[Publius6961]

They called it "teach the controversy," and that's become the institute's rallying cry as a leader in the latest efforts to raise doubts about Darwin in school.

It didn't take long for the writer's bias to emerge in an article which starts out seemingly neutral.

I avoid the evo-creationist debate like a root canal, since it's silly competition of warring "faiths"; a fool's errand.

I retire with just one question: is it "forbidden" to "raise doubts" about any theory that can not, up to now, be shown to be "certain"?
If it is forbidden, why?

[BeAllYouCanBe]

>>I retire with just one question: is it "forbidden" to "raise doubts" about any theory <<

I would extend your statement to encompass "laws of science" that are only laws until disproved.

[Pipeline]

One irrefutable fact remains: Science cannot explain the origin of matter. Science observes 'creation' and humans have learned to manipulate it to a small degree and will gain more understanding of and thus more control over 'creation' as time passes. Atheists simply accept that matter has been here all along and will continue to exist thus considering humans to be simply the product of the random combining of elements that evolved into our current intellectual/spiritual state. I find that assumption absurd. Our bodies may have evolved but the spirit of man could not have.