This re-instated what passes for faith in humanity

[GenericKen]

*snip*[right][snapback]97910[/snapback][/right]

I don't think you're talking to a bunch of schoolchildren here, Pete. We know what a "Theory" is, and I suspect that most of us respect your desire to slant any bias, but the theory of evolution remains a theory.

For just as many people who believe that the "theory" of evolution is a crockpot of some stoned biologist, there are just as many egotist pseudo-intelectuals who proport that evolution is only a "theory" in name.


As for me, as a computer scientist, I rank evolution (i.e. natural selection+time = total speciation) maybe 2 notches below relativity, which I believe to be incomplete. You can't solve just any problem by throwing time at it, and natural selection isn't really a powerful tool, or even neccessarily a net-gain tool, and there are very large gaps in the evolutionary trees of evidence. So a theory it remains. I.D. is seriously sketchy, and I'm not certain what precicely is taught, so I'm not sure I'm comfortable with it being taught in classrooms as more than a sidenote.


In truth, I don't care too much, as the whole thing is really a nonesense issue. Neither science nor religion are mutually exclusive, and though the question of which rules the other is mutually exclusive (whether God sets the laws, or is dictated by the laws in which case he is not properly God), it is an entirely personal issue that does not exclude the teaching of either.

The entire flare-up on both sides of the issue is entirely a matter of respect, in that neither side feels that they are properly respected by the other. Possibly with good reason.


Ghostiger> The word you were looking for is "cite", which makes me wonder about your proported Bio degree. Not too seriously, but it did strike me as odd and warrenting explination.