Venus Mousetrap
Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007
|
| Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,12:23) | As most of the participants in this thread want to talk about EE as “repackaged creationism,” “warmed-over creationism,” "creationism redux" -- let’s call this “refried creationism,” or RC for short -- I’ve tried to draft a concise argument expressing the RC criticism as identifying a serious error in EE. How about this:
1. Topic A has been discussed in creationist writings, either historically or currently.
2. Thus, topic A is not material fit for a public school science textbook.
That can’t be what RC entails, however. A creationist textbook may give a perfectly accurate description of (say) the mechanisms of photosynthesis, yet one wouldn’t want to exclude photosynthesis from teaching materials or classroom discussion on those grounds.
So, on the assumption that there’s more to RC than (1) & (2), can someone here express the “refried creationism” criticism succinctly, in a short propositional form (i.e., as an argument) explaining why scientific topics that may have been discussed in creationist writings are nevertheless illegitimate material for science instruction?
Thanks. I'd also value the comments of anyone on whatever formulations of RC are posted. |
I can't believe you are playing this childish game, Paul. You've gone from Young Earth Creationist to Used Car Salesman.
How about this, Paul?
1. You make a lovely flowerbed, and put up notice saying 'DO NOT WALK ON THE FLOWERBED'.
2. I tie newspapers to my feet, and trample your flowers.
3. When asked, I tell you that I was actually walking on newspapers, not your flowerbed.
Do you honestly believe we can't see you're playing the same game? You disgust me.
|
