The best way to respond to these cranks (until they can be replaced) is to add a few sidebars in the textbooks that call out the stupidity of creationism. That would address the stealth-creationist votes by refuting every one of their ignorant and malicious claims.

-sigh-

I feel sorry for teachers in Texas. If it was me, I'd probably mumble whatever creationist mumbo-jumbo was necessary to keep my job and then just require all my students to read Dawkins' "Selfish Gene".

It's always biology. I never see these spoon-clanging zealots wanting to apply this nonsense to the field of physics, chemistry, mathematics (alternate theories of 2 + 2 in Room 101) or the like. It's always biology.

Well, I can say this much: if anyone of them comes down with a life-threatening disease, I sure hope science will cure them.

Since these people seem to think that evolution has too many "gaps", let's see them explain away theirs. They can't. How do I do I know this? Because I've done it before. I've asked a creationist to present evidence for the biblical (or rather their interpretation of the biblical) origin of life. They ignored me. They refused to even talk about it. They just wanted to try and punch holes in the fossil record. These people have NOTHING, literally NOTHING to back up their claims. This is what "Intelligent Design" actually says: "we don't know how certain things happened so we're just going to assume God did it." That's it in a nutshell. This is as close to an alternative as these people could get to challenge evolution. Maybe we should make a deal with them, since they seem to think evolution doesn't have enough evidence to back it up, then we should agree to present whatever alternative they want so long as they can provide even more evidence for it then evolution has. That sounds more then fair to me.

I remember when the Texas State Attorney General decreed that creationism was a religious belief and would not be taught in the textbooks. Of course, that was back when Democrats still counted for something in Texas.

both sides are right and both wrong.

evolutionary theory's tenets-- change over time, diversification, etc-- may be demonstrable scientifically, but to create an overarching theory that this is the only mechanism is false.

likewise, creationism cannot be a theory, but is only based in pure faith, making it like comparing apples with ocean liners.

I wish other theories WERE included in the books, theories such as the Matrix theory, panspermia, and others that would make students question the orthodoxy of scientists.

The problem with believing only in provable things means you cannot believe anything you cannot prove, which certainly does not come close to explaining the natural world.

Why would you believe in love? Why would you believe in mind? Neither can be weighed, measured, or quantified.

Why do you automatically believe that all the way across the universe the laws of physics behave in the exact same way that they do on Earth? This is a shortcut scientists over time begin to rely on way too much, which in many cases leads to FALSE BELIEFS.

Scientists to me have far too much EGO to be healthy. Liberals seem to WORSHIP at the altar of modern science. But if science relies not on faith, I fail to see this. It takes quite a bit of faith to believe science is infallible.

It is all a journey, not a destination. And science is only able to see so far, measure so much, and really, when it comes to ADVANCED intelligences, such as posited by people's belief in God or assertion that there are advanced alien beings elsewhere, the mere EXISTENCE of advanced intelligence would automatically throw a lot of wrenches into the works of humans.

We all may be living inside a 'black box' with a limited selection or subset of reality, thus making us dupes. But we would not know it, possibly EVER.

All these things ought to be TAUGHT in schools, somewhere, even if not in the context of evolution.

But liberals are famously closed minded and infinitely arrogant, so I do not see it happening soon.

This set back to sanity in our public life is unfortunate. We can only hope that it is a remnant of a regressive fade that was popular in the United States of America around the turn of the last century then came to be seen as tedious and vanished within a decade.

But liberals are famously closed minded and infinitely arrogant, so I do not see it happening soon.

Just another theory that cannot be proven.

Let me break this down for you:

Our side has evidence. Their side does not.

It really is as simple as that.

I try to watch the old movie, with Spencer Tracey "Inherit the Wind", with all my children to help them realize that there have always been idiots and people who will not use the brain that they were blessed with.

Contempt prior to investigation is definitely a form of insanity.

I was going to respond thoughtfully to your post, but then I realized it was just another arrogant anti-liberal diatribe. So instead of a thoughtful rebuttal...

go fuck yourself

Liberals are closed minded for using the brain they were blessed with while wingers fight to go backwards and refuse to try to reconcile what is revealed by that God they are so afraid of. Contempt prior to investigation is a form of insanity. Live with it.

"All these things ought to be TAUGHT in schools, somewhere, even if not in the context of evolution."

I thought philosophy/theology were taught in schools. Silly me.

... let's screw up your churches. Can we introduce a bill to force religious organizations to teach the strengths and weakness of their faith based tenants?

Science class is for science, religious ed is for religion. Quit trying to combine the two.

Brightstar 2

Let me break this down for you:

Our side has evidence. Their side does not.

It really is as simple as that.

you missed the point completely. maybe you are not as smart as you think you are.

to the others, I am not for left or right thinking, only for keeping an open mind, something all you people seem to miss utterly.