Hilarious. I love your country. You have such…diversity…

Welcome to the world of science, Helena. The fact that you use the word “even” is quite informative about your apparent lack of knowledge about how science works. Any good scientist will question his hypotheses and theories. Any good scientist knows that theories are at best approximations of how the world works, a framework to not only explain but also predict. And when data comes in that does not fit in, there are two possibilities: the theory is wrong or the data is wrong. And then the scientist investigates further.

This is quite different from the world of religion, where data that does not fit in must be wrong. Evolution is one of those areas where religious people either outright reject the notion because they believe it contradicts their scripture (and therefore by definition must be wrong), or the theory of evolution gets an extra unscientific element such that it can be reconciled with scripture: declare that evolution is ‘guided’ by god. Problem solved, the religious person can sleep safe and sound again, his belief is not challenged.

You don’t have to agree with them, just understand them. Otherwise, you will keep asking questions that reveal you are profoundly ignorant of even the definitions and how evolution works.

If you can’t get basic concepts right, why should we bother listening to you on anything else? Would you listen to a person who claimed they knew how your car ran, but wasn’t able to use the words “gas pedal” correctly in a sentence? Would you even listen to them on any other topic in which they claimed they knew something?

Keep in mind the warning from Augustine: ” If they [infidels] find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? ”

Here’s more from Augstine–seriously, read it so you don’t bring into even more disrepute that which you claim to hold in high regard. http://www.christianmind.org/history/Augustine1.htm

Like I said… Regardless of the data, the idea of evolution as a valid concept is not open to debate. Students are allowed to ask “How did evolution occur?” but never “Did evolution occur?”

Greg: “It is nothing other than an attempt by Christian Fundementalist Evangelicals to get their religion into the public classroom.”

Do all “Christian Fundementalist Evangelicals” want creation taught in the public classroom? No. But all want, at the very least, for evolution to be taught more critically.

Never discussing scientific information that questions evolution is to teach evolution as dogma.

The following suggested Origins of Life policy is a realistic, practical and legal way for local and state school boards to achieve a win-win with regard to evolution teaching. Even the ACLU, the NCSE, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State should find the policy acceptable:

“As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only approved theory of origins that can be taught in the [school district/state] science curriculum: whenever evolutionary theory is taught, students and teachers are encouraged to discuss the scientific information that supports and questions evolution and its underlying assumptions, in order to promote the development of critical thinking skills. This discussion would include only the scientific evidence/information for and against evolutionary theory, as it seeks to explain the origin of the universe and the diversity of life on our planet.”

My refusal to consider the possibility of cramming someone’s religion down the throats of school children in public schools earns me a very different label than the one you suggest. In fact, it earns me a few different labels: Patriot, Logical, Science advocate, Rational, and a few more.

You have a very poor understanding of how science progresses Yes, everything is always in question, but as we progress certain things become extraordinarily well established because of the great and overwhelming preponderance of evidence. But that is not even what we are talking about here. Here, you are attempting to compare an idea that has exactly the same weight as the hypothesis that there is a blue teapot orbiting Jupiter with a set of ideas that address the natural history of life on earth. Just because you think up the teapot does not mean that from then on everyone hast to take the teapot seriously.

Still waiting for Greg to cite some papers from the literature that provide scientific evidence for MACROevolution. Good luck with that.