My “ultimate goal” is to have science taught in science class.
That is not a choice between science and God. Indeed, most scientists in the USA are, like myself, people of faith.
It is a choice between useful and applicable knowledge and useless religious apologetics.
Right, and surely you understand people, including scientists themselves, are going to forever argue about what is or isn't science, what constitues definitions of science and so forth.
And it comes off as disingenuous and impotent when you give string theory, algore's cult, membrane theory, study of prayer and multiverse theory a complete free pass.
Now if people begin demanding all kinds of scriptures be read in chapter one of each study of origins, earth age, etc. I'm right with you...but again, personally, I would very much be satisfied with teaching the controversy as such, and that proponents of ID and evolution will be arguing aout this issue WELL BEYOND the length of the particular science course(s) the students are engaging in presently at hand.
I'm pro-free will, pro-education, anti-indoctrination, pro-American and pro-conservative Judeo-Christian approaches to education that worked for hundreds of years PRIOR NEA. CLEARLY The godless liberal ideology is a failed model, socially, academically; anyway you care to examine it, that's just the way it is!
It is a choice between useful and applicable knowledge and useless religious apologetics.
You keep parroting the same failed tripe allmendream. If there's a choice it's bewtween a failed liberal cult and freedom of education.
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute) Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
If you can't understand there's nothing religious in this chemist's observations, then that's on you and speaks to the level of the brainwashing the cult has on you.
It also illustrates each and every time evolution is examined, it's met with a flurry of anti-science, religious attacks, again, on you; not on normal people that don't have various insecurities and sensitivites with God and science.