New Questions--moral perspective

Are you? Could a moderator check this please? If you are the old booboocruise of a few months ago you have some unanswered questions.

The controversy is generated by individuals and organizations who don't understand the science and/or lie about it.I know some people who have held to the idea of "equal time" in the science classrooms. Some of those, when exposed to what the creationists actually want realize that there is no equal time deserved.Personally, I would love to see creationism studied in the science classroom. We have discussed that in other threads. If that was done in just the places where there is the most vocal crying out for it then there outcrys would really get loud! Creationism, if examined in a science classroom carefully, would get ripped to shreads. Observe how, on this forum, creastionists run from the detailed difficult questions about the age of the earth, the flood and the evidence for evolution. We haven't had a creationist take on the dates and dating forum for some weeks now.They spend weeks arguing in the faith and belief forums though.

Actually I would suggest that this is needed only at the end of a trail of digging into the evidence.A better approach would be to recognize that it isn't very convincing to see a single line quote saying "there isn't enough..." or "it isn't right...." or whatever without that source referring to the reasons why they have reached the conclusion they have.In other words, I'm not going to be convinced by an assertion of a conclusion. I want to see the "paper trail" of how and why someone arrived at the conclusion so I can decide if it makes sense myself.In that process there may have to be references to the original research to fill in the underlying evidence or it may not be necessary.

Well, your right on both counts. The example is very poor indeed and if the environment changes too drastically and too rapidly then the species will not survive.So?