In what way are scientists blocking reasonable debate (this wasn't about scientific debate, but about public school curricula - i.e. what they spend our tax dollars on).
Yes I have read origin of the species.
If by complexity theory, you refer to such things as NP-completeness and big O notation, certainly - I'm an engineer and its important to my work. This has some relevance to the topic at hand, relating to genetic algorithms and IDs abuse of the "no free lunch" theorem. If this is some illusion to chaos theory, I'd say yes I know a medium bit.
I certainly knwo a fair bit about basic chemistry.
"And one more thing, you might want to remember that those yokels are why you are free and they may sometimes express themselves simply but they are not ashamed of America or their soldiers and they are not ashamed of God and that puts them on a level that the MSM and those who think like you could never climb too."
Who said anything about being ashamed of america or its soldiers or god? Putting words in peoples mouths isn't a virtue.
Don't forget that the fantastic acomplishments in science and technology are another reason we are free. The nazis, japanese and russians certainly won't forget it, and the only technology our islamofascist enemies have to use against us is our own, because their science went from first class to crap centuries ago.
Thank you for making yourself more clear and I apologize for purposely provoking you. However I thought that your reference to yokels was highly inappropriate. As for Scientists trying to limit the debate, what else can it be called when many in the scientific community join with the ACLU in attempting to exclude anything that deviates from the idea of undirected evolution from classroom textbooks?
Many textbooks still refer to the Stanley Miller experiment where he succeeded in producing basic amino acids while attempting to recreate the initial conditions of early earth but do not bother to get into the details of what have become nearly insurmountable problems with producing any of the complex components of even basic life systems in a controlled experiment let alone in the postulated primordial soup which would’ve likely produced nothing more than sludge. This is but one example of many.
As for the value of science I’m not sure where that came from, no one has suggested that science is not valuable. That is a typical assumption but that is not the question. What is in question is whether children should be exposed to only a very narrow view concerning the origin of life on earth a view that has come to be known as undirected Evolution.