[moog]

This September, the University of Idaho banned any dissent against evolution from science classes -- a slam on university biologist Dr. Scott Minnich, a noted supporter of ID.

"The school seems to be confusing where it's at,” West said. “Is it in Moscow, Idaho, or the old Moscow, Russia? ...in issuing this edict that…no view differing form evolution can be taught in any science class."

Decent points, but then again many fellow ID'ers would have no problem banning evolution either. I think there's room for both and that we don't need to go into a poltical tizzy about it.

[Liberty Wins]

"I think there's room for both (theories) and that we don't need to go into a political tizzy about it."

Would the lawsuit in Dover qualify as a "political tizzy?"

[narby]

I think there's room for both and that we don't need to go into a poltical tizzy about it.

Not just both. If we've got to open up science class to things that scientists disagree with, then perhaps the old Stalinist Michurianism as promoted by Lysenko should be taught.

Most conservatives are not seen as "open minded", yet you seem to insist that science be open minded about a faith based idea. Why is that?

[Liberty Wins]

The hypotheses of Erasmus Darwin was replaced by lamarckism, which was replaced by Darwinism, which was replaced by neo-darwinism, which undoubtedly will be replaced by something else, and maybe not in our lifetime.

I am not emotionally involved in the outcome because it doesn't affect my Christian faith. However, I think that resorting to censorship to control the advent of new ideas is a little extreme.