"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
Duane Bozarth wrote:
...
It's only "biased" in your belief system---but as noted elsewhere, that
it isn't "fair" isn't the proper question.


It is biased as I noted earlier. Science classes do teach some
matters of faith. Secular faith, i.e. life and the universe developed
on it's own, we just don't know how yet.


Precisely...and you're proposing to teach that your side does
know--


Wrong. You don't even know what my view is, although I've
expressed it many times.


which it doesn't and doesn't have scientific evidence to support
the argument that it does. Ergo, it is not science and should
therefore, not be taught as science.


"Science" discusses many things. In teaching, the subject of origins
does come up and it's misleading to teach and/or leave the impression
that it started on it's own. We don't know that. Science doesn't know
that. You don't know that. Many are asking for fairness in teaching.
And since they are footing the bill, it's only fair.



The question of what and where religion should be taught is a totally
separate issue as well as is philosophy.


See above.



The proper question is
whether the science curriculum is the best science known at the time _to
science_. Anything less is a disservice to the students.


Yes, that was my point.


But you apparently want to force teach


What does force teach mean? As opposed to what?


a curriculum that isn't the best
science we presently know in order to promote a particular
non-scientific philosophical bent.


There isn't a best or worst scientific answer to origins. But it
sounds like you only want the one you like taught.