Replies

This is a science discussion though.
***It is? I thought I was on Free Republic, a POLITICAL news discussion site? How did I land on a science discussion site? From Jim Robinson: As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. …. Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah! ….Most visitors to Free Republic are attracted to our very popular (and, warning: addictive) conservative news and discussion forum which can be found by clicking here or following any of the forum links in the sidebars.

Science should be judged on the merits of the theory.
***Ok, now we’re starting a discussion here because you used the word, “should”. Why should it? Why should we spend money on this useless 150 year old controversy that doesn’t contribute much to society? Who decides what gets taught to our kids and when? POLITICIANS. Some of them like to call themselves political scientists…

Laughably absurd analogy. If enough people think it's about a scientific theory, it says nothing if it is really a scientific theory. Most people don't know what a molecule is either.
***And it is those people who vote in guys who determine social policy. For purposes of social policy discussions, when people see that a “theory” still has unknowns to it, they know instinctively that it is a philosophical guess as good as any other guess, and that it is a philosophy. Since most people don’t know what a molecule is, AND they are voters, is it your position that they shouldn’t hold sway on what gets taught to our kids in school?

Science doesn't deal with the spiritual.
***Copout. Since what gets taught to our kids is of primary concern to parents, they should have a say in it. Posted earlier: it's a copout to claim that it's "only a scientific pursuit". Bull cookies. It's obvious to everyone that there are moral, social, sociological, religious, and inductive implications to the haps side, and it is good and right to limit any evil that results from those implications.

You see incorrectly.
***Even if that is true, for purposes of social policy discussions it is still a big blinking red light on the panel that needs to be dealt with, has not been dealt with in the past and now we have a president who thinks like I do. Deal with it.

"It is? I thought I was on Free Republic, a POLITICAL news discussion site?"

And we are discussing science on this thread. I have yet to see you give any type of scientific argument against evolution. I hope you didn't impress yourself too much with this great *point*.

"Ok, now we’re starting a discussion here because you used the word, “should”. Why should it? "

Because if you are going to attack a theory, it makes sense to actually talk about the theories specifics?

"Why should we spend money on this useless 150 year old controversy that doesn’t contribute much to society?"

Are you going to actually attempt to address evolution or are you content to blow smoke out your butt?

"And it is those people who vote in guys who determine social policy."

Which is why we want to stop that trend and support science over creationism.

"For purposes of social policy discussions, when people see that a “theory” still has unknowns to it, they know instinctively that it is a philosophical guess as good as any other guess, and that it is a philosophy."

So because most people are ignorant we need to follow them?

"Since most people don’t know what a molecule is, AND they are voters, is it your position that they shouldn’t hold sway on what gets taught to our kids in school?"

Do YOU want people who don't know what a molecule is deciding what the science curriculum is?

"Copout. Since what gets taught to our kids is of primary concern to parents, they should have a say in it. Posted earlier: it's a copout to claim that it's "only a scientific pursuit". Bull cookies. It's obvious to everyone that there are moral, social, sociological, religious, and inductive implications to the haps side, and it is good and right to limit any evil that results from those implications."

It's not a cop-out, its a fact. Name ONE scientific theory that uses supernatural, non-material causes. Just one. And as I said, theories don't rise or fall on polls from people who don't know what a molecule is.