2,732
edits
Changes
no edit summary
Until sources are cited and this page can be made fair to both sides of the issue (if possible), it should remain as a draft. After a time, if it cannot be made acceptable, we should just do away with it. There is no evidence shown (through citation or elsewhere) that "evolutionism" is anything more than a jargon used by a few creationists, and so cannot be considered to be used by the majority of conservatives (or anyone), thus does not warrant a page. --[[User:Dikaiosune|Dikaiosune]] 4:38 19 March 2007
Until sources are cited and this page can be made fair to both sides of the issue (if possible), it should remain as a draft. After a time, if it cannot be made acceptable, we should just do away with it. There is no evidence shown (through citation or elsewhere) that "evolutionism" is anything more than a jargon used by a few creationists, and so cannot be considered to be used by the majority of conservatives (or anyone), thus does not warrant a page. --[[User:Dikaiosune|Dikaiosune]] 4:38 19 March 2007
:May I add that the option cited above by [[user:Jmmotrojam|Jmmotrojam]] of "teaching the controversy" is another example of fallacious reasoning. Just because there is a "controversy" on an issue doesn't mean that both sides deserve to be discussed. You cannot "teach the controversy" in a math class of how some homeless guy told you that 2+2=5, and you think his opinion should be "respected." Disagreement is fine, and reasonable disagreement should be discussed, but unreasonable disagreement does not deserve to be placed on equal footing with a reasonable allegation
:''Exempli gratium'' - creationism is not a reasonable scientific alternative to education. Therefore it does not deserve to be taught (see e.g. ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'', 400 F. Supp.2d 724). Less "controversially," describing evolution as a religion is unreasonable, and does not deserve equal time.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
== Commentary on the Draft ==
== Commentary on the Draft ==