John VanSickle wrote:
> Actually, it does.  It predicts, among other things, that the genetic 
> code for organisms may have features of no present use, but which may be 
> of use by descendant creatures. 

Then the proponents should be able to point out a whole bunch of genes that 
were present in older species that turned on in newer species without any 
mutation when the environment changed.

Which gene would that be, then?

> Be that as it may, I am against the teaching of life's origins on the 
> public dime, because it is a matter of public debate,

No it's not.

I guess we shouldn't teach about the holocaust either, or whether the USA 
won the civil war, or whether Hawaii is really a state of the USA?

> and is therefore 
> incompatible with the principles that underlie a free society.  What 
> invariably happens, when the government is allowed this power, is that 
> the people who are in the wrong will go running to the government to 
> have their view imposed by fiat, and all conflicting views suppressed to 
> one degree or another. 

Nobody is suppressing your ability to teach ID outside of science classes or 
in your own schools. The problem is that the issue was looked at, in detail, 
by those responsible for deciding what gets taught in public schools, and 
those looking at it decided it isn't science, after a long and public debate.

 > At the present moment a person who is skeptical
> that natural selection is sufficient to explain the entirety of 
> observable living systems is subject to exclusion from participating in 
> scientific and educational endeavors, even when the topic has no bearing 
> on the origin of life.

I think there are plenty of educators who teach math or social studies or 
english and believe God created man. In what way are they being excluded?

> "But we're not ignorant like they were then."  Actually, it's because of 
> a shift in political connections.

Um, no. It's the scientific method.

> As a practical matter, I of course oppose the teaching of views I 
> disagree with, but I also oppose the forced teaching of views that I 
> agree with, because that breeds resentment--especially if someone gets 
> drunk with power and exceeds his authority--and I don't want my views 
> getting blamed for some idiot's power trip.

So you support teaching only 100% non-controversial subjects? So you'd skip, 
say, the holocaust as part of history class?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message