"convincing Americans that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a rigorously tested cornerstone of modern science"
And they won't permit any other viewpoint to be considered?
No, of course not. That would be heresy.
I don't know how they have "rigorously tested" something that happened billions of years ago and has no parallel in modern biology. Variations do not equal evolution, but it's all they have. From there they can only extrapolate the rest. That's not rigorous testing.
It wouldn't be heresy, but it also wouldn't be science.
> And they won't permit any other viewpoint to be considered?
If that other viewpoint is, as stated, a "rigorously tested cornerstone of modern science," then sure.
Or are you saying the Smithsonian should put the Raelian view on display? How about a display showing Yakub breeding those evil white devils 6,000 years ago? Audhumla licking the salt form the ice?
And they won't permit any other viewpoint to be considered?
Sure -- feel free to "consider" any other thing you wish, including unicorns and a hollow Earth. But don't kid yourself that such "other viewpoints" are, as they say, "a rigorously tested cornerstone of modern science", because they're not. Evolution is. There are massive mountains of research and evidence which support it in independently cross-confirming lines of verification. Yes, really -- if you think otherwise, it's most likely because you made the mistake of falling for the dishonest claims of the creationist propagandists.
No, of course not. That would be heresy.
Try not to be hysterical and ridiculous. It wouldn't be heresy. It would just be mistaken.
"convincing Americans that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a rigorously tested cornerstone of modern science."
God how stupid can you be. Anyone who took 6th grade science knows that you can never prove a theory correct, only prove it wrong. Any scientific theory, including F=ma or Einstein's theory of relativity, can only ever gain credence but never become fact, because a new piece of data can always come along and bring down the house of cards.
It isn't particularly important in my degree field of physics. As far as I know it isn't particularly important in modern biology either. It seems to be important in psychology. In fact, in physics there is a reliance on some kind of design in the universe, intelligent design is not necessary, but if the fundamental laws of physics were evolving or changing it would be difficult to do physics.