Darwin in the Classroom: Ohio allows alternatives.

National Review Online ^ | December 17, 2002 | John G. West Jr.

[Poohbah]

Now I do not like this cheap and itself dishonest shot, Poohbah. You have no basis whatever to question my integrity and if you do it again, this conversation is over, and you may then argue with the wall.

Sorry, kiddo. There's one that is done so often, and gets applauded so often, your side has a LOT of 'splainin' to do in regards to it.

Suppose that the creationist side of the aisle has been pointing out that there aren't any transitional fossils between Species A and Species C.

If someone is so rude as to discover a fossil of Species B, one that is clearly a transitional fossil between A and C...

Just point out that there aren't any transitional fossils between A and B, and between B and C.

It's about as honest as Bill Clinton.

[Poohbah]

Bad science is bad science and it is not incumbent upon "my side" to do anything more than authoritatively point out that Darwinism is bunk.

Nobody argues over straight Darwinism anymore--except creationists.

[Phaedrus]

Goodbye, Poohbah.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for sharing your views! If you are interested in mine, you might want to click here

[Phaedrus]

"In recent weeks some have mischaracterized the new language as an effort to mandate teaching the theory of intelligent design in the classroom, but that is not accurate and is not what we asked for," said Dr. [Stephen C.] Meyer. "The new standard requires students to learn about the evidence for and against Darwin's theory. It does not mandate that students be tested about the theory of intelligent design, though it does leave teachers free to discuss it."

Discovery Institute Press Release