[Qwinn]

But what you are implying is that evolutionary theory must be taught -with no room for doubt-. No other explanation may be taught. That is, for all intents and purposes, teaching it as -fact- when you have already acknowledged that it is -not- scientific fact. Now, the only other alternative I know of to evolutionary theory is intelligent design. You ban an acknowledgment of that alternative (which is certainly scientifically possible), and thus you are -violating- the spirit of the scientific method. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. By not allowing intelligent design to be studied in a scientific context, you are working toward making sure that no other theory than evolution can ever be explored from a scientific perspective. That's as fundamentalist an approach as any "Bible-thumper" who refuses to "corrupt" kids with non-religious teachings.

Qwinn

[Rudder]

Wrong again. I do not suggest that evolutionary theory be taught exclusively, but that the alternatives should be restricted--in science classes--to those which are founded in science. Intelligent design has never utilized science to suggest it is a possible alternative. There has been no reason, based upon scientific data, established to put ID in a "scientific context."

Because to you, a non-scientist, it seems like science...that does not make it so.

I welcome all other alternatives which have scientifically-tested hypotheses as their basis.