[Tamar1973]

Weakness in certain parts of the theory of evolution...

The problem is that the evolutionists don't want to admit there are any weak points in the theory of evolution because if they admit there are any flaws in the theory, they would have little choice but to bring ID/creationism into the picture to explain the many weaknesses of the evolutionary theory.

Unfortunately, many evolutionists (not the ones here in FR land, of course) don't have the intellectual honesty to admit there are any flaws in the theory at all. They take evolution by faith, which is more faith than your average YEC has.

[Coyoteman]

Weakness in certain parts of the theory of evolution...

The problem is that the evolutionists don't want to admit there are any weak points in the theory of evolution because if they admit there are any flaws in the theory, they would have little choice but to bring ID/creationism into the picture to explain the many weaknesses of the evolutionary theory.

Unfortunately, many evolutionists (not the ones here in FR land, of course) don't have the intellectual honesty to admit there are any flaws in the theory at all. They take evolution by faith, which is more faith than your average YEC has.

First, I am one of those dreaded "evolutionists." Actually I TA'd and taught the subject briefly 30+ years ago. So, it's not "them" we are talking about. "We" don't mind admitting gaps in the fossil record, for example. What we don't like is people who believe that a gap in the fossil record is evidence for CS/ID. That has the same logic as saying the moon rises in the northwest so peanuts have yellow shells.

And no, faith is not involved in evolution. Faith is involved in "belief" systems:

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true [implication--without supporting evidence].

There is a lot of evidence for evolution. A good summary is here: PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.

[Mister Da]

Scientists, by their very nature, constantly question the theories of their area of expertise. For to clearly disprove an established theory of science is a dream of all scientists, the climbing of Mt Everest, so to speak.

I disagree that there are only 2 choices in this debate. There are several "theories" about the origin of species. In my mind, the theory that aliens have produced & manipulated life (as in a zoo) on earth since the "beginning" is just as viable as creationism, and certainly more "provable".

I believe the creationists are ignoring the old adage, "Be careful what you wish for!" If creationism were taught in public schools, which one would it be - christian, muslim, hindu, buddist, shinto, mayan, apache, siminole, cherokee, creek, ............................?

Do you really want the biology teacher, Mr. Mohammed or Miss DeNova, teaching your kids creationism? Do you want the NEA & the left wing bureaucrats & scholars writing THEIR version of creation into the textbooks. Test on Friday, pages 100-110.

When I was in school long ago, I lost no sleep over the contradictions between church & school. The teacher did not discuss religion, & the preacher did not discuss science. Probably most Freepers had the same experience. Clearly, these contradictions can only be resolved by the individual.

All in all, this is really a dumb move by creationists - most of whom disparage the poor education their children receive, yet can't wait for religion to be taught by these same poor educators.

Take your kids to church, synagogue, mosque, etc. for their religious education, & if you just can't stand evolution, homeschool or religious school.