[js1138]

Personally I doubt evolutionary theory has much to fear from the disciplines of ID, and perhaps has much to gain from them. For instance, the mathematical physicist Hubert Yockey, who's evidently a great admirer of Charles Darwin, taking a page from physics, wants to place the theory on a more rigorous, mathematical basis. I don't know why anyone would object to that.

Everyone involved in biology is working toward better mathematical models. What relevance they have to a week or two of high school biology devoted to evolution, I have difficulty. Kind of like stuffing quantum mechanics into two weeks of high school physics.

But let's not kid ourselves. The issue under protest is not abstruse mathematical models; it is common descent.

In all the years I've been on these threads, I've only seen two evolution critics admit to accepting common descent.

[muawiyah]

Did I read you correctly, that you'd keep highschool kids from having any knowledge of quantum mechanics?

That's ridiculous ~ they need to know how tunneling diodes work for one thing, or they'll be lost in the next stage of desktop computer development (due in 2007).

[betty boop]

In all the years I've been on these threads, I've only seen two evolution critics admit to accepting common descent.

But I don't have a problem "admitting" to "common descent." The problem is, common descent from what?

But I'm a "critic," not a "debunker" -- if you can draw that distinction, js1138.