[ahayes]

If you're going to criticize the theory of evolution for merely being a theory to be consistent you should go forth arguing against Newtonian gravitational theory, the theory of relativity, molecular orbital theory, and the theory of quantum mechanics as well.

Since it is well known in science that a theory is never validated as absolute truth, the attempt to single out the theory of evolution in this manner indicates both an ignorance about science in general and a purposeful attempt to target one scientific theory for political and religious reasons, not because of any scientific objection.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Theory is theory is theory is theory. Period.

If it's not proven to be fact, it's theory.

Why is that so hard for evolutionists to understand?

People come in here and constantly attack, flame and demean those with religious beliefs, yet get a stick up their ass when someone questions their dogma.

If you don't like it, don't read it.

[puroresu]

One of the features of a constitutional republic is that voters and their elected officials can make value judgments. We can choose George Bush to be our president over John Kerry, and we can do so for any damn reason we please. We can do so (for example) because we want a more Christian nation and feel that George Bush's opposition to abortion and gay "marriage" is preferable to Kerry's opposite stances on those issues.

It's not the place of a judge to psychoanalyze voters and disqualify their choice if he deems it to be "religious" or "stupid". Thus, the courts can't overturn Bush's election on the grounds that Christians helped elect him. Or because the "smart" people at Harvard and Yale mostly voted for Kerry. After all, if only secularists had voted, Kerry would surely have won.

Value judgments are made all the time by voters and/or officials. Is it a violation of "separation of church and state" if voters approve a ban on gay "marriage"? What if a state legislature bans tax funding of abortions, while continuing to fund every other legal medical procedure?

All you're telling us is that more people disbelieve the theory of evolution than disbelieve the theory of quantum mechanics. That's true, but how is that a constitutional issue? Is it constitutionally obligatory to believe in the theory of evolution?

[whispering out loud]

The difference is, there isn't evidence against these other theories, ie, nor are they based upon theories that can be solidly refuted. The evidence, and theoretical evidence backing the toe can not only be refuted, but also plausible alternate explanations can be brought for these evidences, heck some if not most of them even make more sense if thought through. This is why the toe is questioned, and others aren't they are based in sound evidence, and the toe is based on theories based upon theoretical evidence. It's just that simple, and the fact is that it is JUST A THEORY and should be presented as a theory, I ask the question again, is the disclaimer a lie? No, no it's not a lie, the toe is a theory, so why are we upset, is telling the truth not an admirable trait anymore, I thought only Dem's took pleasure in lying, and distorting the truth.