Scientists and teachers ought to make it clear... that evolution and cosmology are working assumptions, not established facts.
False. While they aren't "established facts" (*nothing* in science ever is -- science does not deal in "proofs"), they're far, far more than mere "working assumptions". Modern cosmology has a very large amount of evidence supporting it, and evolution has *enormous* mountains of evidence and 150+ years of research supporting it, so much that it's about as close to an "established fact" as one is likely to find.
Unlike physics, evolution and cosmology are sciences in the sense of forensic science.
Wrong again.
The evidence for evolutionary transition of humans from apelike ancestors is not abundant enough to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it has occurred.
Utter bollocks. The amount of independently cross-confirming evidence for the evolutionary transitiono f humans from apelike ancestors is overwhelming, and has passed the "beyond a reasonable doubt" point decades ago. It has only become even more solidly confirmed since then, with massive amounts of evidence pouring out of the human (and chimpanzee) genome project. Any claim to the contrary is, quite frankly, either the result of gross ignorance or gross dishonesty.
That is why the overwhelming majority of Americans still believe in a Creator.
False dichtomy (and false conclusion) -- the *majority* of Americans who accept evolution are *also* Christians.
The foundation of modern science was laid down by devout Christians (Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Planck, etc.) who studied nature to know more about its Creator.
Irrelevant to any claim Matchett-PI attempts to make here. But it is amusing that he seems to miss the fact that the evidence for evolution and other sciences which extremist creationists now try to reject was so strong that it convinced even the "devout Christians" who developed those sciences.
It was the extension of the evolutionary ideas of Darwin to an atheistic world view that accentuated the false antagonism between science and religion.
Yawn. Not hardly. Fundamentalist sects of religions (including Islam) have been opposing various aspects of science itself for hundreds of years, long before Darwin was even born. Quick, now, what "extension of the evolutionary ideas of Darwin" drove the "antagonism between science and religion" which caused the Church to persecute Galileo for advocating the "false and heretical doctrine" that the Earth went around the Sun instead of vice versa?
Such mixing of science, philosophy, and theology must be openly discussed.
No objection here. Just please don't misrepresent it.
What people object to is the teaching of an atheistic world view in the guise of science.
If you ever find anyone actually doing that, feel free to let me know and I'll object to it too. But don't try to pretend that that's what the anti-evolution crusaders are actually objecting to. They're objecting to the teaching of the *science* itself.
Students of faith ought not to come out of biology classes with the notion that there is no God.
They ought not to be *taught* that. But if they arrive at that conclusion on their own (*or* its opposite), who are you to decree otherwise, or go on some sort of jihad about it?
Otherwise, theology and not merely biology is being taught in such classes.
Wrong again. It's not "teaching theology" to teach non-religious that might possibly affect someone's religious views. If your faith is so weak that learning more about how the world works causes your faith to suffer, well...
Clearly everything evolves. However, it is not self-evident to me that the fundamental question of origins is a truly scientific question.
Oddly enough, reality is not dependent upon what you yourself happen to find "self-evident".
If not, then the answer must be sought in the very same places where we seek answers to questions regarding meaning, values, and purpose.
Feel free to seek it there as well, but don't try to decide for everyone else where it "must" be sought, or limit such searches to the *ONE* place *you* think might be fruitful.
One must never forget that an explanation of the totality of the human experience may lie outside the realm of science.
Very true. Or it may not.
The honest pursuit of an answer to the question of origins may lead ultimately to an Intelligent Designer.
Or may lead to the opposite conclusion. But according to you, that would magically become "teaching theology". Hmm..
