Tennesee delays its choice

And while it is the right one, I also happen to agree with something Phil Plait, The Bad Astronomer, said, "But I can hope that in the future, everyone will know that we won’t teach creationism because it’s wrong."

Now I know some are going to argue with me, but the bottom line is Creationism is not science. You can dress it up in whatever you wish, but that still not science. While the Establishment Clause has all sorts of reasons why religion should not be promoted by the government, none of that really matters. Creationism is not science and therefore does not deserve a place in the science classroom.

If you hadn't heard a parent asked that an Honors Biology Textbook be banned for calling Creationism a 'myth'. He claimed this indicated a bias against Christianity and would prefer a 'non-biased book' be used instead. I wonder what an 'unbiased book' would actually look like?

Here is my problem. While on the surface the parent's issue sounds pretty innocuous and reasonable, I disagree. What is wrong with the word 'myth'? It's not prejudicial, unless you read that into it -- which is what I believe the parent did. It doesn't matter what words you choose, nearly anyone can find a reason to object. Creationism, Noah, Adam and Eve are stories, non-evidence-based stories passed down through many generations of SOME of the world's religions. If that doesn't meet the definition, I have no idea what does. What other term explains that better in a text about science?

Well Tennessee has a chance to do the smart thing. We shall see if they can follow through next month. Here, you can read a report on their recent meeting.