[Rudder]

Wrong again. Using the criterion that something must be establish as fact is not the same as using the criterion that for the theory to be scientific it must be founded upon data which were generated by the scientific method. ID is not established as fact and neither is evolutionary theory. ID is not based upon scientific data but evolutionary theoy is. There's no bias or prejudice here and that's a cheap shot. Teaching cooking in a music class would be inappropriate, just as teaching a non-scientifc idea would be in a science class.

[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