ID != IQ

[Mobius]

Here's a direct transcript released by the Wgite House, quoting Dubya directly in an interview he just did:

Q1: I wanted to ask you about the -- what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?

THE PRESIDENT: I thinkâ??as I said, harking back to my days as my governorâ??both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.

Q2: Both sides should be properly taught?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, peopleâ??so people can understand what the debate is about.

Q3: So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggestingâ??you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

Anyone find his words totally meaningless?

First he ignores both parts of the first question, and a stream of verbal rubbish ensues.

Second answer: LOL. There's a huge debate about Stem Cell use corrently too. Is he advising that this debate should be taught in schools - so students can understand what the debate is about? No. I didn't think so. There's no other debates being taught in school - what's so special about this one? Oh, that's right:

Evolution: backed by a huge body of corroborating evidence, collected over more than 150 years by tens of thousands of biologists, chemists, geologists, paleontologists, and other "ologists".

ID: backed by no evidence whatsoever.

I can't see why there'd be any debate over this!

Hmmm - I can see the KKK lining up to get their curriculum into schools in the USA. They have a decidely "different school of thought" which (by implication) George feels can be supported because people believe it.

Look, here's where the "I'm entitled to my opinion" is a complete load of BS. You are **NOT** entitled to your opinion if it is factually untrue.

"Entitlement" is a right, and a right requires a duty. What duty do I have regarding your entitlement? Yes, that's right: none. And without that duty - there can be no "entitlement".

Whenever someone claims they have a right to something, there must be an associated duty which I (or you) must fulfil to protect your right.

If there is no clearly descernible duty I must perform to protect your right, then the claim to that right is bogus.

It's amazing to me that the USA is so free of people who can actually think for themselves, that they need to impose the teaching of their own (unjustifiable!) beliefs on others!

Goodness gracious.

[Stryker]

Thank you for your input. May we now beat you over the head with large heavy objects for wasting bandwidth?

Evolution is backed by this huge body of evidence. You just never seem to explain what evidence, or show us this evidence, or want to hold any kind of an intellectual debate that consists of more than the words "not scientific".

Evolution: backed up by 150 years of research, talking about hundreds of millions, possibly billions of years.

ID: Backed up in most cases by 6,000 years of history, collected over about 6,000 years, talking about approximately 6000 years.

I can't see why there'd be any debate over this!

I can still see schools using Haeckle's drawings, misinforming kids.

Oh, that's right, Haeckle's drawings must be correct, because he was an evolutionist.



Aside from the usual commentary, WHAT THE HECK IS THE PROBLEM with SUGGESTING that there MIGHT be a possible DISAGREEMENT by SOME PEOPLE on THIS POINT? Oh, that's right, it might instill doubt in the hearts of our precious youngsters that we ship off every day in large yellow vehicles to daycare for the afternoon that there might be a large body of people (I.E. greater than 50% of the world) that disagree with this theory. You wouldn't want to "confuse" Johnny or Susan by mentioning the existence of a debate that's been raging for 150 years.

[Krom]

Probably more like 15,000 years of combined research more then half of which was later proven wrong vs probably something like 600,000 combined years of equally flawed storytelling in a book written by humans...

[Darkside Heartless]

Hey look, it only took 3 posts to get to the insults, when I did it it took about 6 pages.

[Stryker]

ID doesn't use the Bible as its source book. ID is completely dedicated to proving the point that we must have had an intelligent designer--it doesn't even attempt to say what happened after that.

And Krom, that 600,000 combined years of flawed storytelling in a book written by humans assumes evolution is true, or at least that ID is false, in which case the Bible is false as well.

[Sergeant Thorne]

It's amazing to me that the USA is so free of people who can actually think for themselves, that they need to impose the teaching of their own (unjustifiable!) beliefs on others!

You've described evolution and its supporters in a nut-shell.

Evolution is a lot like Mobius in that it has an axe to grind against God, and all of its claims are based soley on theory concocted to deny responsibility. There is nothing scientific about evolutionary theory, and there never was. It's a religion without a deity. The whole thing is full of holes. Don't be so gullible.

[Bet51987]

There is nothing scientific about evolutionary theory, and there never was. It's a religion without a deity. The whole thing is full of holes. Don't be so gullible.

Huh? cough cough....

Evolutionary Science stands on its own with evidence to support it. Lucky for me I have a good Science teacher that shows us things like fossil evidence and things with substance, instead of my religious instructor who just talks and then tells our parents if we look like we don't believe him. There is no debate here at all.

Bettina

[Hahnenkam]

The flying spaghetti monster will strike you all down.

[Floyd]

the truth about evolution
forgive me

startpage

[Testiculese]

Politicians are paid to know how to not answer questions. Bush does a poor job, as with everything, but he managed to pull it off.

[Bet51987]

the truth about evolution
forgive me

startpage

Luv it....Thank you....I'm printing them out now. Tommorrow I will give my science teacher and religios instructor copies. Guess which one will have a sense of humor. I'm just going to leave them on their desks just in case neither has.

Bettina

[Top Gun]

You've described evolution and its supporters in a nut-shell.

Evolution is a lot like Mobius in that it has an axe to grind against God, and all of its claims are based soley on theory concocted to deny responsibility. There is nothing scientific about evolutionary theory, and there never was. It's a religion without a deity. The whole thing is full of holes. Don't be so gullible.

Contrary to what you may believe, it's perfectly possible for one to believe both in God and in the theory of evolution. Evolution was never concoted to deny the existence of God; the theory was created to explain the evidence present in the fossil record of species changing over time and the presence of closely related species with different adaptations (see Darwin's finches). The fact that species have changed over millions of years is irrefutable fact; Darwin's theory provides a mechanism (natural selection based on environmental pressure) for these changes, and scientific observation and experimentation have, for the most part, backed the theory up. Evolution is a scientific concept, nothing more; it has absolutely nothing to do with sabotaging religious beliefs.

[woodchip]

I wouldn't mind ID being taught...as long as ID doesn't equate to God. Keep the deity side out of ID and one can have a interesting discussion.

[Genghis]

Don't be so gullible.

Gullible is believing a single, unverifiable source instead of multiple sources of evidence that you can verify firsthand if you care to put forth the effort.

Top Gun: For once I agree with you! However, for those that insist on a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible I can see the incompatibility.

Woody: You're right, ID doesn't have to equate to God. It could instead equate to the FSM.

However, the issue isn't who the designer is but rather that the premise behind ID is unverifiable, and therefore qualifies as a belief and not a science. Now I'm not against teaching the "controversy," but if folks want to so badly they should do it in a philosophy class, not the science class.

"We are a nation of Indians ruled by Swedes!"

P.S. Lothar and Drakona, we are discussing ID in its original application, i.e. the biological sciences.

[Stryker]

Don't be so gullible.

Gullible is believing a single, unverifiable source instead of multiple sources of evidence that you can verify firsthand if you care to put forth the effort.

Top Gun: For once I agree with you! However, for those that insist on a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible I can see the incompatibility.

Woody: You're right, ID doesn't have to equate to God. It could instead equate to the FSM.

However, the issue isn't who the designer is but rather that the premise behind ID is unverifiable, and therefore qualifies as a belief and not a science. Now I'm not against teaching the "controversy," but if folks want to so badly they should do it in a philosophy class, not the science class.

"We are a nation of Indians ruled by Swedes!"

P.S. Lothar and Drakona, we are discussing ID in its original application, i.e. the biological sciences.

Evolution isn't science any more than ID is. Evolution is a theory that deals with the past, just as ID is. The past cannot be verified by scientific means. Science can only deal with the present, and the past so far as we have absolute recorded data.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Contrary to what you may believe, it's perfectly possible for one to believe both in God and in the theory of evolution.

Contrary to what you've written, the Bible states that God created the universe in 7 days. Evolution states otherwise. You can't believe both.

Evolution was never concoted to deny the existence of God.

It does...

The fact that species have changed over millions of years is irrefutable fact; Darwin's theory provides a mechanism (natural selection based on environmental pressure) for these changes ...

"Evolution" within a species--adapting to a changing environment is sound, and I believe you can find evidence of it in both the Bible and nature. However, species-to-species evolution--men coming from apes, for instance, has no scientific backing (there's a reason it's called the missing link).

... and scientific observation and experimentation have, for the most part, backed the theory up.

Until you run into that great big problem: the "missing link"... there's no fossil evidence--no transitional fossils. None.

Evolution is a scientific concept, nothing more; ...

Says you. The theory of Evolution is not supported by science, it's strung up in a very awkward way by scattered findings. But they wouldn't teach it if it didn't sound convincing, would they? Whoever ignored the glaring inequities in the theory and composed it into something palatable certainly had an agenda, and I'm not simple enough to believe that it was not intended (on whatever level) for the purpose that it has neatly accomplished, namely the undermining of Biblical truth, and thus Biblical authority.


You anti-God folks in the crowd needn't waste your energy arguing that aspect of my post. You're not going to get anywhere with me.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Gullible is believing a single, unverifiable source instead of multiple sources of evidence that you can verify firsthand if you care to put forth the effort.

There's nothing unverifiable about it. Ironically that's your perspective because you haven't "put forth the effort".

[will_kill]

The Theory of ID holds back the natural processes of The Theory of Evolution...thereby effectivly putting the human race on hold..TYVM
omg ..Thorne's fired up on this one...just saw the dbble post

[Genghis]

Evolution isn't science any more than ID is. Evolution is a theory that deals with the past, just as ID is. The past cannot be verified by scientific means. Science can only deal with the present, and the past so far as we have absolute recorded data.

Ah, I see the problem. You simply misunderstand science.

Science is about experiments and repeatable measurements. It doesn't matter when an event occured. For example, when we witness a supernova we make measurements about an event that actually happened thousands of years ago. We can then form a theory based on what we saw in the supernova and make an experiment by checking all previously recorded data from supernovas to see if it contradicts the theory.

And don't forget, in science you verify experimental results but you can never verify your theory; you can only disprove it. Fortunately, no evidence has been found to disprove evolution, and we are constantly filling in the unknown portions of evolutionary theory based on new evidence every year.

[Testiculese]

The past cannot be verified by scientific means. Science can only deal with the present...

Are you serious?? There're a few entire sections of science you apparently have missed!

edit:: Ghengis touched on one: Cosmology.

[Duper]

um.. didn't we have this discussion like a month and a half ago. And as I recall, that thread had some of the largest meta-posts in DBB history.

btw Krom, thanks for posting that pix. I've been wanting it for about a year now. Nuthin says it better.

[Gooberman]

... rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable. --John Allen Paulos

Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become - because of later changes - essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required.
-H. Allen Orr

ID is interesting, but I don't personally consider it a scientific theory -- because the universe remains the same regardless of its validity.

[Tricord]

If there was new scientific evidence that spawned a debate in the scientific community about the evolution theory, then I'd maybe reconsider and support any of this. But seeing as it's just a bunch of politicians pushing the envelope just to look busy on something that is irrelevant to them anyway, I say it should be taken down, hard.

Bush made himself look like even more of an idiot in front of scientists and biology teachers, that's all. They just have a good laugh and then get on with their lives.

So he had a brainfart, that's OK everybody does once in a while. But the problem is that Bush has the power to deploy and implement such crazy ideas, and therein lies the danger. What's next?

There should be commissions with knowledgeable people deciding over such things, not a president whose flagship is sinking.

[woodchip]

"Evolution" within a species--adapting to a changing environment is sound, and I believe you can find evidence of it in both the Bible and nature. However, species-to-species evolution--men coming from apes, for instance, has no scientific backing (there's a reason it's called the missing link).

... and scientific observation and experimentation have, for the most part, backed the theory up.

Until you run into that great big problem: the "missing link"... there's no fossil evidence--no transitional fossils. None.

It is profound that you think that since the "missing" link for humankind is lacking, the whole evo. thing is somehow lacking. There is a whole series of human progression sequencing back a million years or more that does show a evolutionary process. I suggest you study the origins of mankind and Dr Leaky.

[Genghis]

However, species-to-species evolution--men coming from apes, for instance, has no scientific backing (there's a reason it's called the missing link).

Men coming from apes? You do realize that evolution says no such thing, don't you?

Until you run into that great big problem: the "missing link"... there's no fossil evidence--no transitional fossils. None.

Here's a partial list of transitional fossils, with links to more:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

The theory of Evolution is not supported by science, it's strung up in a very awkward way by scattered findings. But they wouldn't teach it if it didn't sound convincing, would they? Whoever ignored the glaring inequities in the theory and composed it into something palatable certainly had an agenda, and I'm not simple enough to believe that it was not intended (on whatever level) for the purpose that it has neatly accomplished, namely the undermining of Biblical truth, and thus Biblical authority.

I knew you were religious, but I didn't know you were part of the black helicopter crowd.

You anti-God folks in the crowd needn't waste your energy arguing that aspect of my post. You're not going to get anywhere with me.

Now I can definitely get on board with this comment. I've no doubt everything said to you that doesn't fit with your worldview goes in one ear and out the other, while you remain blissful in your righteousness.

[will_kill]

heh, go ez... Thorne is just confused from too much intentional misinformation...just like 97% of peeps in the world. But then again, that's what THEY want it to be like. A buncha' misinformed, confused people with conflicting viewpoints are much easier to control than a population of intelligent, likeminded, free thinkers.

[Stryker]

Evolution isn't science any more than ID is. Evolution is a theory that deals with the past, just as ID is. The past cannot be verified by scientific means. Science can only deal with the present, and the past so far as we have absolute recorded data.

Ah, I see the problem. You simply misunderstand science.

Science is about experiments and repeatable measurements. It doesn't matter when an event occured. For example, when we witness a supernova we make measurements about an event that actually happened thousands of years ago. We can then form a theory based on what we saw in the supernova and make an experiment by checking all previously recorded data from supernovas to see if it contradicts the theory.

And don't forget, in science you verify experimental results but you can never verify your theory; you can only disprove it. Fortunately, no evidence has been found to disprove evolution, and we are constantly filling in the unknown portions of evolutionary theory based on new evidence every year.

The thing is, in order to make assumptions about the past based on today's scientific data, we must assume that no major events have occurred to change other variables involved in the analysis. Say, for instance, that we test which pole on our planet has been the north pole. We can test it again and again, all we could ever want, but the results will remain the same, barring a cataclysmic event.

Does this mean that the poles have never reversed? NO! In fact, we have very solid evidence that the poles HAVE reversed at some point in history. But, based on the observable data that we have recorded in the last 150 years, we have no reason to suppose that the poles have ever reversed. You're making assumptions that simply cannot be made when you claim that natural processes have stayed the same throughout history.

ID is interesting, but I don't personally consider it a scientific theory -- because the universe remains the same regardless of its validity.

I don't consider it a scientific theory. I don't consider things relating to the past to be scientific theories.

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixE.html

That seems to me to be a very accurate description of the Scientific Method. Walking through it step by step:

"1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena."

This seems to me to be pretty straightforward. We see something and decide to find out why it happens that way.

"2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation."

We pose an idea that suits this problem and might be the answer to said problem.

"3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations."

We make a prediction based on our hypothesis, then test whether this prediction holds true through observation and experimentation.

"4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."

Repeat for a long, long time with lots of different people.

Now nowhere in that do I see any reference to the past. You can observe the past to see if your prediction, based on your hypothesis, was true then. That's all well and good. However, I haven't seen much, if any predictions about the past--rather I have seen a bunch of emotional wrangling and "you're dumb because you don't believe in this".

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

That website is an excellent resource for the creationist wishing to refute evolutionary theory. Let me list off a few points that come to mind...

1. It's spewing out names without providing *PHOTOGRAPHS* of fossils, or describing why they are thought of as intermediate links. What is their objection to providing pictures and possible reconstructions of these intermediate links?

2. The only case in which they suggest a to/from mutation sequence (creature A evolved from creature B into creature C) is in point 2. C. However, the difference between the two species is a spherical shell. The older fossils of these tiny creatures don't have a spherical shell, whereas newer fossils (and the creatures as they are found today) do. There are FEWER of these creatures today, despite this "improvement" than were apparently in existence before this mutation.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/crea ... a_pic.html shows this "mutation", except what it's showing isn't the mutation, but the level of development of the shell on several fossilized samples. Drilling records from the place that found these fossils can be found at http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/geology/ds ... forams.htm . From various other charts I found, it appears that the "new" creature with the shell is buried at less depth at the bottom of the ocean floor than the "old" creature. However, the "old" creature is found throughout the record, and is still found today.

Has it occurred to anyone that it might possibly be that these things develop shells during various stages in their lifetimes, and have stayed the same throughout the time period in question?

Of course, arguing on the internet is pointless. You'll never convince anyone, and no one will ever convince you. Therefore, I might as well quit wasting my time. I have calculus to do.

[Plebeian]

Contrary to what you may believe, it's perfectly possible for one to believe both in God and in the theory of evolution.

Contrary to what you've written, the Bible states that God created the universe in 7 days. Evolution states otherwise. You can't believe both.

Our "day" is defined as a single revolution of this hunk of rock we're on. Please explain how it's possible to use this unit of time before the measurement existed.

Literal interpretation of the Bible is very bad. The "days" that God spent creating the Universe are simply stages. And if you look, Evolution and Creationism can mesh very well. There's nothing in evolutionary theory that rules out the existence of any sort of higher powers having started everything, or even possibly have guided the process along.

[Stryker]

If you're looking at Christianity as a basis of the argument, the Bible cannot agree with evolution. Evolution requires pain, death, and suffering. When God created the earth, according to the Bible, it was good. God is perfect. Therefore, something that is good to God can only be perfect. Pain and suffering does not enter into the equation of a perfect world.

Also, the Hebrew word for "day" can also mean "period of time"--however, nowhere else in Genesis (or the rest of the Bible) is it used to mean anything but a literal 24-hour day.

If you don't interpret the Bible literally where it doesn't specify it's not meant to be interpreted literally, you could say pretty much anything you want and get away with it. Who cares about morality; "This important teacher just said to be good" doesn't hold water.

[Plebeian]

Evolution simply requires change. It's not running around stabbing everything.

(And I'd still like to know how you can measure time before the measuring devices were even created. But I guess you wrote the Bible yourself, so you know exactly what the authors meant. )

[Jeff250]

Also, the Hebrew word for "day" can also mean "period of time"--however, nowhere else in Genesis (or the rest of the Bible) is it used to mean anything but a literal 24-hour day.

What? I did a search for Strong's 3117 in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word commonly translated "day" in Chapter 1 of Genesis, and there are numerous examples of "day" not being translated as a literal 24-hour period. Take Gen. 40:4 (KJV) as one example:

And the captain of the guard charged Joseph with them, and he served them: and they continued a season in ward.

In fact, according to Strong's, 3117 has been translated (in the KJV) as:

KJV-age, + always, + chronicals, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.

[Palzon]

If you're looking at Christianity as a basis of the argument, the Bible cannot agree with evolution. Evolution requires pain, death, and suffering. When God created the earth, according to the Bible, it was good. God is perfect. Therefore, something that is good to God can only be perfect. Pain and suffering does not enter into the equation of a perfect world.

Reading the above statement, I'm wondering whether or not you have ever read the bible.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Stryker is obviously talking about before the fall of man, Palzon.

Men coming from apes? You do realize that evolution says no such thing, don't you?

That's the first thing I ever heard about evolution, when I was quite young. Have they abandoned it, or is my memory failing me?

I've no doubt everything said to you that doesn't fit with your worldview goes in one ear and out the other, while you remain blissful in your righteousness.

Rather, I believe it's a waste of time to discuss my beliefs with internet personalities who merely have an axe to grind on the subject.

[edit]

blissful in your righteousness

That's actually a really good example of axe grinding, right there.

In my arguments, I don't think I'm better than any of you, I just think you're wrong.
[/edit]

[Palzon]

Stryker is obviously talking about before the fall of man, Palzon.

I questioned him on the basis that there is tons of suffering pain and death in the bible. it would make no sense for him to assert that. so although it is not stated as lucidly as you put it, i'll presume you are correct...

then if evolution is not consistent with the perfect creation before the fall - that would mean there is either no evolution whatsoever, or the bible is wrong (read not literally true). i'm not saying this as some sort of revelation (pardon the pun). i'm just saying it would be a logical consequence of accepting stryker's point.

it would go something like this...

1. god created man and evolution
2. evolution involves pain, suffering, and death
3. prior to the fall, the world was prefect as a creation of god.
4. the perfection of the world before the fall precludes the pain, suffering, and death asserted as part of evolutionary theory.
5. therefore, evolution and the literal reading of genesis cannot be logically concomitant. (god could not have created the world and man [along with other animals] and later created evolution.

If this is Stryker's point I would agree with him. A fundamentalist i.e. literal interpretation of the bible cannot be reconciled with evolution.

[Stryker]

And that is my point, exactly. My quibble with taking a part of the Bible as being non-literal is that if you take one part to be non-literal where it describes such excruciatingly detailed things as the exact ages of several of the descendants of Adam, how can you believe what it says anywhere else?

[TechPro]

the truth about evolution
forgive me

startpage

Excellant! I especially like the Saber-toothed Duck!

Getting... back to the comments on hand...

Who said the Bible wasn't literal? On the other hand, there is no statement in the Bible about how long it took for God to create man... or even what methods he used.

I think there may be something to evolution theories... however, I've had personal experiences that prove for me that God exists and is real... so I don't believe in evolution as people describe it... I figure I'll ask someone really important when I get there (assuming I get there).

[Bet51987]

Men coming from apes? You do realize that evolution says no such thing, don't you?

That's the first thing I ever heard about evolution, when I was quite young. Have they abandoned it, or is my memory failing me?

Modern humans, like modern apes, chimps, gorillas, etc, came from a common ancestor the "great ape" long extinct. At some point, a mutation ocurred, survived, and created a separate path along the evolutionary line.

Bettina

[rush]

We have long since disproven many previous scientific theories by the leaps and bounds that science in and of itself has made over these last hundred years, in an exponential manner. Many of those processes have been refined, changed, altered completely to produce different results that have shaken the scientific community to the core. How then is this new theory any different from anything else that has been presented in the past? Quantum Physics anyone?


Science, itself, should remain NEUTRAL. It is neither for nor against ID, or evolution. In and of itself does not produce evidence one way or another. It is simply a forum for looking at data. With two sets of pre-suppositions, two scientists looking at the same data will invariably come up with two different conclusions.

That said, Neither ID nor Evolution can be effectively taught to the extent that SCIENCE proves either one. To that end, I say neither should be in the schools at the elementary learning levels. If it comes to higher education, then provide classes relating to both sides, and let people choose then. Provide them with the basic learning blocks to what GOOD SCIENCE is, adhere to the laws set forth and go from there.

[will_kill]

wow rush...nicely put

[Sergeant Thorne]

Very well put. She's right.