I'm not against all science - I am against teaching scientific THEORIES in schools, when schools don't show both sides and allow students to decide for themselves.
Makes me wonder what the evolution people are afraid of.
What this is about, is that the ACLU types, and friends, don't even want a HINT of God.
I guess geography should showcase the Flat-Earth society?
Then you should like what this wise man has to say of the matter:
"For all these reasons, Darwin’s theory of evolution should not be taught as absolute fact in the science classroom. Instead, it should be taught as the leading and dominant scientific theory explaining the origin of species, but also as a theory subject to significant limitations, failed predictions, and important criticisms. We should encourage schools to teach better science and to teach more about evolution, including the gaps and controversies surrounding evolution. We should not be afraid to teach children what we know and what we have not yet discovered in science, and we should certainly not deny our children the truth about controversies surrounding science. By teaching the controversy, we remain true to science and yet sensitive to the ideas and interests of many parents and children."
Guess who said it?
Everything taught in science is a theory ... and there are usually more than a "both" sides ... the only way to know which one to teach is through the processes of science.
Makes me wonder what the evolution people are afraid of.
Why is there this idea that scientists are afraid of something? Scientists will galdy accept a well-presented, supported theory that follows the processes of science --- not politics --- to prove itself worthy. It's not like the schools are pressing Newtonian physics, or claiming that heavier objects fall faster in a vaccuum, or so on.
Scientists are HAPPY to see better theories come along, because IT HELPS THEM MAKE DISCOVERIES!
If ID or creationism proved itself to be a more accurate description than evolution, scientists would gladly use it, as they could perform more accurate experiments using a better theory ... which is why they ARE constantly trying to refining the existing theory of evolution ... which isn't some "religion" for scientists that cannot be changed. People may be under the false impression that TOE doesn't change, but it's constantly being refined ... as are most scientific theories ... as we learn more about the universe.
Change in accepted scientific theory can be slow ... it's because research needs to be done and evidence gathered. And we can;t just present an alternative, no matter how much it's proponents "know it to be true", until the necessary work is done to back up the scientific opinion with actual science ... otherwise, plenty of bad theories would be presented, and there WOULD NEVER be a firm starting point for students of science to start from.
And that's where IDers arguments REALLY fall apart. We don't teach students what we WANT to be true with science. Heck, even what students are taught is KNOWN not to be perfectly true ... this is why scientists still do research. But without students getting a solid understanding of what science considers the best explanation, scientificlaly, at that very moment, students will not have a good starting point from where to question scientific knowledge and expand upon what we know.
.... as can frequently be seen in these threads, by anti-evolutionists presenting plenty of non-starter arguments against evolution over and over and over and over again, when they even bother to resorting to scientifc arguments as opposed to ad hominem attacks and wondering what "the evolution people are afraid of".
What this is about, is that the ACLU types, and friends, don't even want a HINT of God.
... or the above, which isn;t much of a scientific argument against the theory of evolution at all. A bunch of Satan worshippers could come out in solid support of gravity, claiming it helps keep people away from heaven ... would that change what we know about the theory of gravity?
And even if the ACLU is in this fight because of their God-aversion, it doesn;t change the fact that plenty of scientists --- many of whom could care less about politics at all --- don;t want their science corrupted by the whims of politicians, and find the very idea that scientific instruction has to be decided in a courtroom at all.
And I should probably answer your wonderment about what I'm afraid of, as I'd probably fit your definition of "evolution people":
I'm afraid of shortcuts in science. I'm afraid of teaching something as theory because peeople know in their hearts something is true, and don't want to take the time to back up their opinions with science. I'm afraid students will be TOLD there are flaws in evolution specifically and will miss the point that there are going to be flaws in ANY scientific theory, and will somehow think evolution is an exception.
And I'm afraid that people will start to see the current way the fight against TOE is being taken as being valid scientific debate ... they will miss any intelligent questions raised against TOE, and will instead focus on the non-scientific issues.