> If you think a textbook is so full of errors, then perhaps it shouldn't
>be used. My guess is that the people wanting to place these inserts in
>have no direct control over textbook adoptions so instead they do an end run
>by placing this obnoxious insert in the texts? The young-earth creationists
>can't win over the scientific community so instead they attempt to turn
>children against them -- the tone of that label is that modern evolutionary
>theory is a pack of lies.
> The idea of glueing a "warning label" to the inside cover of a textbook is
>repugnant to me. The idea of government getting involved in deciding what is
>and isn't science based on the pressures of special interest groups
>creationists) is a dangerous precedent in my opinion. This whole thing
>me of a story I once heard... An "official" encyclopedia in the Soviet Union
>had a glowing article about a high government official but when he fell
>favor, they mailed out "new" pages to be pasted over that article since the
>fellow didn't officially exist any more. I have visions of this happening
>biology textbooks regarding evolution!
> Where's the warning label for geology texts?
> "WHEREAS, this textbook states that the earth is 4,600,000 years old, it
> fails to mention that many evangelical Christians with no training in
> science believe it to be only 6,000 years old.
> BE IT RESOLVED THAT, we will ignore the knowledge gained by 200 years of
> geologic study and paste the address of the Institute for Creation
> on the front cover of this text so you can contact people who will tell
> the truth which isn't disseminated by all of those egghead atheistic
> Why not?
The arrogance of your response is repugnant to any Christian who seeks to
maintain an open mind on the nature of scientific evidence on origins.
Apparently you have forgotten the "progress report" aspects of science. It
seems you have no unanswered questions on any of the subjects you cover
above, and if God were to reveal any course other than the one you have
been lead to adapt by the "facts" of science, you would probably treat him
the same (I hope I am wrong here, but that's the way you come across to me).