Thinking Christian

With reference to full-spectrum teaching of evolution, and the controversy over standards in Texas:

The “strengths and weaknesses” language has been in place for a decade. If it had been used to introduce religion or supernatural explanations into the classroom, these groups would have a long list of specific incidents, with names, dates, etc.

But when I contacted Dr. Dan Bolnik, an assistant professor of Integrative Biology at the University of Texas and the head of the 21st Century Science Coalition. . . Bolnik could not provide me with a single specific example of such an incident.

[Link: Charles Garner, guest column: It's not religion; it's sound, skeptical science]

So what is the real objection to these standards, anyway?

Print Friendly

_______________

Possibly related posts (automatically generated):

1. “Spirituality can bridge science-religion divide”
2. “Science has vanquished religion, but not its evils”
3. Something In the Air: Science’s Supposed Superiority To Religion
4. “A Real Science of Mind – NYTimes.com”
5. Mark Perakh and the Ironies of Philosophy and Science