Teaching teachers

i like what eugenie scott says here:

“Evolution is a science, a fact, and it’s not something to vote on,” Scott said in an interview. “When alternate views on evolution are proposed to be taught, they must be about accepted scientific alternatives, and they need to be appropriate to the knowledge base of the students. Caldwell’s proposal in Roseville doesn’t meet either of these criteria.

“Let’s be grown up about this: We’re talking God in this dispute, not real issues in science,” Scott continued. “That’s what’s really unconstitutional about debates over teaching evolution in Roseville.”

notice that scott first goes after the science behind these “alternatives” to evolution. only after does she bring up motivation. it’s an important sequence that is often overlooked. how much do you want to bet that an IDist somewhere is going to quote the 2^nd paragraph and claim that scott is dismissing these alternatives because she thinks they’re religiously motivated, and not based on any scientific evidence?