Someday American kids will study "Science as a Metaphor Throughout History" or "Science as Literature."

But it won't really matter by then.

Because by then these kids will have been completely degraded into a global workforce of the lowest common denominator fighting for the remaining scraps during a new dark age of corporatist slavery.

How pathetic this stupid git wouldn't stand on her own faith and answer for her own beliefs regarding the age of the earth and whether dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

And then she said, "Your kids need to know what opinions are out there."

Opinions?

Maybe. But my tax dollars don't need to pay for your opinions to be sold to them as, ahem, "science."

If so, then we need to also teach the Popol Vuh, Native American Creation Stories (which number in the hundreds - at least), Sol Invictus, Joseph Campbell, The Golden Bough, and Patton Oswalt's comedy tracts alongside the Bible.

Are we really still debating teaching "Creationism" as science? Honestly? As if "Creationism" was some mono-track, widely-accepted uniform story that fit every culture?

Great. Then let's get completely f*ckin' ridiculous.

By the way, I take back one of my previous comments I posted at another link: I will not only smile when this woman is raped, I will laugh so hard all my brothers and sisters stop hunting moose at once and laugh with me, especially if she is raped by Jack the T-Rex. Now, for all of you scientists out there, you know it's possible that T-Rex lizards don't (didn't -- excuse me ...) have their crown jewels bulging out from between their legs; T-Rex sex perhaps consisted of a brief cloacal kiss by candlelight (the candles being erupting volcanoes off to the distance; very erotic scenery). If so, Jack the T-Rex will just use of his claws -- and clean up the mess afterward, of course.

I don't suppose anyone here buys her suggestion that she really wants debate based upon evidence.

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

The problem IS... popular opinion cannot dictate scientific consensus. Popular opinion CAN dictate educational policy.

Nice example of the tables being turned, and the (christian) pot calling the (atheist) kettle black.

She's whining about how "no one is allowed question darwinian theory"... Sound famliar? It's the creationists who usually gasp when one questions creationism, or intelligent design, or whatever other label they're using to obfuscate things.

Her kids failed science in school. Noahs ark, much easier to understand...

The moderator or Rob Boston needed to go further with the question of teaching all available opinions. Would Yost support the teaching of alchemy in chemistry class, or astrology in astronomy subjects? Because creationism has about the same status as these two in mainstream science.

Another good question for folks like Yost: why aim straight for the kids now, instead of achieving scientific credibility and eventually consensus first and seeing your alternative go into the science textbooks as a matter of course? Answer, whether implied or flat out accused: because it can't achieve this with a complete lack of evidence, and children are easier to convince than biologists.

Creationists have a place for that - it's called church and they get to go every week. Keep it out of our schools! The arrogance of these christians to try to force their belief system on everyone and call it intelligent design.

Science has destroyed almost every god created by man, thankfully. The ones science didn't get were wiped out by a group with a different belief system and more wepaons than the losers. I just can't wait until science can get the last one and free our species from this nightmare.

I watched a little bit of this, only to realize they still haven't come up with any new arguments since the Ohio School Board court case.

C'mon guys, get crackin'.

"Theory of intelligent design"

Intelligent design is not a theory. I'm surprised rob didn't correct anderson for calling it that.

CNN: Distracting the people by reporting on stupid crap that doesn't actually matter, since 1980.

Here's what I don't get. If science isn't taught in church, why does Intelligent Design need to be taught in science class?