2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.

Actually that's a yes. For several reasons, one of which is that the oldest anatomically modern fossils date older than the mitochondrial eve dates.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

what about the dictionary? Results of experiments are observed facts, they may validate OR invalidate the theory that the experiment is based on.Theories are based on observed facts, whether from general observation or the result of previous experiments.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Let's vote on whether the "sun rises in the east" is {true} because: and see how many Americans get it right.Facts are not subject to popularity. They are subject to being observed, derived, experienced and validated. If it is not observed, derived, experienced and validated then it may be true or it may be a falsehood.Interpretations are not subject to popularity. They are subject to being logical, rational, deductive evaluations. If they are not logical, rational, deductive evaluations then they may be true or they may be delusions.Having someone who has no knowledge of the science involved make decisions on what should be taught in relation to that science is like having someone who can't {add\subtract} check your {long division\multiplication}: the result may be correct, but I certainly wouldn't base sending a speck of sand to mars on it.Perhaps we should vote on which form of creationism should be taught? There certainly seems to be a wide variety with a lot of internal disagreement ... from Hindu (scientific universe too young) to YEC (scientific universe too old) to {several, including {many\most?} christian} with no disagreement at all with the science of evolution (evolution is the process, god set the process in motion).Any disagreement between science and beliefs that is not directly related to evolution doesn't belong in a class on evolution for the same reason that other unrelated sciences don't belong.We live in a democratic republic that is dependant on an informed and educated public to make rational decisions on how to run the country and who best represents these concerns Yes, the criticisms play to the ignorance and failure of logical rational evaluation of almost any topic in america, from the election of the president to the ability to properly answer the question about the sun given above.The real merit is demonstrating that much more attention should be given to teaching logical rational deductive thought processes and how to properly evaluate information that is provided.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Exactly.In a recent poll 80% of Americans got it wrong.Most because they picked (2), which while factually correct, is not the answer to the question or the cause of the apparent rising sun.Amazing eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Let's not play word games: theory of {X} is not a fact. There is no theory in all of science that is a fact.The Theory of Evolution is based on observed fact, actual validated instances of change in species over time, to the point that AiG and others accept evolution has occurred.This is quoted from AiG's "questions we think Creationsist should not use" webpage: In other words, they changed over time, they evolved. Accepted as fact by AiG.Now give me one thing about Creationism that is an equally recognized fact. I thought you corrected me for saying that you claimed there was some vast evo conspiracy ... and here you go again? Please provide evidence for this on-going {whatever you call it}. I'll concur with that statement as corrected. Of course this leaves out all of the creationist and IDist speculative concepts that have failed to pass a single falsification test (which is what defines "pseudo-science" eh?).The tested and validated scientific theories (plural) of evolution (and that combine with the actual factual evidence of evolution happening to make the Science of Evolution) pass this {bar\test\level}, speculative creationism and hypothetical ID do not.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

from:
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) (bold, yellow, mine for emPHAsis)Now, there is a basis for scientific freedom of thought.And you claimed Message 101 "ToE itself cannot be real science, but the indoctrination techniques, pseudo-logic and values-system employed by evos in the teaching and presenting of evolution is in need of correction ... " when you think this is science?riiiiight.

... far right

Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

heh, ya beat me to it.

Why is Mr. Oard qualafied to speak about geology?[/qs]Because he's light on basaltics and full of hot air?

well there is the striped yellow motorcycle helmet experience ....picture from Holy visions

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I think both forms of design theory should be taught.Teach the problems with the intelligent design concept and show the flaws in the reasoning and the major holes in its evidence.This will let students decide between the intelligent design concept and the silly design concept.There is obviously much more evidence for SD than there is for ID: all those little things that evo's keep bringing up as poor examples of intelligence in design are just proof that Silly Design was in operation.One doesn't need to show intelligence to posit that a designer was involved, as many objects of human design show strong evidence for silly design practices, and we know that they were designed.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

you'll have to take that up with Son Goku and CaveDiver ... there are real problem with design theory and a lot of controversy between different ID proponents, and I think that schools and media need to be made aware of the controversy. both sides need to be provided.I'm working on a new post to better describe the controversy and demonstrate how SD answers some of the questions raised, but I'll be away a couple of days.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.