Their point is that science has adjusted in light of new data. This is a bad thing, according to creationists.
I tried to shut my brain off to try to understand how the dunderheads at creationsafari reached their conclusion, but that didn’t work.
So then I drank 3 bottles of wine in order to understand better but I still couldn’t see the facts their way.
I suppose a lobotomy would do the trick, but I’m not that dedicated.
Not at all. But some scientists have questions about evolution. There's nothing wrong with questions, right? Science feeds off questions, yes?
Well, some folks think that "teaching the controversy" about evolution makes some sense. Note: That doesn't mean teaching the Bible in science class. And it doesn't mean teaching Creationism. It just means teaching students that some scientists question some of the assumptions of evolution.
But the idea of "teaching the controversy" can be very off-putting for some folks. There is no controversy! It's true! We know it's true1 There's consensus!
But when a huge, well-established event like the Permian Extinction can be called into question by new data, shouldn't scientists be open to the idea that some of their other ideas may also be open to question as well? Why is it so terrible to teach the controversy?