Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: possibly OT: NYT article on GA creationism/evolution debate



I must interject here that the chain from scientific evidence of the age
of the earth to the conclusion that the earth is old seems strong,
howver because that is strong does not mean that the conclusion that
life arose by spontaneous generation 2 - 3.5 billion years ago is
strong. I certainly agree that at the k-12 level (or even college) one
cannot assert all of the evidence for an idea. My objection would be
the implication of that approach that there are NO other ideas about the
origin of life that are possible. As I read the initial statements
about that decision, I concluded that this was one of the major reasons
many parents felt compelled to take the steps they did. I would not
criticize them for doing so!
James Mackey

John S. Denker wrote:

cliff parker wrote:

... On the other hand when texts say, as my son's
biology book does, that life is believed to have spontaneously developed
from inorganic substances some 3.5 billion years ago while giving little to
no evidence to support such a statement students are not really given the
opportunity to think critically about the subject are they? How honest is
that? Sounds more like indoctrination to me.


There are valid grounds for concern, but let's not
over-react. Alleging dishonest indoctrination is going
too far.