I must take exception to some of the outlandish statements of Nord in his article on creation science.
In a forthright manner he concedes that the Supreme Court was probably right in striking down the Louisiana law requiring balanced treatment of evolution and creation science in that state's public schools. He proclaims himself to be an evolutionist but absurdly sets aside the main tenets of random mutation and natural selection with the statement that "no self-respecting deity would . . . (use these) . . . strange tools . . . in building a world."
Nord is not an evolutionist. He is a self-serving purveyor of creationist inclinations in the matter of free public education. Perhaps it is better to ask Nord which tools "any self-respecting deity" would use?
In his argument for better education by exposing students to religious accounts of creation, he returns to the crux of the matter--whose non-scientific account of creation should be used? The fact that there are innumerable accounts precludes any reasonable presentation that could be made in our very heterogenous society. Matters of creation are best left to the home--religious and otherwise.