I'm going to ignore the rest of your fingers-in-the-ears restatement
****First of all, it's not "fingers-in-the-ear", but thank you for the obvious ridicule which suggests that you are a true holy warrior for your chosen philosophy. Secondly, it is more than a restatement, it points out an obvious difference in the level of political authority on a social policy issue. Is it that you really can't see that?
and just say this. What gets taught in science class should be reflective of the current understanding of science as reflected in the professional journals, etc.
***I agree with what you're saying, for the most part. But I draw the line at philosophy; I consider evo/abiog/creat to be philosophical in nature. From the level of someone with an engineering degree, the Ian Musgrave article seems pretty advanced for some high school kid to learn in his first biology class. Origins is really more suitable for a 2nd year bio class, if at all (better suited for philosophy). All this attention on getting it into the first bio class a kid takes is just indoctrination attempts for adherents to a philosophy.
It is not particularly legitimate to worry about what parents think or even the current President thinks.
***Very interesting. I happen to think that it IS legitimate to worry about what parents think, and I imagine most of the electorate in the United States probably agrees. Am I missing something here, should I repeat that this is becoming a social policy discussion? Are you saying that you don't agree that it's becoming a social policy discussion? That is true head-in-the-sand thinking, so I doubt that is what you're saying. Perhaps you think that since the president doesn't hold a science degree, his opinion is invalid? That's where you're wrong, and he's gonna drive a truck right through that opening you leave him. I find it fascinating to view your thinking process as you grasp that the rules have changed in the ID debate, and yet you still don't get it.
For sure, the history of life on Earth is what it is and will not depend on your vote one way or the other.
***True enough. But the funding of scientific investigation of that history of life will greatly depend on the president and his policies.
Fortunately, much of the work confirming evolution is being done by the medical industry. It really doesn't matter WHY the research is being done.
I'm curious; why do you consider the study of evolution a philosophy? You aren't taking Phillip Johnson seriously are you?
It might be advantageous for your understanding to separate abiogenesis, which is in its infancy and just starting to falsify hypotheses, from the ToE, which is at least 146 years old and built upon even older science and is a true theory with verified hypotheses, reams of concrete evidence, verified predictions and tens of thousands of scientists actively developing and testing hypotheses. It is also supported by a number of other scientific disciplines.
"***True enough. But the funding of scientific investigation of that history of life will greatly depend on the president and his policies.
But only in the US (and Canada, we do everything the US does). Other countries have their own funding and are getting ahead of the US in science. Many if not most new publications are from Europe with the number from Asia increasing. The US is loosing ground quickly.