1 This is why I favor privatization of schools, or at least vouchers.  You just bypass this whole slapfight.

2 Dpud's observation is correct, but the argument isn't nuanced.  Teaching the holes in the theory of evolution and teaching intelligent design are two different things, and intelligent design is teaching religion--it makes no sense outside the perspective of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  And a government funded school can not teach one religion in a way that disadvantages other religions (in this case, the other religion is atheism). 

There is also the fact that you can drive a convoy of Sherman tanks through the holes in the intelligent design theory, whereas the holes in the theory of evolution are much smaller and much less significant. 

Once you understand that evolution was guided by God, and that nothing in the Bible contradicts that view,  there's no need to rely on "creationism". You merely need to reject the atheist contention that evolution is random and unguided.  Evolution is the way that God implements his intelligent design.

3

Why is Reason, a libertarian magazine, for government regulations against teaching any possible holes in the theory of evolution?

Because when you're a religious zealot you cannot abide any heretics to the one true faith.

 

4 Ahhhhh, I forgot that Reason believes the charming theory that Ron Paul breathed life into the world..

5 Ahhhhh, I forgot that Reason believes the charming theory that Ron Paul breathed life into the world

Because he did sir, he did!  *mouthbreathes*

6 I agree with kish.  I personally think that "evangelicals" who get all fired up over this issue are losing sight of the point.  IMO, the point is that God created the heaven and the earth.  I don't see that it matters how He did it.  I think what matters is that He did it.

7 I've been working on a doubly heretical theory that evolution had to have happened, because the only way God could guarantee free will was to build it directly into the laws of the universe.  Evolution is just free will at the chromosomal level, and the universe's built-in utility function included developing the capacity to believe in a higher power than can be directly observed, along with intellect enough to question it.

8 <i>Why is Reason, a libertarian magazine, for government regulations against teaching any possible holes in the theory of evolution?</i>

Because there aren't any.  No one has ever produced a single piece of evidence that indicates evolutionary theory may be wrong.  Just a lot of wholly theoretical 'arguments' that are typically based on bad data and bad reasoning, and fall apart on close examination.   The only people who demand the right to teach "evidence against evolution" are religious creationists, and their "evidence" is all rooted in age-old arguments used exclusively by religious creationists.  The First Amendment forbids the use of public money or public schools to teach religious indoctrination.  This has been tested in court at least three times that I know of.  On each occasion, the creationists had a chance to produce valid "evidence against evolution" and cross-examine evolutionary scientists about the evidence for evolution.   Each time, they've failed.  Each time, the court has reached the same conclusion: anti-evolutionism is religiously motivated, and can't be taught in public school science classes. 

9 I'm not against anyone teaching evolution. I just think it'd be nice for them to also say "Oh, by the way, science hasn't yet explained why, in this one instance, matter came out of non-matter and action came without any cause."

10 "Oh, by the way, science hasn't yet explained why, in this one instance, matter came out of non-matter and action came without any cause."

That's cosmology, methinks.  Different ball o' wax.  Luckily, I don't think any science teacher is dumb enough to talk about "before the big bang".

I sure hope not, at least.  Bad enough when they try to project the psychological attributes of T-rex based on fossils.

11

As an 'agnostic' (yeah, there are 100 zillion definitions for that), I think schools can simply say:

"We will educate you in what science believes (evolution).  However, many people don't accept this completely (or at all).  For differing viewpoints, you should study religion, in a church of your choice."

That seems simple, and respectful, enough.

12 It is cosmology.  Strictly speaking, science can not give any explanation of what lies "outside" the universe, because it can only deal with data that are "inside" the universe.

Also remember that time is part of the universe.  There is no "before" or "after" the universe, at least in the way that we understand it.   There's one minute after the start of the universe, but there's no one minute before the start of the universe.  To observer the universe from outside the universe, it is necessary to observe it outside time and space.  It just so happens that the only Being anyone has imagined which is capable of existing outside time and space  is God.

13 If the creation story isn't literally true, could the circumstances of the Garden of Eden still be literally true?  If that seems unreasonable or unlikely, doesn't that cast serious doubts on the idea of original sin?

If original sin may never have occurred, why does humanity need a savior?

The whole divinely guided evolution thing - it's a possibility, but it creates some very serious questions for Christians.

14 It creates problems for sola scriptura Christians, but not all of us are.  Your point about original sin is a good one, though.  I'll have to think about that.

15 Dave, that's more or less what my (Southern Baptist, devout) biology teacher said, and no one had a problem with it.

Joseph, that is a good question.  I, too, will have to give it some thought.  Romans might have some answers, as Paul discusses sin and the Law quite a bit, but I will have to look into that later, as it is now time for work.

16

Because there aren't any.

OK that's just goofy, even the biggest evolutionist scientists in the world admit there are gaps, problems, and unexplainable aspects of the theory.  That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it's incomplete.  It's this kind of glassy-eyed zealotry that does harm to real science.

17 Posted an answer to the original sin question at my blog.

18

Hi

get windows 7 key only 9.99

www.windows7serial.net