Talk:Creationism in public education

	This Creationism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Letter Writing

So the Florida school board decided against teaching intelligent design!!!!!! We did it, guys!!!!! One reason for their decision was a deluge of satirical letters. Could the same thing be done with the Texas school system, now in the process of selecting new textbooks for science curricula? I think so. I'd like to start a letter-writing campaign. When I get the chance (late tomorrow) I'll dig up the right address and tell you guys what I'm going to write the suckas.-αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 23:38, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Another victory for science! It's still ridiculous they considered teaching intelligent design in the first place, but at least they turned it down. Hooray for scientific satire spamming! assume a=a 23:57, 29 December 2007 (EST)

I think it's necessary that we start to do the same w/ Texas.-αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 00:37, 30 December 2007 (EST)

I think this link has the correct address. They should probably be addressed to Lizzette Gonzales Reynolds (the one involved in Comer's firing), c/o the address. Could anyone look and confirm that you think this is the right place to send letters to?-αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 00:53, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Creationism vs bad attempts at multiculturalism

@LongStylus I have three major issues with this new addition.

• Firstly, per its own source, this is less about aboriginal creation myths and more about using "good language".
• Two, nothing is being snuck in. Like. At all. The educational system appears to be doing this of their own volition. Quite openly I might add.
• Three, of what benefit is this to the article? Again, this is a bad attempt at inclusivity, not an attempt to push a creation myth or religious apologetics. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. It is indeed moreso about inclusivity rather than creationism. And as a whole, I don't think it's important enough to be added to the article. I should've read the source more carefully. Sorry! LongStylus (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@LongStylus I mean, maybe we could add something about how uncritical and poorly thought out inclusivity initiatives can unintentionally spread creation myths? I mean, that might work for both articles where this issue was raised. Other than that I can't see a way to add it without it just coming off as a bit kneejerk-y. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to give the impression that we should just ignore this, it just seems like it isn't really of the same type of thing as Conservative Christian Apologetics activism. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

You can add something about it if you want. The creationist element seems to have been picked up by the media a tiny bit: [1]. LongStylus (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@LongStylus And of course the reactionaries jumped on it as a peril to science... Gods, I fucking hate these groups... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)