>This "little joker" is a little confused and a little >ignorant of the
facts.
>
>First, creationism can be, and is, taught in schools >legally in
history and social studies classes.
>Second, if the Kansas issue is being referred to >here, neither
creationism is being proposed to be
>taught in science classes, nor is evolution being
>proposed to be not taught in science classes.
----
The "little joke" was presented as a quote; I assume it was probably a
response to the Kansas Issue.
However, the reason I included both Kansas and Arizona in the subject
line was because just recently it was proposed here in Arizona that
ðbothð evolution and creationism be taught in science classes. The
proposition was defeated.
Personally, I have no objection whatsoever if creationism is taught in
history, philosophy, comparative religion, or even home ec for that
matter. But I do strongly object to creationism being taught in a
science class or to science classes being weakened because the evidence
for evolution is ignored.
I would like clarification of the matter of evolution being taught in
some sunday schools in Australia. I assume that evolution is not being
taught as a science, but rather that what ðisð being taught is what
the church's hierarchy has decided is wrong with the "theory of
evolution".
=Kendra