Both or neither.

Yeah, unfortunately, we know what you're saying."The one true religion ... mine!"The Founding Fathers were wise enough to know where that leads.

AFAIK in every state in which that's been attempted it has failed (turned down by the electorate or the courts or the committees or whomever). What states allow it? The Supreme Court has already decided that any time teaching religous theories in public school science classrooms is unconstintutional and illegal in the U.S.And it's unconstitutional becau8se the authors of the Constitution knew what government support of religion leads to.

That's only one, you said more than one. However, you are way behind the times. From Cobb County Clarifies: Teach Only Science in Science Classes:"On January 8, 2003, the Cobb County, Georgia, School District issued guidelines that clarify the new Theories of Origins policy. ...The guidelines largely rectify the problem by clarifying the nature of the controversy over evolution: It is recognized that instruction regarding theories of origin is difficult because it is socially controversial and potentially divisive (emphasis added by NCSE - JRF). There is no mention in the guidelines of any supposed scientific controversy over evolution or of any supposed scientific alternatives to it. Curt Johnston, the chairman of the Cobb County Board of Education, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (January 9, 2003) that Encouraging discussion of that might be illegal. Johnston was evidently alluding to faith-based views such as intelligent design. ...The clarification of the Theories of Origins policy also won approval from the American Civil Liberties Union. Michael Manely told the Marietta Daily Journal (January 9, 2003) that, in light of the guidelines, the ACLU has decided not to file suit over the Theories of Origins policy. It certainly seems that the board is telling the teachers to back down on the teaching of creationism, intelligent design or other faith-based theories, he said."

They can teach other scientific theories, of which there are none. They cannot teach ID or creationism because they are not scientific theories. An old and oft-disproved canard. Indeed? Please post your calculations of exactly how unlikley it is. Please do not make the common error of posting calculations having to do with any purely random process, which evolution is not. True. So what? "Not been disproven" is far from being the only criteria for being a scientific theory. Not in public school science classes. It's unconstitutional.So far your support for your claim that "There are already some states allowing it" is a citation of one county (not state) that has turned out to be wrong. Are you ready to admit that there are no public schools in the U.S. in which ID or creationism is being taught in science class?I also note that you have mde no reply to my message 44. I take that as an admission that the only religious views you want taught in science class are your own, even though they are the religious views of a very small minority of Americans. Am I correct?

About 47%. So what? What percentage of Americans believe in the different proposition that Biblical creation or ID is science that should be taught in science classes?And do you think that truth is established by majority vote? If so, you've lost. Which supernatural beings should be included, and why?Science looks for the best explanation for the available data. So far, the theory of evolution and old-earth geology and cosmology explains all the known evidence better than any other theory. Supernatural beings are not necessarily ruled out ... they just don't bring any extra explanatory power to the table. Answered in the link that I posted and in many other places, easy to find. There was a groundswell of protest at the obviously unconstitutional actions.Are you ready to admit that creationism and ID are not being taught in any public school science courses in the U.S.?Still waiting for your calculations of the probability of evolution.[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-18-2004]

Since it's been observed, the probability is 1.00000000...The theory of evolution is the only scientific theory we have that adequately explains the observed facts of evolution. Others may have different answers ... my answer is that it's irrelevant. Nobody has claimed that Jesus did not exist, or that He was not divine, in this thread. Whether or not Jesus existed could be a scientific question, but it's unrelated to evolution. His divinity is not a scientific question.The topic of this thread is not Jesus.

The old Gish Gallop, hum?Just because you are ignorant of the refutaions does not mean that they have not been refuted ... and they have, many times over. AIG doesn't want you to see tho whole story, of course, so they don't link to the sites containing the refutations.We do not know that "half(at least) were not only good theories but facts' .. we do know that all are at best incorrect and at worst willful lies, becuase we and others have thoroughly investigated them and evaluated them and discarded them.Try learning something for yourself instead of demanding that we serve it up for you on a silver platter.People like you are the reason the Founding Fathers wrote separation of church and state into the Constitution .. thank goodness they did! Without that, you'd be really dangerous.Ready to admit that creationism and ID are not taught in any public school classrooms in the U.S.?

And an incredibly dangerous and downright evil one. That's why we have separation of church and state.

You have explicitly stated that you want your religion, explicitly your religion and not the psuedoscientific "creation science", taught in science classes ... and you want only your religion taught. That's evil, and is a classic example of the reason that we need separation of church and state ... to protect us from people like you.You wrote "it won't do any harm". It will do harm. It will do tremendous harm. It will destroy the foundations of our free society. Thank goodness there's no way that your intolerance will win out.Science gets taught in science classes. "Creation science", creationism, ID, whatever you call it ... it has failed every test to be accepted as science, in the scientific arena and the legal arena and the political arena. Posting regurgitated lists of old AIG claims isn't going to change that.When the creationists stop publishing their creationism only in their vanity press house organs (reviewed only for dogmatic compliance); when they abandon the formal pledges to ignore any evidence that contradicts their preconceptions; when they follow the trail of evidence wherever it leads and give up quote-mining, cherry-picking data, and yes, deliberately misrepresenting the data ... then we'll talk about accepting it as science.Of course, the problem for you is that it's already proven that examining creationism with an honest scientific eye forces the sincere investigator to give up on the idea of a literal global flood, a young Earth, and young life. The great creationist geologists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, long before Darwin and long before radioisotope dating, did everything they could to maintain their YEC beliefs; but they were honest men, and finally admitted that the evidence they had gathered proved their original ideas wrong.Since then all the evidence we've gathered only reinforces and clarifies the conclusions they came to; the Earth is old, life is old, there was no global flood. Genesis contains many truths, has great value, is many things to many people, but one thing we know; it's not literally true.

I certainly am not saying that. I am saying that the question of whether or not He did is not a scientific question. It's a hell of a good question, but not a scientific question.Of course, if He did create everything in six days a few thousanbd years ago, then almost all of His creation is devoted to lying to us, and I don't find that to be acceptable theology. So I'm also saying that Genesis is not a literal account of actual events.

Speaking of cherry-picking ...The Bible has many true things in it, and many false things. It is not inerrant.God wrote the rocks, Man wrote the Bible.

Sorry, there isn't anywhere near enough evidence to keep the heated debate running in circles. The evidence-based questions were settled over a hundred years ago. There is enough religiously and politically motivated activism to keep the heated debate running in circles, but the so-called "evidence" proffered is just incredulity and religious extremism.

May I presume that you are also uninterested in attacks on other theories and vague unsupported statements such as "flood geology is scientific"?

I was reminded (by something I saw at another site) that my original answer ("about 47%. So what?") was incomplete.I should have said:About 47% believe in something close to young earth creationism. More, about 49%, believe in an old Earth and evolution (with many believeing in "theistic evolution" with God guiding the proces of evolution). So what?See Substantial Numbers of Americans Continue to Doubt Evolution as Explanation for Origin of Humans (unavailable directly from Gallup witout a paid subscription; see Page Not Found ).TruthDetector, you argued that YECs are a majority. They are not; they are not even a purality.When are you going to rettract your claim that "There are already some states allowing it [teaching creationism in public schools - JRF]."?

And:c) Covered the entire Earth for about a year (as per the Bible).d) Advanced and retreated from selected portions of the Earth hundreds of times per day to create layers, with time between each retreat and advance for animals to leave tracks and build burrows.