Replies

"how I'm going to show they have similar functions--because creation or ID (whatever you want to call it) doesn't even allow the questions to be asked."

Surely you know that isn't true. They want MORE questions asked, not fewer. And I doubt anyone questions mutation or adaptation as it relates to the theory of evolution. They just want the problems with the theory of speciation, etc. to be presented. How is more knowledge dangerous? Seems they want the students to be able to make up their own minds after reviewing different aspects of evidence. That can only be a good thing.

As for educating budding scientists, if you have children in public school, you must know the theory of evolution isn't thoroughly explored at the high school level anyway. That normally comes in college-level classes.

No one questions mutation... unless you mutate too much. Creationists seem to allow mutation within kinds but not between kinds. Problem is, they give no clear definition of a kind, which makes their theory irrefutable.

Although, I do agree that much more critical thinking and scientific method courses, (or even one), would be *very* valuable in high school. It would seem to me that a course involving a scientific and critical investigation of spoon bending, ESP, mind-reading, and all the James Randi type investigations would be both valuable and fun. Presumably then you wouldn't need anti-evolution in science because they would already think critically about everything... science, religion, both sides, and everything else.

"how I'm going to show they have similar functions--because creation or ID (whatever you want to call it) doesn't even allow the questions to be asked."

Surely you know that isn't true. They want MORE questions asked, not fewer.

I think you completely missed my meaning. I wasn't talking about permission to ask the questions, I was talking about the ability. The assumptions that have to be made to support a creationist/ID hypothesis do not lead to the kinds of questions that I ask on a daily basis.

For instance, if I am studying the function and structure of an enzyme, the assumptions of ID or creationism do not allow for differences in the enzyme between different organisms. There is no logical reason for RNA polymerase II, for example, to be different in mouse, human, lizard, oyster, etc., since it has the exact same function in each of these animals. The questions I would ask become impossible. Yet the enzyme IS different--unaccountably and unpredictably so, under the assumptions of ID/creationism. OTOH, taking evolution into account, I can make predictions about the differences in structure between the RNA polymerases, design experiments, AND the experimental evidence will support my predictions.