And it is your opinion that man came from apes. So what? You have no proof.
And you don't believe what I believe as proof.
So we have two opinions but only one of which is allowed to be discussed in schools. That's the problem.
We also cannot prove the exact force behind gravity (see the latest thread on theories of gravitational waves), yet we don't go flying off the face of the earth when we jump, do we?
Also, thanks for letting me have your vaccination shot against the avian flu when we develop one. You obviously don't believe it would ever be a threat, since it would have to - get this - evolve.
<< And it is your opinion that man came from apes. So what? You have no proof. >>
That is inaccurate at two points:
1) I accept the scientific evidence that man IS an ape, and shares a common ancestor with other apes. That is far more than just "an opinion." It is one of the most solidly supported theories in all science.
2) As has been pointed out hundreds of times already, "proof" is not a scientific concept. Proof works with whiskey and mathematics -- not with biology. In science, the preponderance of the evidence supports common descent, and that is what is taught in biology class.
When and if another theory does a better job explaining the evidence, it will replace the theory of common descent -- just as the Copernican theory replaced Ptolemaism. Until some other theory even gets within a parsec of doing so concerning evolution, it has no place in science class.
And religious myths have no place there at all -- from any religion -- unless you are saying you believe that ALL the religious creation stories should be included as valid alternatives. Is that what you are advocating? RIIIIGGGGHHHHT! Hahaha!
<< So we have two opinions but only one of which is allowed to be discussed in schools. That's the problem. >>
False. We have hundreds of opinions -- but only one of them is based on the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence -- and that is why it is the one taught in science class. The other opinions can be allowed in other classes -- history, comparative religion, philosophy, sociology, literature, etc.
But science class is for scientific theories and facts -- not religious beliefs. That is neither pro-God nor anti-God. And -- all this has nothing to do with whether or not one "rejects" or "accepts" the idea of God creating the world. Evolution and common descent have nothing to say about that. Many who accept them are atheists, of course -- but many are not.
But -- I am perfectly willing to allow ID in science class, as long as it's MY ID theory [pastafarianism], and not yours. Mine has "proof," you know -- it's just that you won't accept it. And if you exclude mine, as you say, "that's the problem."
Or are you saying you are willing to allow ALL creation stories as equally valid in science class? Why should we include YOURS and not all the others? And what about all the alternative "theories" about gravity, electromagnetism, cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, etc.?
I ask again -- do you accept Copernicanism, as modified by Kepler, Newton, etc.? Or do you stand with Luther and Calvin on the immovability of the Earth? If you do not stand on the plain statements of the Bible in this regard -- are you not "rejecting God" and not allowing the alternative "theory?"
"Liars for the Lord," of course, say that ID/creationism has nothing to do with religion. What do you say?