase that adds information but otherwise doesn't change the meaning of the sentence if removed. In other words, both this statement,<br /><br />"If a science teacher can't even flatly state that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6000, because philosophers will complain about epistomological boundaries, we're doomed."<br /><br />and this statement,<br /><br />"If a science teacher can't even flatly state that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, because philosophers will complain about epistomological boundaries, we're doomed."<br /><br />mean that PZ is speaking of a situation where a science teacher cannot say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.<br /><br />Morten: "This follows quite clearly from the part of the sentence that you conveniently left out: "and make such an answer a NECESSARY part of the student's grade"."<br /><br />Um, take a look at what I wrote in the post just above yours:<br /><br />"Good grief, in his earlier post, the one to which Massimo linked, he even said, 'To actually state that it is about 14 billion years old, <i>and make such an answer a necessary part of the student's grade</i> ... why, that is philosophy or theology, and not to be discussed in science class.' So, yes, PZ Myers is indeed asserting that according to DeDora and/or Pigliucci, the facts of science cannot be taught in science class. [emphasis added]"<br /><br />If you are going to accuse me of conveniently leaving something out, you should check that I actually left it out.<br /><br />As for the "ridiculous situation" of which you speak, it is entirely a phantom of PZ's mind. It's tenuous enough to deduce it from DeDora's "science-only" approach, and it certainly does not follow from a comment by DeDora (#69 in the original post) where in a hypothetical discussion between a teacher and a creationist student, the student is reminded that he/she will be held to account on the content taught in the classroom, not the church: "remember that your exams are about what the science says, not about what you believe".J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-16045385088877028322010-04-25T11:26:51.572-04:002010-04-25T11:26:51.572-04:00No Ramsey, PZ is crystal clear and he has never sa...No Ramsey, PZ is crystal clear and he has never said that "according to DeDora, science teachers could not teach that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old". You just tried to make it look like that by seriously quote-mining him.<br /><br />And now you're at it again. Let's look at the context of the quote you mention. PZ says:<br /><br />"Great. Creationism? Can't criticize it in our science classes. Somebody says the universe appeared magically a few thousand years ago, I guess that has to be a valid answer on the test question, "How old is the universe?". To actually state that it is about 14 billion years old, and make such an answer a necessary part of the student's grade…why, that is philosophy or theology, and not to be discussed in science class."<br /><br />PZ is talking about the ridiculous situation - that would be a consequence of De Doras position - that a science teacher could not mark the answer "6000 years" to the question about the age of the earth as wrong and therefore give the creationist student a lower grade on the test. This follows quite clearly from the part of the sentence that you conveniently left out: "and make such an answer a NECESSARY part of the student's grade".<br /><br />And of course there is philosophical babble to refer to. Here is some from De Doras original post (quoted by PZ just above the above quote):<br /><br />"It is important to note that creationism and related ideas like intelligent design do belong to the field of religion, not science; they are theology and philosophy (bad theology and philosophy, but that's another matter). Hence, science cannot reject them in full -- for how does the scientist answer the claim that God made it look like there's been evolution, and that we are merely natural products, to test our faith? Or that God has been the hand behind the process of evolution? A scientist must here put on the philosopher's cap to continue."<br /><br />And here is something similar from Massimo:<br /><br />"Consider again the example of a creationist who maintains in the face of evidence that the universe really is 6,000 years old, and that it only looks older because god arranged things in a way to test our faith. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that could contradict that sort of statement, but a philosopher can easily point out why it is unreasonable, and that furthermore it creates very serious theological quandaries."<br /><br />And of course this kind of philo-babble is the basis of the claim, that criticizing creationism in science class is a violation of the separation of church and state (because it says that no matter the amount of evidence, science cannot show with absolute certainty that creationism is false).Mortenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10759256586095218454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-7265812572503192152010-04-25T08:41:09.896-04:002010-04-25T08:41:09.896-04:00Morten, PZ phrased his words so that he was indica...Morten, PZ phrased his words so that he was indicating that, according to DeDora, science teachers could not teach that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old. Good grief, in his earlier post, the one to which Massimo linked, he even said, "To actually state that it is about 14 billion years old, and make such an answer a necessary part of the student's grade ... why, that is philosophy or theology, and not to be discussed in science class." So, yes, PZ Myers is indeed asserting that according to DeDora and/or Pigliucci, the facts of science cannot be taught in science class.<br /><br />Morten: "Actually, the blogpost that the quote is taken from is a response to Massimos post, where he defends De Dora, so PZ is of course referring to Massimos philosophical babble."<br /><br />Neither DeDora nor Pigliucci justify not going out of the way to disparage religious claims in science class on philosophical grounds but on constitutional ones, so PZ doesn't have any actual "philosophical babble" to refer to. Sorry, but PZ is still muddled here.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77110210786515678392010-04-24T16:18:18.167-04:002010-04-24T16:18:18.167-04:00Ramsey, I didn't ADD anything to the quote - I...Ramsey, I didn't ADD anything to the quote - I just showed the whole sentence that you quote-mined.<br /><br />1) Yes, according to De Dora (and Massimo) science teachers can (of course) teach that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. However, they cannot teach that the earth is 4.5 billion years old AND that it is not 6000 years old - which is exactly what PZ was saying. I'm baffled that you would insist on claiming something else on the basis of half a sentence ripped out of context.<br /><br />2) PZ is of course not talking about De Dora in that last part of the sentence. He talks about "philosophers" and De Dora is no philosopher. Actually, the blogpost that the quote is taken from is a response to Massimos post, where he defends De Dora, so PZ is of course referring to Massimos philosophical babble.Mortenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10759256586095218454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40261696038723470712010-04-24T12:08:04.526-04:002010-04-24T12:08:04.526-04:00Um, Morten, what you added to the quote doesn'...Um, Morten, what you added to the quote doesn't really help PZ:<br /><br />1) Even under DeDora's stance, science teachers <i>can</i> teach that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, so PZ's claim that DeDora is suggesting that "a science teacher can't even flatly state that the earth is 4.5 billion years old" is a lie, or at least a gross untruth.<br /><br />2) DeDora's objection to singling out specific religions claims for contradiction, such as the Earth being 6000 years old, is based on concerns related to separation of church and state, not philosophical matters of epistemology.<br /><br />In short, not only does PZ Myers attribute to DeDora views that DeDora himself does not hold, but he is muddled about what DeDora is even arguing.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-22991922820601907972010-04-23T21:24:49.014-04:002010-04-23T21:24:49.014-04:00WTF Ramsey, that's one of the worst pieces of ...WTF Ramsey, that's one of the worst pieces of quote-mining I have ever seen - even from creationists. Here is the whole sentence from PZ:<br /><br />"If a science teacher can't even flatly state that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6000, because philosophers will complain about epistomological boundaries, we're doomed."<br /><br />NOT 6000 - get it? De Dora and Massimo are claiming that it would be a violation of the separation of church and state to tell students that the earth is not 6000 years old and that is exactly what PZ is addressing. And of course he gets it absolutely right.Mortenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10759256586095218454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40668897956942339912010-04-22T18:05:27.118-04:002010-04-22T18:05:27.118-04:00John: "P.Z. got it right"
Um, let's...John: "P.Z. got it right"<br /><br />Um, let's see now:<br /><br />DeDora: "The courts simply will not rule that biology classes are unconstitutional because they teach children about biology, no matter the implications of gained knowledge"<br /><br /><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/i_shall_be_no_friend_to_the_ap.php" rel="nofollow">PZ Myers</a>: "If a science teacher can't even flatly state that the earth is 4.5 billion years old ..."<br /><br />If that's what PZ Myers getting it right looks like to you, I'd hate to see what you think getting it wrong looks like.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37183649011910931702010-04-22T01:20:31.648-04:002010-04-22T01:20:31.648-04:00I figured it out: subtract 14 days and it all make...I figured it out: subtract 14 days and it all makes sense: our favourite philosopher was just just having fun two weeks late (April Fools day). Otherwise, one is compelled to question the content of his local herbal inhalants, or, instead, the fact that he prefers to defend a friend that said something so remarkably stupid that even P.Z. felt correctly that it had to be mocked. As much as I like our favourite philosopher, P.Z. got it right, and our favourite philosopher should just admit it, and move on.John R. Vokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03822243132435056442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-23281084379751368042010-04-20T08:46:18.074-04:002010-04-20T08:46:18.074-04:00Scott,
thanks for your comment. First of all I ap...Scott,<br /><br />thanks for your comment. First of all I appreciate the ability to agree to disagree while keeping talking in a civil manner. Second, yeah, I noticed the strange position in which I put myself of late, but I'm quite comfortable with it, and I hope to productively contribute to the overall dialogue.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-75572195858811288052010-04-19T23:25:31.614-04:002010-04-19T23:25:31.614-04:00I'm too busy to look back over this enormous c...I'm too busy to look back over this enormous collection of comments, but I just want to say the following: Massimo, I disagree with you often, but occasionally you surprise me by stating my own views better than I could have.<br /><br />I've realized over time that you have taken a philosophical position that opens you to attacks from "both sides" (but surely there are more then two!) of the epistemological aisle. There's something brave about that. Thank you.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11332828263550581927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3116059678861934262010-04-19T10:35:25.599-04:002010-04-19T10:35:25.599-04:00"Creationism" is a story which has been ..."Creationism" is a story which has been positively contradicted by science. To say that a science textbook cannot, therefore, call "creationism" (note: not "religion") a "myth", and then going on to show the evidence that it is, in fact, a myth, is patently absurd. And that is what is being proposed by those who are objecting to the use of the word.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68422469226124659072010-04-19T10:28:25.056-04:002010-04-19T10:28:25.056-04:00Dale, the concerns that you are raising now are fa...Dale, the concerns that you are raising now are far different from the ones in <a href="http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/04/pz-myers-is-witless-wanker-who-peddles.html?showComment=1271429302380#c3806549961993419081" rel="nofollow">your original post</a> on the subject. Earlier, you had simply said that it was necessary to bring up myths such as Noah's Ark in the science classroom in order to teach science, and you did so without regard to whether the students believed in Noah's Ark, etc. or not. To put it bluntly, you were saying that the science classroom should go out of its way to not be neutral on religion, period, regardless of whether the students were interested in picking a fight about creationism. If you wish to change your stance, fine, but don't pretend that what you are arguing now is what you had been arguing earlier.<br /><br />Dale: "So long as they also don’t find the word 'myth' in the text, they’ll go merrily forward with the cirriculum as given, untroubled with the thought that their deeply-held convictions have been excluded or denigrated in an unfair, let alone unconstitutional, way."<br /><br />I don't care if the parents or students feel snubbed by the lack of mention of the rogues' gallery of creationists. I just care if they have any legal basis to start a fight. If their feelings are bruised, that's their problem. Let them stew.<br /><br />Dale: "For that matter, the courts (as you take them to understand church-state separation) will likewise see no undue denigration or exclusion of religion in this."<br /><br />Of course the courts would see no undue denigration. What makes you think that they would?J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-66782596236580071682010-04-19T07:21:55.502-04:002010-04-19T07:21:55.502-04:00The issue should not be if we like or dislike some...The issue should not be if we like or dislike someone's approach, but whether or not it is effective. The answer to that question, however, depends on who you ask.<br />Did PZ achieve his goal(s) with his irascible approach or was he just venting his spleen to no effect other than to feel better? Did he get the desired response? Did he effect any change in another person or groups way of thinking? Did he even WANT to do so? Too many assumptions based on very little information. In the meantime, let the guy rant.<br />Too much is being made of very little. 'nuff said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29758013375065927822010-04-19T00:23:52.921-04:002010-04-19T00:23:52.921-04:00Morton,
So if the legal system decided that creat...Morton,<br /><br />So if the legal system decided that creationism is not a violation of the separation between church and state then creationism is not a violation of the separation between church and state?jermoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12260256232935630988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-14363240396314889502010-04-18T20:58:28.445-04:002010-04-18T20:58:28.445-04:00A little bit of actual legal research would go a l...A little bit of actual legal research would go a long way here.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61245298120128136852010-04-18T16:54:35.783-04:002010-04-18T16:54:35.783-04:00@Lorax
You say that we ought to consider the use ...@Lorax<br /><br />You say that we ought to consider the use of "myth" by looking at the context in which it is used in the textbook. I agree but I have read about this issue on several blogs and haven't been able to locate it. If you can provide a pointer please let us know.Jerry Schwarzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17113403820938623979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-69169149452994120472010-04-18T16:21:23.418-04:002010-04-18T16:21:23.418-04:00JJ Ramsey et. al., I want to be certain I understa...JJ Ramsey et. al., I want to be certain I understand the proposal.<br /><br />The setting (I think you’ll recognize it): large numbers of students will enter the classroom believing that current biological science is a hotbed of controversy between “atheist materialist Darwinists” and “cool-headed ID theorists.” Many students will enter the classroom believing the latter and despising the former; their parents and church leaders will see it the same way.<br /><br />As they page through the textbook, they see only the “Darwinist” view represented, and in abundance. They check the index for the leading lights of ID and creationism, but don’t find them. They check for “Genesis,” and again, no entries. They check for “creation,” and it, too, is absent. Indeed, the text contains not a single mention of anything they’d understand as “their side” — god, Jesus, Bible, scripture, etc.<br /><br />So long as they also don’t find the word “myth” in the text, they’ll go merrily forward with the cirriculum as given, untroubled with the thought that their deeply-held convictions have been excluded or denigrated in an unfair, let alone unconstitutional, way. Their parents and church leaders will agree: “Yep, they didn’t call it a myth, so it’s A-OK with us.” For that matter, the courts (as you take them to understand church-state separation) will likewise see no undue denigration or exclusion of religion in this.<br /><br />Is that about right?Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10523307255698594696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-14830896753090765482010-04-18T10:45:11.263-04:002010-04-18T10:45:11.263-04:00Dale: "'your own unsubstantiated claim th...Dale: "'your own unsubstantiated claim that one cannot separate science from non-science without confronting religious myths' -- are you at all familiar with the ongoing cultural controversies over science teaching"<br /><br />Of course I am familiar, but that is a non sequitur to the claims that you had made in your <a href="http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/04/pz-myers-is-witless-wanker-who-peddles.html?showComment=1271429302380#c3806549961993419081" rel="nofollow">earlier post</a> about not being able to separate science from non-science without mentioning such things as Noah's Ark. Furthermore, the cultural controversies in question tend to involve creationists trying push their views into the school curriculum, and creationists are legally blocked from doing so by the very governmental neutrality on religion that you would undermine if your suggestions were implemented.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-23171620711676050282010-04-17T18:29:21.905-04:002010-04-17T18:29:21.905-04:00No people, the main point here is not tone, nor is...No people, the main point here is not tone, nor is it separation of church and state. The real point - and the real problem - is accomodationism. Nobody here knows for sure whether the textbook sentence about creationism being a myth violates the separation of church and state. Not De Dora, not Massimo, not any of the commenters, not anybody. Only the legal system can decide this question and as far as I know they haven't. In this situation, where the question is open, and given that it is of course true, that creationism is a myth (and, by the way, false that the age of the earth is only 6000 years) the last thing needed is that part of the rational, reality-based community sides with the creationists. This betrayal - I think - is the main reason that PZ got a bit worked up and I certainly understand his frustration.Mortenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10759256586095218454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54882778329074358602010-04-17T16:13:03.662-04:002010-04-17T16:13:03.662-04:00@JJRamsey: "This is not"? No, what I sai...@JJRamsey: "This is not"? No, what I said is true: many in this thread and beyond have, in fact, explained why the use of the word "myth" under discussion is not a breach of church-state separation. Maybe you should re-read the thread if you still disagree. <br /><br />As to this -- <i>"your own unsubstantiated claim that one cannot separate science from non-science without confronting religious myths"</i> -- are you at all familiar with the ongoing cultural controversies over science teaching, especially re: evolution? Is it news to you that people are being fed religious tales and being told, over and over and over, that scientific accounts, especially from evolutionary biology, are sinister lies? This should not be news to you. <br /><br />In a saner world, yes, it would not be necessary to bother mentioning the alternatives. Chemistry books don't need introductory chapters calling out the point that the alchemists of old were not practicing real chemistry. This is because alchemists aren't currently spending vast amounts of time and money organizing and agitating to subvert chemistry teaching by muddying the borders between alchemy and current-day chemistry. Biology is not so lucky.<br /><br />We could quibble over whether "myth" was the perfect word choice, but one way or another, the textbook would have been a failure if it had not made the point that many candidate explanations out there -- call them what you will, use as gentle a set of phrases as you wish -- <i>don't belong in science class</i> and <i>will not be given equal time or even broached</i> as this book continues because <i>they are not science.</i><br /><br />Whatever words you select, the point will need to be made that the [pick your gentle word] from the [Bible, Koran, Native American creation myths, Aesop's fables, Egyptian mythology, Kipling's Just-So Stories, etc.] do not belong in science class because they are not science.<br /><br />Any worthwhile high school biology textbook is going to have to make this point. If it fails to do so, the teacher will need to make the point instead. "You've been taught a lot of [pick your gentle word] from various sources. Those aren't science."Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10523307255698594696noreply@blogger.com