“Charles Garner, guest column: It’s not religion; it’s sound, skeptical science”
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?
