Paul Miller wrote:
> Your original submission, that children should be taught to inquire
> and analyse evidence, no one appears to have great problems with. Why
> would they? Your slightly covert attempts to imply that with
> inquiring minds they will discover an alternative to Darwinism are
> alarming, but not altogether surprising. You have not, and cannot,
> come up with an alternative. Indeed, inquiring minds came to
> evolution as a hypothesis because the alternatives are at best less
> than likely.
>
> And, your arguments have been 'bollocks',
with hyperbole, hence hyper-b-ollux, a new and convenient portmanteau in
which to store the concept.
|