Well, I'm offended by your categorization of Intelligent Design and Creation Science as "anti-Science" and "dark age beliefs". The debate here is not science verses non-science. The debate is over the interpretation of scientific evidence and whether or not it really supports one theory over the other. Over 77% of republicans do not believe in evolution. That doesn't make us a party of dark age beliefs. That makes us a party whose majority members question the validity of what masquerades as science in the field of life origins.
Creationism and ID are non-science. The debate is exactly that.
The debate is over the interpretation of scientific evidence and whether or not it really supports one theory over the other.
Please provide an alternate scientific theory to TToE. Neither Creationism nor ID fulfill the requirement.
Over 77% of republicans do not believe in evolution. That doesn't make us a party of dark age beliefs.
#1 - I don't buy that number. #2 - Science is not a popularity contest.
That makes us a party whose majority members question the validity of what masquerades as science in the field of life origins.
That makes us a party (if I buy your numbers) which is actively promoting the dumbing down of America. We are handing the lead in Life Sciences to non-muslim Europe and Asia.
"That makes us a party whose majority members question the validity of what masquerades as science in the field of life origins"
As I noted earlier I do not know much about science, my degree is in theology. I do know that when someone attempts to assert a faith based belief under the umbrella of "Creation Design or Creation Science" that it is merely preposterous fluff.
On these threads the debate is science vs. religion.
The debates over the interpretation of scientific evidence take place in technical journals and scientific conferences, not on FR.