Wonderbread said:
I see no difference between the "official truth" that's being instructed in evolution, or the official truth being instructed in math, english, history, or chemistry. We have standards of education and those standards can't change based on flimsy theories and religious mythology.
There is no "official truth" in the theory of evolution. It is a theory, which means it is unproven. Now, of course, with many theories, you cannot prove them right, you can only disprove them. As for mathematics, there is no "official" truth, because unlike theories, you can prove certain things, such as 1+1=2.
Your bias shows through when you describe contrary theories as "flimsy" and religion as "mythology". It almost resorts to an ad hominem attack on the arguer, vice on the argument.
As for asserting that faith does not imply any critical or logical thinking is rather astounding. Some of history's greatest critical thinkers were religious folks. Yes, they used their critical thinking abilities to reinforce their faith, but they also used it in the sciences, in ethics, and so forth.
But this thread is devolving. (Pun intended!) Any theories that pass a common-sense test ought to be given their due. The theory of evolution is one, and there are many, many more. The danger is not in teaching these theories, but it is in attacking those who do not believe these theories. Take for example the whole "Global Warming" bugaboo. My children have been taught in class that the world will end in about 50 years. I think I was told the same thing: 30 years ago. Back then it was due to CFCs. Today, CFCs are the saviour of the planet, as they will replace those evil incandescent light bulbs. I'm certain that my grandchildren will be taught that CO2 will be the saviour to rescue the planet from an ice age. So, instead of labelling people who discount the theories you believe to be true, perhaps energies should be focussed instead on highlighting the merits of your own argument, and maybe even consider the fact that you just might be wrong.
In my opinion, that's what this is all about. I find it rather disturbing that opponents to this legislation were using "Human Rights" as the basis of their argument to effectively force people to be "enlightened", but only according to their standards.