http://nytimes.com/2005/02/01/science/01evo.html?hp&ex=1107320400&en=143526089b4b8af2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

I have a very binary approach to all of this.

Creationists are dangerous, sinister and medieval. They represent something dark and repressive.

"Freedom of speech"? Fine. But don't try and ram your simple-minded, manipulative crap down my throat.

Creationism will lead us back to the Dark Ages.

(Oh, no. Not another America-bashing thread … )

Yeah...we already have quite enough of those, SQ.

No need to start another one.

The thing that worries me about this is that it turn kids off the natural and earth sciences in general. If they are taught the scientific method is junk in terms of biology then it's likely the same for geology, astronomy, physics, etc.

I'm with Dawkins on this, although I liken it to more of a parasite than a disease.

E

This is good news. :) If future generations of the US workforce move away from evidence-based, rational science, countries that are not dogma-based will leave the US in the dust.....

(note tongue-in-cheek - the vast majority of Americans do not subscribe to this closed-minded teaching - if anything, the southern states will remain backward in their economic development compared with the rest of the country).

What a sad, sad article...

Jim, re your comment "...the southern states will remain backward in their economic development compared with the rest of the country", Georgia is an economic power-house in the US. My closest friend, who was a principal in a school in Georgia, was going to refuse to insert these disclaimers pertaining to evolution, but he retired rather than take on his school board.

When I taught in Waycross, Georgia back in the mid-1970's, I was told not to teach about, or even discuss "religion, race relations, communism or evolution". When I set up a sign on my door stating "Quiet if you enter, USSR in progress", I was called before the superintendent. He wanted to know 1) why I had not signed my loyalty oath, and 2) what was I doing teaching communism? I told him 1) the loyalty oath was written in 1953 and was a violation of my first amendment freedoms according to the US Supreme Court, and 2) USSR stood for Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading, which meant that EVERYONE who was in this class or who entered the room, had to sit down and read. I never did sign the loyalty oath, but I changed the USSR to SQUIRT (Sustained Quiet UnInterrupted Reading Time).

Dr. G, Georgia is certainly a powerhouse today but adoption of this sort of closed thinking does not portend to their future economy being in such a good state.....

Perhaps they will maintain their position of power internally through good ole boy and aw shucksiness. I digress.

The saddest thing is that teachers are either afraid of teaching or they have lost the will to swim against the tide. It doesn wear you down after a while. Are there not parallels to segregation that can be drawn? I'm sure that there were teachers around in the Rosa Parks era that wanted to speak out but were afraid (likely for their lives at that time) and those that defied authority to do what was right.

Jim, Forseyth County, where my friend lives (and is considering moving to Salt Spring Island if he sells his land for $4+ million US if Bush turns the country into an armed camp), was one of the poorest counties in Georgia. It is now in the direct path of Atlanta's eastern growth. They are now the 13th richest counties in the entire US, and voted 93% in favor of Bush. The school board debated whether to include these disclaimers OR to remove all science books that even mentioned evolution. The option of keeping scientifically accurate books was not even an option. So, one of the most conservative areas in Georgia is also one of its wealthiest. Sorry to put a pin in your theory. I shudder to think what teaching is like back in Waycross, which is deep, deep southeastern Georgia.

We'll see in 20-30 years Dr. G. I posit that if one turns one's back on objectivity and open-mindedness and instead use dogma as your guide, you are surely moving backwards (conservative or liberal). Wealth is based either on exploitation of resources or development. Resting on your laurels simply guarantees future irrelevance and loss of prosperity through lack of competitiveness. It's a Luddite approach.

There is a key in your sentence Jim. "Wealth is based either on exploitation of resources or development.".

Are the Georgians (people from the state of Georgia) rich because of these types of activities? There is no paucity of people getting rich because we were put here to use the resources as we see fit. If you know what I mean.

My friend's wealth is from the fact that the 10 acres of land he bought 25 years ago is now worth 4-5 million dollars US. He does not want to sell, and calls his land Mt.Whittle, the last bastion of liberalism in that area of Georgia. He volunteers with the Sierra Club and ran for county manager.............and was soundly defeated as being WAY too liberal. I shall let you know how things turn out in 20 years......unless he pulls up roots and heads out for SSI. I could just see him converting Macnutt to liberalism, in that he was, when I first met him, a YAFer (Young American for Freedom), a Barry Goldwater supporter, a CCCer (Campus Crusade for Christ) and thought that people like me shoud "be sent back to where you came from" (i.e., New York City). After a year of being friends with me, he was putting up pictures of Kennedy and King in his home, and letting his hair grow longer. The rest, as they say, is history. Macnutt does not stand a chance if Duke moves out to SSI.