Bullshit
The question that you answered was whether Creationism should be taught as part of science if Creationism and science converged. Which is, of course, a justified yes.
But they manifestly have not done so in the present, and you never answered the question of whether Creationism should be taught as part of science in the present.
As for whether I have an agenda, you're being disingenuous and you know it. I would have reacted in much the same way if any other person had posted the same thing. You are only singled out in that you were the one who decided to single yourself out.
Let me side-track a little. There is a classic negotiating tactic where you let one person state their desired position accurately, and then you state your baseline as one where they have given you everything that you want and more. Then you start to negotiate, and lean heavily on them for the fact that they aren't willing to compromise.
This is a tactic that comes up a lot with Creationism.
Knowingly or unknowingly, the way that you put your post matches a common Creationist debating technique. Many Creationists stake out a position where they claim that it is only fair that their views get equal time in science classrooms. After all scientists claim that Creationism is wrong, Creationists believe that science is wrong, what is a fair compromise?
Scientists who point out that in a science classroom you should teach science are painted as unwilling to compromise. They are being unfair, they should bend a little. Which really translates into saying that scientists should accept teachers lying about what science is and isn't. This after scientists already have to put up with having most of evolution cut from classrooms because of manipulations of local schoolboards.
Hence I raised exactly the issue that I thought you were trying to slime around without ever coming out and saying it. And after broad discussion, you still haven't been willing to state your opinion is on this. Why not? You are pushing buttons, you know that you're pushing buttons, and you're refusing to admit it. That is your choice, and that that is your choice is obvious to anyone who is bothering to follow this discussion.
Let's discuss how well informed you you are. By your own admission, you have little interest in educating yourself. When we last actually discussed evolution versus Creationism, it was a rather one-sided affair. As I recall, it wound up with you unconvinced but admitting that your sources were not as accurate as you thought that they were. You said that you'd have to do a lot more research before talking about it again, but weren't that interested in doing so.
Which tells me that you don't know the evolution vs Creationism evidence in any detail, don't care to know it, and yet claim to be well-educated on that point. What doesn't fit in that?
Now again. Will you please answer the yes or no question that you haven't answered, and know very well that you have avoided answering. Given the present state of affairs, should Creationism be taught as part of science?
Regards,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
