Quote:
Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
If creationism was sufficiently respected as a scientific alternative to evolution, it would already have a place in the classroom alongside evolution. Why should we substitute academic professionals' judgment with that of any student who can scrape together enough money for a lawsuit?
|
I've argued this to people until I was blue in the face. I have no idea what such a rational argument gets no legs. My guess is because it's so rational - doesn't fit into the debate on this issue, most often carried on by people I'll politely call "the lowest common denominator."
The liberals are hung on their own petard a bit here. They took the PC position years ago that, no matter how absurd an idea, no matter how out of step with society, it should get an airing (women should be spelled with a "y", our govt is imperialist and evil, the cure for runaway business abuses is mountains of new regulations... etc...). Creationism is a goofy notion just like so many of their left wing social policies which they teach to college kids. But since liberals have taken the position that no idea should be degraded as lower than any other idea (which allows them to preach their pie in the sky theories about how to make the world better, as opposed to pragmatic solutions which take into avccount how society/life actually operates), they're stuck with creationists saying "how come my idea can't get airtime in the classroom?"
Its kind of sad that no one has the balls to say "Your idea is fucking snake oil... myth... nonsense... unsupportable claptrap..." to anyome anymore.
