[anguish]

and the Church was not generally anti-science

Not generally, of course, but at the time of Galileo it was very much a paranoid church, afraid of everything that could be a challange (remember - the reformation was close). It should be noted, as it has been earlier in this thread (although in quite lame and bigoted ways IMO), Christianity has done a lot to advance science. Someone pointed to the difference in the evolution of Christian and Moslem societies in the scientific fields. Perhaps one could also look at the evolution within the christian world after the reformation to see how religion, or the interpretation of religion specifically, can help or hold back scientific advances.

Browsing through this thread, however, it is not hard to find comments that are quite "anti-science", and much confusion about such trivial matters as the meaning of the word "theory" or "evolution". In such a climate a rational debate on the subject, as it seems, is as improbable as sudden abiogenesis in my cup of coffee.

Just to make my stance on the issue clear - I'd say that any disclaimer about the meaning of "theory" should be non-specific and general to all theories in a science book. Pointing out only a specific theory can only be interpreted as an attempt to discredit it, something that would be inherently anti-scientific. We know evolution to be a fact of life as it can be observed (micro-evolution), and to be a theory when it comes to macro-evolution as science until this day only can give indirect evidence of its validity. To present it otherwise in the books, to the joy of either side in this debate, would be detrimental to the children we hope will continue mankinds quest for knowledge.

[Tribune7]

Not generally, of course, but at the time of Galileo it was very much a paranoid church, afraid of everything that could be a challange (remember - the reformation was close).

Actually it was in the middle of the Reformation -- after Luther but before the 30 Years War. Some of links I've checked during this discussion suggested that the harsh treatment of Galileo was a reaction to the anti-heliocentric attitude of Luther.

And apparently heliocentricity was not something only opposed by narrow-minded church types. One link stated Francis Bacon and Tycho Brahé did not believe it.

I've been comparing Galileo to Behe and Dembski. :-)

In such a climate a rational debate on the subject, as it seems, is as improbable as sudden abiogenesis in my cup of coffee.

Miracles happen.

To present it otherwise in the books, to the joy of either side in this debate, would be detrimental to the children we hope will continue mankinds quest for knowledge.

I think I disagree with you on this point. The main reason -- much more so than religion -- as to why I consider myself an anti-evo is the way the theory was foisted on me in high school. I remember watching films declaring the pepper moths as proof of Darwin's theory. Abiogenesis was taught as having certainly occurred. Meanwhile you couldn't even sing a Christmas carol.

I am convinced that there are those who teach evolution, not to further understanding of nature, but as part of a social agenda. Remember, that for it to be taught properly, the teacher has to understand it. I'm of the mind the whole subject would best wait until college.