2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.

This would be an effective argument against evolution were it found to have any basis in fact. Organs like the appendix and tonsils are removed not because evolution thinks them vestigial, but because they cause harm or even, as can happen in the case of a burst appendix, death. The appendectomy operation predates Darwin's theory by a couple thousand years. In other words, we remove appendixes and tonsils not because they're vestigial but because they become a threat to health when they become diseased.The classification of vestigiality has been applied after the fact as an evolutionary explanation for how we could possess organs which seem so inessential to life. There are literally millions of people living normal lives without appendixes or tonsils, some without both. The question naturally arises, "How could this be?", and vestigiality is a possible explanation from within an evolutionary framework.But whether or not the appendix and tonsils and whatever other organs you had in mind are truly vestigial is not the relevant issue in this thread. The issue is that most Americans want Creationism taught. But the fact of the matter is that we don't put to a vote what are the most significant events of history, the greatest works of literature, or the significant achievements of science. It doesn't matter how many Americans want Creationism taught in school, just as it doesn't matter how many Americans want The Da Vinci Code taught in English class or Lord of the Rings taught in history class.Public school curriculums are usually developed by committees (usually appointed by Boards of Education) that solicit input from experts from the relevant fields. One of the serious problems Judge Jones found with the actions of the Dover group was that they sought out virtually no experts within science.The best judges of what constitutes actual science are scientists. A concerted program of name-calling and aspersion-casting against evolutionary scientists qualifies at best as a negative publicity campaign and has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific validity of the theory of evolution.--Percy

No, that wasn't what I said, not even close. I won't contribute further to drawing this thread off-topic. If you're interested in understanding what I was saying then I suggest you read the first two paragraphs of my message Message 202 again. Or you could open a new thread if you're interested in discussing evolutionary perspectives on vestigiality. The reason evolution is considered science and is taught in school is because it is knowledge gained in the same way as all the other fields of science: the scientific method under peer review. Creationism is not taught in school because its claimed knowledge has not passed through any scientific process, and furthermore it is fairly obvious to most that it is thinly vieled Biblical literalism. And what the American people have apparently seen fit to do is put standards in place across all the disciplines in the curriculum, from physical eduction to history to science to English to math. And Creationists, rather than doing the work necessary to qualify under these standards, instead attempt to alter the standards while also putting in place a bizarro imitation of the scientific process in the mistaken belief that they can fool people into thinking that Creationists are doing real science.In many if not most cases the legal process has to deal with the claims of defendents justifying their actions. False claims of a certain category are called "shams", and "sham" is the term that the Dover decision assigned to this Creationist approach. Yes, Randman, they're for the people, as in *all* the people. The same standards and laws that prevent conservative Christians from teaching their religion in public schools also prevents Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems from bringing their beliefs into public schools, too. You should be happy about that. We already know you think this. It's the rare post where you fail to claim fraud and misrepresentation by evolutionists. It's old news. Real old. I suggest you just stay focused on the topic.--Percy

Do you have an on-topic response to anything I actually said? This response is more akin to, "Oh, yeah? Well you're ugly!"I'm not going to bother repeating my post again. If you'd care to respond to things actually said that fit within the topic for this thread, then my post was Message 231.--Percy