Evolution.. fact or not?

[thegreekdog]

I would consider limiting funding for certain scientific research based on religious views (stem cells, for example) a "substantial effect". Or, how about the teaching of a creation myth in science classes? Couldn't state-sanctioned ignorance be considered a "substantial effect"?

Is stem cell research limited?

What public school classes teach creationism?

[Neoteny]

Stem cell research was limited by the previous administration by serious restrictions on federal funding of research, which is rather powerful.

[thegreekdog]

Stem cell research was limited by the previous administration by serious restrictions on federal funding of research, which is rather powerful.

Is stem cell research limited now? No. Further, GW Bush limited NEW stem cell research, not research on existing stem cells. He provided funding for both in any event. It's all on wikipedia, your one-stop source for all things stem cells.

[Timminz]

I would consider limiting funding for certain scientific research based on religious views (stem cells, for example) a "substantial effect". Or, how about the teaching of a creation myth in science classes? Couldn't state-sanctioned ignorance be considered a "substantial effect"?

Is stem cell research limited?

What public school classes teach creationism?

Funding of it is, which in turn, limits the research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_a ... n_programs

[Neoteny]

Let me rephrase, because I wasn't quite accurate. Bush indeed limited research on new lines, restricting research to older lines. This is powerful because most of the old lines are not appropriate for research for various reasons. That limit is not in effect now, but the limit does support Timminz's point, because it was limited in recent past.

[thegreekdog]

Not to fast post, but of all people, I'm the most fed up with Christian conservatives. I believe they hijacked what was otherwise a viable political party and used it to their own ends (namely power and money). I left the Republicans because of them. However, I'm not trying to delude myself that they have changed or are able to change anything in our current society. I think the idea that those people CAN change our society is something that is purely a fiction of two groups' imaginations - Christian conservatives and liberal Democrats; the former because they are simply delusional, the latter because it gives everyone a good enemy.

[thegreekdog]

Let me rephrase, because I wasn't quite accurate. Bush indeed limited research on new lines, restricting research to older lines. This is powerful because most of the old lines are not appropriate for research for various reasons. That limit is not in effect now, but the limit does support Timminz's point, because it was limited in recent past.

Yes, but it has since been overturned. This leads me to believe that the religious have failed to implement their policies at this point. I see no reason to think that stem stell research will be limited in future administrations. Therefore, I'm not really worried about religious people co-opting science.

Again, the point is that there is progress vis-a-vis science, and it has been much easier for science now than it has been in the distant past. There are no US pogroms or witch burnings. Scientists aren't villified. If anything, religious people are villified. So, I reiterate... why are you so worried about religion affecting science?

[TheProwler]

One of the biggest issues I have with the Christian version of creation, is that it is only one of many, many different creation myths. Forget the question of evolution vs. creation. What makes the creation myth from the bible any more credible than the creation myths from all the other religions?

Argumentum ad populum.

[Neoteny]

And, to add to my previous post, it appears that federal funding is still restricted to the point that the funds cannot be used to create new lines. So the restrictions have been relaxed, but are still there.

Again, the point is that there is progress vis-a-vis science, and it has been much easier for science now than it has been in the distant past. There are no US pogroms or witch burnings. Scientists aren't villified. If anything, religious people are villified. So, I reiterate... why are you so worried about religion affecting science?

I'll agree that religious people might be villified, but to say that scientists aren't is just plain wrong. I worry about the relationship between religion and science because religion has a history of being the explicit reason to hinder science. There are others, sure, but few reach the same potency.

[thegreekdog]

Do this, but carefully. Ask people around you what they believe. YOu live in a city. You have said you trained in law, so your experiences are likely with more educated, cosomopolitan individuals. Still, I would almost gaurantee that if you got in a venue where they felt free to speak (a BIG issue!) you would find several who truly accept Creationism.

Look around at the churches in your area. Check out the number that have the word "missionary" or "Nazarene", etc. I cannot give you exact names, because they vary. However a good many of those will be teaching Creationism as reality.

I used to think as you, that it was a small issue, not harmful, that would eventually go away as people studied and learned the truth. Instead, I have watched the movement grow and grow. In our small town, the 5 most active churches, aside from the Roman Catholic, all believe literal Creationism. Many of the local Roman Catholics think that literal Creationism is what their church teaches, that the Roman Catholic church is against Evolution.

A few things... (1) I live in a city, but I am from a small town in Pennsyltucky originally, so I understand what you are saying, (2) None of the things you talked about above indicate to me that there is a change in society and/or laws such that Creationism or Christianity will have a lasting effect on science, (3) Similar to my arguments vis-a-vis English as an official language, who cares if some morons teach their moron kids that only creationism is right?

[PLAYER57832]

I would consider limiting funding for certain scientific research based on religious views (stem cells, for example) a "substantial effect". Or, how about the teaching of a creation myth in science classes? Couldn't state-sanctioned ignorance be considered a "substantial effect"?

Is stem cell research limited?

yes, though Obama has begun opening it up a bit more.

What public school classes teach creationism?

Quite a few.

However, even when they don't actually teach creationism, they may simply not teach science. My stepson, a straight a student (and not because he is taking basket weaving!) did not pass the state science exam for high school seniors. My son (2nd grade) was told that frogs are invertebrates, without a backbone. Understand, his teacher well knows I am a biologist and that I will call her to task on any such issue! Heaven help the kids who's parents aren't biologists!

We have had many discussions on many issues often we disagree. Yet, when we get down to nitty gritty values, we pretty much agree. Why the huge difference, then? I put forward it is because I am a biologist trained in natural resources,and you are not. Also, I went to school almost a generation before you, prior to a lot of the negative impacts from Creationism.

Even when publics schools don't directly teach Creationism, private schools do, churches do and parents do in home schools. While I am all in favor of freedom, there is a limit. Teaching kids outright lies is the line. It is not a lie to say, I believe xyz, even though the evidence contradicts. It IS, however a lie to say that xyz is proven and the majority are just a bunch of zombie idiots out to attack our faith. And, yes, that pretty much is what Creationists assert.

[StiffMittens]

I agree stiffmittens. My point of view is looking purely at two things: (1) the status quo and (2) current trends. The status quo is that evolution is taught in schools. The current trend is that less people are fervent about religion. No, I don't have links for either of those things. Erego, I think that religion's effect on science is negligible and decreasing. Player's points are that religious are preaching things, but, frankly, that preaching has to have a substantial effect and there is no evidence to suggest that it has had a substantial effect.

I think I know what you are referring to when you say less people are fervent about religion. I read those polls too. That the number of people identifying themselves as religious (or even "fervently" religious) is decreasing according to recent polling does not indicate that the truly fervent are dwindling in numbers. They have always been a relatively small percentage of the religious, but they have also always been a very highly motivated bunch. Even if overall church attendance, new recruits, religious identification, etc. is waning, that doesn't necessarily mean that the hardcore, highly vocal, religious ideologues aren't still having a significant impact on things in general and science in particular. These are the people who are very active in lobbying the gov't and indeed, injecting themselves into the political system to have a direct affect on policy. Not something to be lightly shrugged off, in my opinion.

[Neoteny]

(3) Similar to my arguments vis-a-vis English as an official language, who cares if some morons teach their moron kids that only creationism is right?

Because most children aren't inherently morons. It's not fair to them.

[PLAYER57832]

Let me rephrase, because I wasn't quite accurate. Bush indeed limited research on new lines, restricting research to older lines. This is powerful because most of the old lines are not appropriate for research for various reasons. That limit is not in effect now, but the limit does support Timminz's point, because it was limited in recent past.

Yes, but it has since been overturned. This leads me to believe that the religious have failed to implement their policies at this point. I see no reason to think that stem stell research will be limited in future administrations. Therefore, I'm not really worried about religious people co-opting science.

Again, the point is that there is progress vis-a-vis science, and it has been much easier for science now than it has been in the distant past. There are no US pogroms or witch burnings. Scientists aren't villified. If anything, religious people are villified. So, I reiterate... why are you so worried about religion affecting science?

See, even looking at stem cells is really a "red herring". It is not so much about science or disagreement of real science, it is a value judgement. No one is claiming that the science behind stem cells is wrong... they just say it is immoral.

The REAL danger lies far deeper and at a far more basic level. Read through jay's threads (well.. just remember them) look at Widowmakers posts on the matter (and he is an adult), look at the arguments put forth by any creationist here. Understand that the people who post here are not more crazy or less informed... quite the contrary. They may be a bit more assertive, but only a bit.

The REAL danger is that science education across our country is now so poor that many people are quite happy to believe Creationism. The Real problem is that while there are excellent science programs out there, it is not any where near as universal as it needs to be if we are to be the fore-thinking, competetive nation we need to be.

[PLAYER57832]

(3) Similar to my arguments vis-a-vis English as an official language, who cares if some morons teach their moron kids that only creationism is right?

Because most children aren't inherently morons. It's not fair to them.

and because if the kids believe Creationism, they have to disbelieve large swaths of science. Having an uneducated voting population hurts us all.

Bush's views on science have been roundly criticized. Do you really think it a cooincidence that 25% of the Bush administration were avowed Creationists?

[zebraman]

Yes. Your point? It does not say how, exactly he did this. It say he made Adam "from dust". So does evolution.

Yes, he made Adam from the dust according to the Bible. It's clearly inferred that this was a supernatural act and not a long drawn out process of development from other creatures. If there was some all powerful God then he wouldn't need to rely on a process, he could just do it. That's the point.

It seems you're building an entire case of reasoning based on what's not in the Bible. Anyone can do that. Keep in mind that I'm not saying the Bible is true, but I at least know what it says.

Who says change means the original was flawed? That is a judgement you are making. I simply look at what the Bible says, what science says. It was. Plain and simple. Whether you understand or I understand or jay understands why is completely irrelevant ... it simply was.

It is understood by Christians that God was perfect according to their Bible. A perfect God would not have to rely on a process of development for man to come about. The Bible says that God created man on day #6. It also says that every time he created something that he called it good. If it was not good then it would have to be flawed or not perfect. Whatever term you want to use. I am making a judgment based on what I've read. You're making a judgment based on something that's not even written.

A couple of answers. Firstly, the Bible is history of humankind and what affects us. All that existed before humans came into being is simply irrelevant. Dinosaurs did not cooexist with human beings (at least not T-Rex, etc...). So, they were simply not mentioned. Period.

But that's the whole point, isn't it. The Bible specifically says what existed before humans and on what day it, or they, started to exist. I'm afraid you're dodging this by saying it is irrelevant. I believe that we humans came from extremely primitive organisms that were acted upon by natural selection, and over time, developed into highly organized beings. But to try and deny that the Bible claims something totally different is just ridiculous.

The two views are incompatible.

As for this "flawed business". I would say that God's ultimate goal was to create human beings. Why did he need to create dinosaurs first? I don't know. I know he did. They were quite perfectly suited to their environment. Then the environment changed and most of them died off. Those few that remained had it pretty tough so that any little advantage was accentuated, meant increased survival and more progeny. In this way species rather "quickly diverged (still tens of thousands of years). Out of one of these strains eventually came all the life that you can see. It was perfection. It is perfection. Yet, species still die and still evolve. People change and learn and grow and spread. God's perfection is not the same as your or mine.. not at all!

I can't dispute this because it's all just opinion on what one thinks of God, if he even is out there. I agree with you though on the basics of how species died out and still evolve though.

No on two counts. First, the Bible says things were created on separate days. It does not specfically say how they were created. Second, science does not say it was produced by pure random chance. At least not in the way you wish to infer. Random and chance, in biology are used to mean essentially things that human beings cannot predict. Scientists will refer to "random" mutations. However, in fact those mutations follow some specific rules, fall within some narrow parameters, etc. It is not a truly random process in the mathematical sense of any outcome being more or less equally possible (subject to bell curves of frequency for various combinations). I believe it was Carl Sagan who pointed out the pure improbability of life being created in a fully and completely random process. To be quick, I will say that Biology has "intertia" or "structure", but understand those are inexact terms.

Secondly, science makes no inference AT ALL about whether God was there or not. It cannot. I would say that God was there "steering". But, it cannot be proven and is not a matter for science.

This is good stuff, no doubt. I actually enjoyed reading that.

Firstly, in a true sense, I am a Creationist because I firmly believe that God created all. However, this group of conservative Christians, mainly with the lead of Dr Morris, have coopted the term to mean people who believe the Earth was created in6 24-hour periods and that it is between 6000 and 12000 years old.

That's fine. I'm an Evolutionist because I firmly believe that we've developed over millions of years because of observable evidence. It's not my field, but I trust those teachers who've shown me the evidence. I checked out what they presented with other sources, and I'm convinced they are correct. Darwin was probably wrong about some things but we have the basic structure of how it all happened.

However, you continually mull over how it's terrible that GWB had 25% of his cabinet believing in creation science or how conservative christians push this stuff. That shows a true political bias on your part that is not scientific in any way. Bush never stopped me from believing in evolution and no conservative christian ever changed my mind, so it's not a danger that I fear any more than some Hindus telling me that some cow out in the field is my great grandfather reincarnated. I don't think we should be threatened by putting out both ideas. People are smart enough to check out whether or not something is true.

Finally, although I don't believe the Bible's account or creation, it's not like I don't recognize the huge difference between both beliefs. Trying to reconcile the Bible with evolution is just fruitless. It can't be done in my opinion. I respect that you're trying to reconcile the two so that it will make sense according to your own faith, but it's just justifying the unjustifiable to me. Owheelj explained it better than I did though.

[thegreekdog]

Wow... that a lot to reply to. I think I may the only person to type in this thread that is not either (1) anti-evolution or (2) a believer that religion has a significant affect on society.

(1) Player, what does frogs being inverterbrates have to do with religion? No offense intended, but once again your evidence doesn't match up with your point of view on the subject. From what I gather, you are saying that your son's biology teacher is an idiot because she was taught creationism in school? I find that hard to believe. Rather, I think she's just an idiot.
(2) Player, I'm not going to get in to teaching kids outright lies, because, frankly, it's not my business or your business what people teach their kids, especially regarding religion. If the kid doesn't learn the appropriate information from his parents and his school, he won't succeed, and his parents can deal with that.
(3) Neoteny - Most children aren't born poor, but thems the breaks. There are ways to combat these types of things, including getting a public education.
(4) Player - I believe creationism. I also understand that creationism is a belief, not science. So, I agree (if one can agree with scienctific fact) with evolution. It's pretty easy to do. If I can do it, others can do it.
(5) Finally, to all - I cannot emphasize this enough (apparently) - Religion is no longer an effective means to attack science. It simply isn't. An attack on religion's attacks on science is outdated. If you don't like what Christian conservatives have to say, that's fine, neither do I. But, they aren't winning elections, they aren't convincing others, and they are sure as hell not changing science in any significant way.

[PLAYER57832]

Wow... that a lot to reply to. I think I may the only person to type in this thread that is not either (1) anti-evolution or (2) a believer that religion has a significant affect on society.

(1) Player, what does frogs being inverterbrates have to do with religion? No offense intended, but once again your evidence doesn't match up with your point of view on the subject. From what I gather, you are saying that your son's biology teacher is an idiot because she was taught creationism in school? I find that hard to believe. Rather, I think she's just an idiot.

Granted, that misses quite a few steps and its probably my fault I did not make it clearer.

First, eroding of science in our country is a very real and very serious issue. The reasons are multitudinal. However, the most important reasons are that science information has expanded so phenomenally that it is now hard for anyone to really get a good grasp of it all, therefore even a fairly education person is not all that educated in science (as a whole.). HOWEVER, understanding science as a whole is not necessary. What is needed is to understand that basic concepts that underlie science and enough of how scientists operate that people realize something posted in a peer-reviewed journal ought to be given more credibility than the latest theory in the STAR.

Add to this that teachers and districts have fewer funds, that good science tends to cost more (at least that is the general perception ...even if its not always true) and you have a lag.

NOW, on top of this you add a group of people who are "oh so eager" to teach kids their view. Its not like they advertise "come here so your kids will learn creationism"..at least not at first. They start child-friendly programs where there are few options, etc. They gradually attract kids and parents. When Creationism is brought in, it is solely in the context of religion, the Bible. Since few of these parents have themselve had a real science education, it all seems to make sense.

This is on top of more direct impacts. Those go WAY back. I did not really learn Evolution in school in California because the school district was afraid of lawsuits. As a lawyer, you know that being right often just does not matter. A jerk can sue you and you are the one who has to pay for lawyers, etc in court. In Ca, the winner could at least be fairly certain of recouping court costs, not so in PA. (I was advised).

Add to this a general apathy about science, because parts of it are difficult and... you get a second grade teacher who says frogs don't have backbones.

(2) Player, I'm not going to get in to teaching kids outright lies, because, frankly, it's not my business or your business what people teach their kids, especially regarding religion. If the kid doesn't learn the appropriate information from his parents and his school, he won't succeed, and his parents can deal with that.

This is not religion. The debate is not over teaching in religious classes, the debate is over what is taught in science classes as science.

(3) Neoteny - Most children aren't born poor, but thems the breaks. There are ways to combat these types of things, including getting a public education.

Which is why maintaining a good public school system is critical.

(4) Player - I believe creationism. I also understand that creationism is a belief, not science. So, I agree (if one can agree with scienctific fact) with evolution. It's pretty easy to do. If I can do it, others can do it.

I believe God created all. So do most Christians. But, that does not stop the minority, the quickly growing minority, I might add, from insisting that "evolution is a lie created to compete with Christianity". And, whether you know it or not, it is impacting you.

(5) Finally, to all - I cannot emphasize this enough (apparently) - Religion is no longer an effective means to attack science. It simply isn't. An attack on religion's attacks on science is outdated. If you don't like what Christian conservatives have to say, that's fine, neither do I. But, they aren't winning elections, they aren't convincing others, and they are sure as hell not changing science in any significant way.

ACtually, they are very much doing ALL of those things... and if you are not aware of that, then you have not paid too much attention lately. I can gaurantee you that Alan Specter, any elected politician is not only aware of what Christian conservatives have to say, but in most cases is bowing to their will on many issues. I respect Alan Specter because he stood up to them, that is part of why he left the Republicans. However, he still sides with Christian conservatives on many issues.

And... I am not talking about some remote group of people. I am talking very much about people I know, deal with regularly. The impact is not as great, perhaps in big cities ..at least in some circles. The impact is absolutely there, however.

I said to look around and find out for yourself. I repeat that challenge. I think, if you really do look, you will be surprised.

[thegreekdog]

Player, I'll try to get to each of your points in turn. However, as a general proposation I will point out that you still have yet to show how religion is impacting my life vis-a-vis science. Further, you have failed to show how religion is impacting your life vis-a-vis science.

(1) Science in school - I agree completely with all of your points. However, of all of the reasons you gave for the lack of science education in this country, do you really think religion is the most to blame? I wouldn't even think it takes 10% of the blame. In any event, I'm completely unlearned in science (though I know the basics thanks to high school biology, physics and chemistry and college astronomy and geology... commonly referred to as Stars for Retards and Rocks for Jocks), so I'm a bad example (or maybe a good one). However, my lack of science education has absolutely nothing to do with my mother dragging me to St. So and So's Catholic Church every Sunday. And it has nothing to do with my continuous attedance to Sunday mass in the present. Further, it has nothing to do with the view of any Christian conservatives. Now, I know I'm one example, but I can include my brother and sister, my parents, and my relatives; as well as my Christian (and other religious) co-workers.

(2) Christian conservatives, in my experience, have two hot button issues - abortion and evolution. It is FACT that abortion is legal and it is my opinion that abortion will remain legal. It is FACT that evolution is either taught in schools or accepted as truth by all scientists (i.e. if you want to practice science, evolution is fact). It is my opinion that religion will have no effect on whether evolution is taught in public schools or whether or not evolution is accepted science.

In sum, as I've stated, religion is not the only or major impediment to science. Religious opposition to science is not growing (we can look merely to the current administration and Congress to see that, as well as the growing number of agnostics and atheists, and the growing number of people disillusioned with the Republican Party). Basically, I think you (and others) are making mountains out of molehills.

[jonesthecurl]

OK here's a question:
There are people out there (and in here) listening to and believing what the Creation Science people put out.
But, as Player often points out, the people making this stuff know that they are spreading misinformation. I don't mean that they think their position is wrong, but they DO know that they are slanting the evidence, omitting highly relevant facts, misrepresenting what scientists are actually saying, and sometimes outright lying. Obvious their purpose is to convince others of the "truth" of creationism.
My question is: what do they get out of that? once they start using dodgy tactics, haven't they lost the argument, in their own heads?

Pretty strong allegations there, and pretty vague. Got any specifics? We've already seen the "scientists" do this with Piltdown Man, a proven hoax, but i've yet to see a hoax on the side of the creationists. Player referred to some dinosaur footprints, but didn't provide a link of any kind. Like i said, you've made some strong allegations here - is it idle chatter or do you have facts to back it up?


Honibaz

and here's another.

"The Sun is unusual in the life-supporting spectrum of energy that it does provide. Another aspect of the Sun's uniqueness is its singularity. Over two-thirds of the stars are members of star systems containing two or more stars. If the Sun were a member of such a system, continually perturbed by the gravitational interplay of the neighboring stars, life on Earth would be precarious at best, given the drastic variations of tides, light, and heat it would experience. The Sun is unique in yet another way. Compared to most stars, its light and heat is steadfast, constant, and abiding. Many more of the stars are considerably variable in their output of light and heat. Most stars fluctuate greatly in the process of time, with output factors that range from 10 percent to 150,000 percent. Life on Earth could not endure such wild extremes of radiation. Furthermore, the vast majority of stars are smaller, cooler, dimmer, and less massive than the Sun. In addition to the Sun's unique intrinsic suitability to be the Earth's light- and heat-giver, the Earth itself is placed at the optimal distance from such an unusual "star" as our Sun. When seen in the broader context of the cosmos, the Sun can be clearly seen as a grand product of design, with a very special purpose, by an almighty and benevolent Creator who has revealed Himself and declared in His great foundational revelation: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth . . . and God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also" (Genesis 1:1,16)"

- note that the author ignores the fact that although there are a huge number of stars not like the sun (and, without being too clued-up on astronomy, I suspect their numbers are a bit out), it is in no way "unique" as they imply. There are many thousands of stars of the same age and same type, and we are seeing (thanks to science) that many other stars have planets. They also ignore that if the basics of current astronomy can be taken at face value (as they are quite happy to take them when they serve their purpose) then we are now observing light that has taken billions of years (in some cases) to reach us.

"slanting the evidence , omitting highly relevant facts".

I think my point is proven, bk. I don't necessarily think you're on the side of the people who would deliberately con us for the sake of our souls, but you were quick to jump to their defence.

[thegreekdog]

Player, read Jones' last two posts. Do you really think that people who believe this sort of thing and ignore science are successful in life? Do you think those people are teaching public high school science? Do you think those people have any say in real life science? Of course not. That's why - mountain out of a mole hill.

[jonesthecurl]

Player, read Jones' last two posts. Do you really think that people who believe this sort of thing and ignore science are successful in life? Do you think those people are teaching public high school science? Do you think those people have any say in real life science? Of course not. That's why - mountain out of a mole hill.

Well, she's the one with kids at school where this is exactly the problem.
I don't know if Juan_Bottom is reading this, but he could tell you of being failed in science for opposing Creationism.

I'd be interested to know how many of the Creationists in CC were taught it that way at school.
Care to tell, folks? jay I don't hink you were I seem to remember you saying you slept through the evolution class because you already knew it was rubbish. how about you others?

[thegreekdog]

Player, read Jones' last two posts. Do you really think that people who believe this sort of thing and ignore science are successful in life? Do you think those people are teaching public high school science? Do you think those people have any say in real life science? Of course not. That's why - mountain out of a mole hill.

Well, she's the one with kids at school where this is exactly the problem.
I don't know if Juan_Bottom is reading this, but he could tell you of being failed in science for opposing Creationism.

Okay, well that changes things. If people are being taught creationism in public school, that's a problem. If Juan Bottom was in private Christian school, well, that's how that stuff works unfortunately.

[AgentSmith88]

I would like to respond to zebraman talking about Adam and creation. Here's the thing - the Bible was written by men. There is no disputing this. Wether you believe it was inspired by God or not, it was written by men and therefore 1. contains mistakes and 2. is open for much interpretation. Much of the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. The earliest books were passed by word of mouth before they were actually written down and thus interpreted differently by different people. It has also been translated from Greek and Hebrew into modern languages which can change the meanings of different words and passages.
What I'm trying to say is that it's possible to believe in both God AND evolution. Say for instance, what if the world wasn't actually created in 6 days? What if each day represents millions of years? I mean does God have to have a human's sense of time? Of course not. One needs to think outside of the box when considering religion and religious texts.

[joecoolfrog]

Player, read Jones' last two posts. Do you really think that people who believe this sort of thing and ignore science are successful in life? Do you think those people are teaching public high school science? Do you think those people have any say in real life science? Of course not. That's why - mountain out of a mole hill.

Well, she's the one with kids at school where this is exactly the problem.
I don't know if Juan_Bottom is reading this, but he could tell you of being failed in science for opposing Creationism.

Okay, well that changes things. If people are being taught creationism in public school, that's a problem. If Juan Bottom was in private Christian school, well, that's how that stuff works unfortunately.

My understanding is that monies that should be used for educational purposes are being wasted fighting legal battles to prevent creationism being taught as Science, this is not good. Texas , and perhaps other states, has legislated that Inteligent Design must be taught alongside Evolution with equal bias, this is unconstitutional as well as being not good.
The Creationists are throwing lots of money at the issue and many local authorities have neither the time,money or will to resist,this is not good. Educationalists in the USA are expressing fear that over time this dumbing down of Science education will impact on the countries ability to maintain a technological edge, this is not good.