[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

No, it is the scientists who use things like punctuated equilibrium to conjure up the evidence that they need to fill in all of the holes in their theories that don't know what they are talking about.

Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

I wouldn't call disagreement between scientists on the mechanistic aspects ... i.e. the how it works part ... necessarily a "hole in the theory" when the fact remains that evolution does take place and that it has been documented by scientific observation. In other words; THAT it happens is fact while HOW it happens remains to be determined by opposing theory. Add to that the fact that when the fine detail is finally established as a homogenous and accepted theory among scientists, it will probably be in technical terms which you, as a layman, would probably be unable to understand. I would wager that you probably be hard-pressed to discern the subtle difference in the current conflicting theories. Admittedly, I would, but I do not question their authority as I know stringent processes applied and re-applied in determing acceptable theory.

Besides, evolution and "intelligent design" can co-exist if you think of evolution as a tool used by the "designer" to accomplish an intelligent purpose. Do you actually believe that scientific evidence shows that species do not evolve into other species: that species are separate and distinct, always have been and have all been put here as part of an intelligent design; or do believe that their is an ever changing diversity in nature? Science doesn't necessarily nullify religion. It's a matter of attitude. If a school board were to compel its teachers to tell students that “evolution proves that there is no God; that everything is explained solely in terms of chemicals and natural processes,” that school board would be violating the First Amendment. To dogmatically teach Atheism in the public schools would be just as unconstitutional as teaching Fundamentalism.

Sadie,

What I'm most afraid of is that once the moral majority has its foot in the door and is able to lay down creationism as unquestioned fact, the first thing that they are going to do is take away the "Question Everything" shirts and burn them ... and perhaps a few books along with them. Call it a slippery slope based on fear.

I'm with you in that philosophical, metaphysical and theological issues are something that can be challengingly discussed as long as an endorsement of ideas is not stressed.

The fact remains that this is clearly a backdoor endorsement of religion and the Constitution is quite clear about the state endorsing religion of any sort, Christian or otherwise. If you want to push it to the extreme, politicians are actually breaking their vows to uphold the Constitution in pushing this issue.