Too bad, science is the center of this debate.
***As far as I'm concerned, the center of gravity of this debate has shifted to social policy, not whether one theory is a better scientific model than the other.
So, you really can't provide any scientific critiques of evolution. I didn't think you could. I don't see how you expect to bring anybody over to your side with no argument whatsoever. Not even an attempt.
***I'm happy with that. I'll leave that stuff to folks who appear to have more training than I do in your chosen fields of inquiry.
So, you look to the president for science? How odd.
***I look to the president for guidance on social policy, which in this case includes science teaching policy. It really isn't that odd, but thanks for the straw argument.
What problems? You refuse to even touch on the science, why should anybody care what you think?
***Why do you ask me to touch on such problems? I choose to be a lurker in that regard because there is a certain point where I simply do not understand what EITHER side is saying. It's eggheads arguing with eggheads. If you will ONLY engage in debating social policy with people who understand the theory, you miss a huge segment of the population who have a thing or two to say on the subject. Who is it that determines such policies? Is it PhD biochemists? There simply aren't enough of them. It's normal workaday folks who have a heart for what gets taught to our kids. So, by all means, bypass me and folks like me and continue your egghead discussions.
Your *Baloney* means nothing when you hide from discussing the science. Just more smoke out yer butt.
***I see several people on this forum discussing the science, so take that up with them, they seem to know what they're doing. I'm not hiding, just expressing a preference about what I choose to engage in arguing about. I see that eggheads have been arguing with eachother for 150 years over this subject, and to be candid, I'm just not interested in wasting my time on it. The social policy stuff strikes me as important, so that's what I want to spend time on. As far as your insult, do you prefer blue smoke or white smoke?
Are you capable of understanding English?
***Yes.
What did you not comprehend?
***If I sit down and go through some scientific egghead junk about supernatural, non-material causes, I waste my time. The big bang theory is one. What caused it? Some force that's above nature (supernatural) that we don't really have material information about, but it happened that way. Gravity theory. What causes it? We can describe its effects, but we don't know what causes it, it appears to be "non-material". But I would rather not talk about such things because they detract from what I choose to talk about, which is the social policy angle.
So you want science by poll.
***That's not what I said, don't put words in my mouth.
And 2/3rds of the population do NOT want evolution out of the classrooms.
***Again, that's not what I said. 2/3 of the population want them taught side-by-side, and the haps folks appear to be frightened by this prospect.
False dichotomy. Show how science is making people *amoral*.
***Very good, that's what I was thinking about it when I wrote it and it slipped my mind that I should have qualified it as a forced choice. For your second sentence, I will offer primary source material: Myself. The way that I processed the evo theory was that I saw justifications for bad behavior and could even condone murder if it "furthered the species". Scientists like to stop right there, and say this is how far the science goes, we don't have anything to say from this point on. The folks who deal with dangerous philosophies and religions take it from there and start to point out the disturbing moral implications to the theory, and science says that it is outside of its realm. Fine, so be it. Let the folks who deal with inductive stuff take over from here and push positive things onto society. If you don't like the social policies that they come up with, then start dealing with them on the social policy level and acknowledge the disturbing social implications of the theory, limit whatever evil arises from it and amplify whatever good comes from it.