Let students judge for themselves

Your Aug. 12 editorial rightly warns that vouchers might lead to teaching creationism in private schools. But the debate about teaching evolution is much broader.

Most science curricula present Darwin’s theory as the only credible idea. Yet many scientists feel that living organisms are too complex to have arisen by random mutations and natural selection. Dozens of scientific articles in the fields of paleontology, microbiology, biochemistry, probability theory, information theory and scientific inference discuss the flaws and weaknesses in the basic Darwinian ideas. Over 800 scientists have expressed skepticism about Darwinian evolution in http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org.

A better approach is to present both Darwin’s theory and opposing evidence, and let students evaluate both arguments and reach their own conclusions. An excellent textbook that takes this approach is Exploe Evolution — The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism.

Teaching students that good science is based on questioning existing theories helps them understand how science has progressed successfully over the centuries through the challenges of Galileo, Descartes, Newton and other founders of modern science.

Cecil R. Phillips

management consultant

Baton Rouge


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (131)


1) Comment by quirkmaguirk - 27/08/2012

Sure nimby?, Jesus is a decent fictional character, but there are many that were much better than he was. Why do adults need fictional characters anyways?

2) Comment by gofigger - 27/08/2012

nimby? - I agree with Gandhi on that point.

3) Comment by nimby? - 26/08/2012

just like there is no person named Santa Claus . I know this , so do my children , grandchildren . yet at a certain time of year the idea of him affects some of us , in a good way . I'd like to think someone like Jesus did exist . what was it Gandhi said about Jesus and christians ?

4) Comment by chem - 25/08/2012

I suspect they all had long hair, beards, and wore sandals. But it lacks credulity to have someone who supposedly did all of the things that jesus allegedly did, and there are no contemporaneous accounts of his actions. I mean, to walk on water; to rise from the dead; to feed the multitudes with an impromptu catering; and turning wine into water, that is some resume! And yet, the only accounts of this person are written well after he died (supposedly). Some are written literally centuries after the fact. I just cannot believe that such a person existed.

5) Comment by nimby? - 24/08/2012

chem , stories tell of the son who walked amongst the people of this land a long time ago . Jesus seemed like a pretty cool guy . imagine , the poster child for christianity had long hair , a beard , wore sandals and a robe . he could turn water into wine . suggested reading ; God is Red by Vine Deloria jr.

6) Comment by chem - 24/08/2012

The religious faithful can do no more than make non sequiturs. They try to deflect the conversation away from the topic at hand because they have no reason or evidence for their delusions. Christianity is based on lies -- on a false god. I am of the opinion that the so-called jesus christ never existed. Their are no first hand or contemporaneous accounts of his life. According to the bible, he was supposedly bigger than life, known far and wide for his preaching and miracles. When he rose from the dead, many others who were dead also rose from their graves, walking around the area talking and visiting with friends and family. Yet there is no first hand account of such an extraordinary event!! All accounts of "jesus" were written decades and centuries after he would have died. The whole christian religion, like other religions, is based on fictional stories with no merit in reality.

7) Comment by potkcalb - 24/08/2012

Try to say something intelligent gofigger, but stop trying to sound like the class clown. Most of the posters on this site are sincere in that they are trying to make thoughtful comments.

8) Comment by jedleland - 24/08/2012

well theyve had their 14 years and many more before that and so far creationist pretend scientists have neither dazzled nor baffled no shortage of manure though and seems like noone is buying it after all these years of trying (mostly cause of the stench i guess)

9) Comment by gofigger - 24/08/2012

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with *****

10) Comment by jedleland - 24/08/2012

whatever bud dont forget to ask your dr if hes a scientist and if hes a creationist i bet he could use the laugh or maybe you can just pray that roundworm away. remember the creationist wedge strategy that the discovery institute was embarrassed by in 1998 when it leaked out and made them look really really stupid and reminded everyone that they were just dopey creatiosists even though they pretended that ID was a real science and even they didn’t want to be seen with young earth dopes? it had a 20 year plan for creationism so lets see how its comin along the 5 year plan so thats 2003 wanted creationism as an 'accepted alternative' and that fields of creationist research would be open by then so both of those are about 9 years overdue. the final goal of the 20 year plan so thats 2018 would be to have creationism as the 'dominant' theory in the sciences not just biology but across all sciences, economics culture and the arts too so lets tally after 14 years creationism is not allowed in any public school by the supreme court is rejected by most mainline churches and Christians is only believed by right wing fundamentalists was humiliated at Dover pa in court has no known research published no articles accepted anywhere no universities that arent biblical fundamentalist colleges no notable scientists of any reputation no physical evidence provided and is rejected by over 99% of all biologists worldwide as a hoax and farce so hows that 20 year plan coming along? keep on believin cause thats all you got after 14 years of tryin. Not cool

11) Comment by gofigger - 24/08/2012

You put your faith in your theories, and I will do the same. Good luck!

12) Comment by potkcalb - 24/08/2012

The difference between scientists and religious fundamentalists is that scientists provide evidence and may theorize, but they do not claim to know more than they know. That is the province of religious fundamentalists.

13) Comment by jedleland - 24/08/2012

hit the nail on the head thats the problem with religious fundamentalists and creationists they just think too darn much

14) Comment by gofigger - 24/08/2012

Could be the problem with humans, we think too much......... and we think we know-it-all.

15) Comment by 8.3 - 24/08/2012

This is still America (for the time being) and you have every right to believe as you wish, the operative word being belief. You do not have the right to impose those beliefs on others, which the based on faith believers are attempting to impose as law. Mandated imposition of religious beliefs on others by law is a gross perversion of America's founding principles. Yes, the founding fathers acknowledged a deity but obviously intended to prohibit a human interpretation of that deity in government. Evidence and science and policy based on rational, researched, and proven methods are something else, without those we have chaos, sure looks like that is what is happening to Louisiana. Why is it so necessary to repeat that science does not give us an answer to the origins of life but it does have compelling evidence to explain the outcomes. The good Lord gave us brains, some even use them.

16) Comment by jedleland - 24/08/2012

my dog slept great too but then hes a dog so he doesnt have much to think about

17) Comment by gofigger - 24/08/2012

You guys sure get worked up over someone's beliefs. I hope it didn't keep you up last night. I slept well!

18) Comment by 8.3 - 23/08/2012

Actually, arguing reason and evidence with a creationist is like arguing the same with a monkey, obviously there is little capacity. Pretty much one is born with it or not. Unfortunately, the genes one inherits are a function of evolution, one doesn't have a choice of parents. That is the agonizing dilemma. Best not to think about it too much.

19) Comment by jedleland - 23/08/2012

young earth fundamentalist creationism is a choice but you dont have to do it noone should choose to be a fool man

20) Comment by jedleland - 23/08/2012

while youre at it man ive got another fun thing to do next time you see your dr you know the scientist with the certificate who you entrust with your health and even your life for you and your family, you know that guy? hes just a scientist with a certificate but when you need that heart operation and the prayers just dont fix it who are you gonna call? yeah thought so. anyways when youre in his office discussing your medical care or when hes about to put you under and cut you open to heal you and save your life after the prayers have failed ask him if as a scientist he thinks the universe is 6000 years old and then watch a scientist laugh loud and long - or cry

21) Comment by jedleland - 23/08/2012

a physician is a scientist dont you know that? ask your doctor next time if he is a scientist and if he has a government license and i bet if he doesnt have that certificate you are going elsewhere right? didnt the white coats give it away or the microscopes man youre not doing the reputation of young earthers much help here and they need all the help they can get

22) Comment by gofigger - 23/08/2012

When is the last time you have gone to a scientist for a check-up?

23) Comment by jedleland - 23/08/2012

like a skunk telling telling you to get lost cause your BO is a problem

24) Comment by jedleland - 23/08/2012

if other fundamenlist creationists want to hide you under the rug and think you make them look bad and backward and ignorant and undeducated and unscientific and just plain foolish then that dont look good now does it

25) Comment by jedleland - 23/08/2012

hey man you were the one pretending to be cute and misdirect the seeing a doctor on the age of the universe thing but not cute enough and darn right you sure need that scientist and his certificate when you get sick im right right? of course i am and you know it so dont be down on scientists with certificates when you need them to cure whatever it was your prayers couldnt do and as for being a young earth creationist good luck with that gang take a look at the discovery institute website or read the dover pa case transcript and see how far and how fast intelligent designers want to run from the young earth mouth breathers theyre like the crazy uncle at thanksgiving making them all look stupid or should i say stupider.

26) Comment by gofigger - 23/08/2012

Take a chill-pill. Quit playing semantics.

27) Comment by jedleland - 23/08/2012

i didnt say about the birth of the earth but i bet you went for the birth of a child right and i bet you made sure he had an MD of course you did that was one clumsy attempt at misdirection. man i didnt know they still had young earth creationists i thought they had all evolved into intelligent designers so that makes you a very rare breed the sasquatch of fundamentalists and even intelligent designers are embarressed by young earthers these days and pretend they dont exist anymore. not cool to be shunned by other creationists for being too backward not cool at all

28) Comment by gofigger - 23/08/2012

I "believe" you will be the embarrassed one. I can't remember the last time I went to a doctor to talk about the birth of the Earth. I hope you guys enjoy your life!

29) Comment by jedleland - 23/08/2012

i can tell you this when a creationist has a heart murmur or kidney stone or tumor or absess or hypertension or skin cancer or sinus infection they make sure they go and see a scientist with a certificate to make it better and they make darn sure his certificate is up to date and issued by the big bad secular government they sure as heck dont go and see a preacher

30) Comment by potkcalb - 23/08/2012

gofigger you can "believe" what you want based on those embarrassingly ignorant fundamentalist web sites or your can look at the scientific evidence.

31) Comment by gofigger - 23/08/2012

KilgoreTrout - So, because some scientist with a certificate says the world is that old, we are supposed to believe that. Let's see if his certificate endures 6000 years.

32) Comment by KilgoreTrout - 23/08/2012

Yes I suppose it is unreasonable to ask persons to justify their views in this day and age, I particularly enjoy the implication that questioning claims is solely the province of teachers or know it alls which is a contradiction. Blind faith (James 2:14-17)is also deaf (Matthew 11:15) and Mat 26:34. BTW the rapture is not subscribed to by all Christian faiths. I submit that the pitiful attempt to place human limits and definitions on God's works(Hebrews 11:3 ) is a refutation of those works and therefore is a turning away from God and His son. If,as potkcalb reaffirms, the evidence is there but humans in their misplaced arrogance, initiated by a literal, shallow reading of the Bible, attempt to define what is obviously beyond their understanding, but then claim to have faith in denial of the divine evidence, that is a denial of that faith. The Bible, although divinely inspired was written and compiled over several thousand centuries and tends to reveal the implications of that flawed human description of a perfect creation. Although I know that Christians mean well, Christianity a syou have stated is based on faith and the futile imposing of human artificial, constraints on divine revelations is not fiath but, again, human arrogance and foolhardiness. Real faith and the explanation of creation is this: Ephesians 2:8, John 3:16. Everything else is concerning faith is human absurdity. The rooster crows.

33) Comment by gofigger - 23/08/2012

potkcalb - That's great for you and science! It is said there are no two snowflakes alike............prove that one.

34) Comment by potkcalb - 23/08/2012

gofigger the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years old (with a margin of error of a few decimal places). The age of the earth is 4.5 to 4.6 billion years, and there is fossil evidence of life as far back as 3.4 and possibly 3.8 billion years.

35) Comment by gofigger - 23/08/2012

KilgoreTrout - Gee, twenty questions? Either you're a teacher or a know-it-all.........or both. I have Christian beliefs along with the others that have believed for 6000 or so years. What's with the KoK, are you late for skool. I do not claim to know everything there is about the Bible, but I do have the faith of a mustard seed.

36) Comment by nimby? - 22/08/2012

since it has been determined that the youth in this country aren't capable of making intelligent decision I suggest we raise the voting age to 30 ....

37) Comment by KilgoreTrout - 22/08/2012

CountryAttorney brashness and certainty in the young is admirable and expected but unwise and foolish in old age as you will come to discover. For proof, you might objectively observe the behaviors at one of those meetings you love, especially paying attention to the more, shall we say, seasoned ones since they have had a lifetime to practice. Objectivity should be no problem.

38) Comment by KilgoreTrout - 22/08/2012

Nice try, gofigger. At least now we know you subscribe to one of two major religious domains, Judaism or Christianity but we will disregard that the tenets of one nullify the other. However, since you assert that the Bible is the basis of your claims, which version of creationism is the correct one? Is it the one that states the world was created 6000 years ago, or seven days ago or according to intelligent design which at least tends to account for the evidence? Or is there some other Biblical version of creationism that you can definitively point to settle this once and for all? Actually, this is not a denial of those mysteries to which we are not privy and which we cannot comprehend, only a quest for the truth manifested in the pitiful shortcomings of men which makes a mockery of their bravado. Bear in mind, the rooster crows the third time.

39) Comment by CountryAttorney - 22/08/2012

I will agree that the state should not directly fund religious education. As long as the states stay within the limits set by the constitution, I have no problem. The state should not spend money to directly advance one religion over the other, or advance religion over non-religion. State spending must meet the criteria of the Lemon test set by SCOTUS. Quick story...after the 2010 mid-term elections, I wore a foil covered hat to my Constitutional Law class and gave the professor a cup a hot tea. LOL! I've never met Marchafava, but my next meeting will be at the duck camp...I'll have your hat!

40) Comment by DMJ - 22/08/2012

So you're agreeing with me, Countryattorney...that the state shouldn't fund religious education, but if they do...teach many different religions? I'll see you at the next Tea Party meeting. You guys still meeting at Marchafava's underground bunker? I want my foil hat!!

41) Comment by CountryAttorney - 22/08/2012

The fact that one belief is chosen more than others does not make it more legitimate. It merely means that more people chose that particular belief. But why must they only pick one belief? Why can't they choose to believe in kindness to others, respect for women, love of nature, meditation, dedicated prayer, etc.? But DMJ, we're glad to finally have you on the TEA PARTY TEAM! We're totally against government indoctrination. The government should not dictate what we learn. You can pick up your aluminum foil hat, and membership card at headquarters.

42) Comment by potkcalb - 22/08/2012

ScotB's statement that "With vouchers, families can decide for themselves which schools to send their children to. Problem solved," reveals that he, like so many others, still does not grasp the implications of separation of church and state. Certainly private schools that promote religion and pseudoscience should not be funded by the state.

43) Comment by DMJ - 22/08/2012

I tell you what....Teach kids comparative religion from the time they're old enough to actually learn anything. Teach them Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Wicca, Mormonism, Christianity and whatever else..even atheism...and let them choose for themselves. I mean...that's what we're talking about here, right? Letting kids choose for themselves? If more kids chose Islam, would that make Islam more legitimate? Or what if they liked Vishnu better than Jesus? Let's not pretend this is about letting kids choose for themselves. This is about using state resources, or as Tea Partiers like to say, "My tax dollars!!!!!!" to indoctrinate children in a certain way. One of the 10 Commandments is Thou Shalt not Lie. Time to 'fess up, good Christians....

44) Comment by gofigger - 22/08/2012

Must be His sense of humor.

45) Comment by DMJ - 22/08/2012

Yes, God picked evolution....unless there is no god, of course.

46) Comment by Chucky - 22/08/2012

Why did God pick evolution ?

47) Comment by gofigger - 22/08/2012

KilgoreTrout - If you took that as a judgement, that's your problem, your judgement will come from a much higher place. I don't follow religion, that is for the beginner. I, try as I may, follow the bible.

48) Comment by prbeav - 21/08/2012

I think the direction of this thread is wonderful. >>>>Many people understand that trying to promote the supernatural requires persuading yourself to assert that nature is unreal! For example, death can be reversed by anyone who possesses supernatural powers; from the Bible, Elijah, Elisha, many saints, Jesus, Peter, and Paul. Most of us started as uninformed as other infants but as adults choose not to deny nature in hopes for the supernatural. >>>>Let parents who want their children taught the Loch Ness monster in taxpayer-paid biology class make their case publicly.

49) Comment by KilgoreTrout - 21/08/2012

gofigger: wrong answer. You've got a couple of more tries before the rooster crows (Advocate autodetect didn't like the biblical term for rooster) Seems to me that someone who is so quick to judge and condemn on a spiritual level might be more quick to demonstrate the courage of conviction. I ask again: Which dogma of creationism is the correct one and which religion is the one true one? Or all they all correct and every religion is as valid and true as the other?

50) Comment by KilgoreTrout - 21/08/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

51) Comment by MBW - 21/08/2012

I'm all for challenging beliefs and assumptions.....but you do so with EVIDENCE. There is no evidence for or against the existence of God.

52) Comment by MBW - 21/08/2012

Evolution= Change over time. That living creatures have changed over time is not in dispute.

53) Comment by nimby? - 21/08/2012

no implication, a current study , survey . things will change , but at this time . a weak mind can fall prey to many things ; faith in man , faith in god ? who or what to believe , trust ...

54) Comment by CountryAttorney - 21/08/2012

@DMJ: I guess your nephew is not intelligent enough to decide that for himself.

55) Comment by chem - 21/08/2012

"according to statistics 80 percent of our population(public,society) , as well our president , claim to belong to some religion " And? Is that supposed to imply something? A more telling statistic is the polling over the last decade or so that shows religion steadily dropping around the world. Europe, always ahead of the U.S. on being enlightened, has fewer who believe in religion, about 40%, give or take a few % based on country. Religion will continue to drop in the U.S., which will unchain millions from the slavery of religion.

56) Comment by nimby? - 21/08/2012

according to statistics 80 percent of our population(public,society) , as well our president , claim to belong to some religion ...

57) Comment by chem - 21/08/2012

all of this other stuff aside, I still don't think that public money (taxes) should be used to send kids to a religious school. Clearly, I would rather that parents do not teach their kids about religion, but I guess that is their prerogative. If parents want to send their kids to a religious school, or even a secular private one, tax money should not be used. Tax money should be used for public schools. The republicans want to privatize as many public entities as they can, to the detriment of the greater societal good.

58) Comment by ABayouBoy - 21/08/2012

What I was really referring to in my previous post, is that science is unlocking many aspects of the universe which we perceive ourselves to exist in, but, as in quantum physics, the accepted laws governing the laws of matter and energy seem to break down under certain conditions. Einstien seemed to open the door just a crack when he postulated his theory of relativity. Are we, as finite beings, any more capable of understanding the infinite than an ant is capable of perceiving the galaxy?

59) Comment by nimby? - 21/08/2012

as long as there are at least two people on this planet there will be two sides . DMJ , thank you for pointing out that the ridiculous isn't necessarily associated with religion or christianity . I'm sure your brother/sister is a good parent . and every child needs an uncle who is a bit of a character . children grow up with santa , the easter bunny , the tooth fairy, trick or treat . then they grow out of it , ask questions , some are real doozies . be prepared to answer them , as you said facts , verification . children don't always believe their parents . the library is a much safer place than the internet .

60) Comment by gofigger - 21/08/2012

quirkmaguirk - I'm not threatening anyone. Just an observation I pictured in my corrupt mind. KilgoreTrout - I think you can find it.......if you really want it. potkcalb - No, I prefer all the company I can get. It's a personal choice.

61) Comment by DMJ - 21/08/2012

My little nephew asked me where rainbows come from. I told him that one theory is that water vapor in the air refracts light at different angels and that another theory is that a unicorn farted. in this day and age, where every issue has "two sides" I told him he should choose which one he wanted to believe, regardless of facts. He should be fine...

62) Comment by nimby? - 21/08/2012

chem , you spoke of being raised in a religious(catholic) home I believe . was this a forced issue , leading to your resentment of religion ? immersing a child in any sort of adverse dogma is going to affect them . there are loving , nurturing home with and without religion . then there homes with no love , preaching hate and intolerance . as I said way back and you seem to agree ; "parents tend to force their values , opinions on their children , whatever they may be . in many cases the child resents this and acts in a contrary fashion . or the child draws into a shell , introverts himself , becomes a walking time bomb . raise an intelligent child , talk WITH THEM NOT AT THEM !! teach him how to think , ask questions , form their own opinion . let them know mom and dad don't know everything " .

63) Comment by rgeraldwallace@cox.net - 21/08/2012

quirkmaguirk, you've gone too far; now you've crossed the line. Denying the existence of Santa is mean spirited; next you'll be claiming that there is no Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, or Guardian Angels.

64) Comment by potkcalb - 21/08/2012

Yes AbayouBoy we may know little compared with how much there is to know.But what impresses me is how much has been learned in just the last few years. Knowledge seems to be growing almost exponentially about things that we thought were beyond our grasp. At every point in time there have always been those who assume that there are barriers to further knowledge. Its the "everything that can be invented has been invented" philosophy.

65) Comment by rgeraldwallace@cox.net - 21/08/2012

Well said Kilgore Trout; standards have to be established and how well students can demonstrate their performance to those standards is the only way that their abilities in education can be assessed.

66) Comment by ABayouBoy - 21/08/2012

Realize that the more we learn through science, the more that we realize how little we do know.

67) Comment by potkcalb - 21/08/2012

My, my what a nice person gofigger is! A real Torquemada (the Grand Inquisitor) for our time. He relishes the misery of those who do not share his beliefs.With such sentiments there is no wonder that many are turning against religion.

68) Comment by KilgoreTrout - 21/08/2012

"when the government dictates what can and cannot be taught" Personally, I believe that educational standards must be established or a Louisiana degree will be more worthless than it already is. A government may be the best entity for establishing educational standards. Or are we to have varieties of history, math, science, etc. taught which fit the world view of the entity teaching them? Is that why Louisiana private school ACT scores lag the nation and world? Education in Louisiana is going to be an even more monstrous joke if this continues into the future.

69) Comment by chem - 21/08/2012

nimby?: Your supposition is only true if the parents teach and allow the kids to think logically and rationally, i.e., with intellect, rather than emotion or inculcated beliefs. Do you really think that exposing a child day in and day out with religious dogma will allow that child, once a young adult, to then make a reasoned decision about the truth of religion? Except in a few instances, the poor child will be fully immersed in those superstitions and will live a life believing in utter nonsense. Granted, their will be a full range of religious exposure, from nonbelievers to those that rarely go to church or pray, to the fire and brimstone fundamentalists. In the case of the latter households, the child has very little chance of thinking for itself.

70) Comment by KilgoreTrout - 21/08/2012

gofigger: Since I would prefer not to spend an eternity in excremental inundation, please guide me to the correct version of creationism so that I can avoid such torment. Would it be the earth is 6000 years old version? or intelligent design? or is there some other I can trust? also, which religion is the true one? there are so many it is confusing and I sure want to be standing at the judgement gate with clean drawers, knowing that I was a fervent follower of the one true religion. If Christianity is the one true religion, should I be Catholic? Baptist? Seventh day Adventist? Presbyterian? Or should I join all of them and go a different church each Sunday for decades? Please help as time is short.

71) Comment by quirkmaguirk - 21/08/2012

@gofigger: Threatening an atheist with hell is like me warning you that Santa will not be bringing you presents this xmas. I assume you don't believe in Santa and I do not believe in hell, your god, or any other god(s).

72) Comment by gofigger - 21/08/2012

I'd like I could be standing behind some of these posters when the sky opens up and the trumpets blast so I could watch their shorts fill up with some of the same stuff they post.

73) Comment by nimby? - 21/08/2012

chem , you assume much lumping all parents into the same category . a normal child will resent anything forced on them and act in a contrary manner . don't talk down to or at the child , talk with them , as an equal , they will eventually be smarter than you . at some point they have to stop being children and become young adults ....

74) Comment by chem - 21/08/2012

No, the problem is not solved. Taxpayer money is being used to teach religion. I will be surprised if the courts don't rule against this nonsense.

75) Comment by ScotB - 20/08/2012

With vouchers, families can decide for themselves which schools to send their children to. Problem solved.

76) Comment by chem - 20/08/2012

"But everyone should be given the opportunity to make that decision on their own."  While I agree with that statement, the reality is that children, from a young age, are inculcated into religion. The damage is done.  This is how religions continue -- brainwashing the young.   *****  "Give children the information and let them decide which, if either, they wish to take as fact."  See above for the problem with this statement.  Children are incapable of making informed decisions.  They are going to school for 12 years in the hope that they will actually learn something, hopefully, how to think critically, logically, and with reason.  Rather than inculcating children into religion, how about giving them a good education, and then, when they are adults, tell them the stories of religion -- any religion.  Under those conditions, I think you would find that overwhelmingly, religion would be rejected.  *****    "Neither can be affirmatively proven."  What a preposterous statement.  Evolution is certainly affirmatively proven.  There is so much evidence for evolution, from a variety of sources, that for someone to say there is none shows "affirmatively" that the person knows not what he is talking about, and should from that point on, not be taken seriously on that subject. On the other hand, there is no evidence for anything in the bible, old or new testament. So I guess the comment was half correct.  *****   "Stop denying individuals the information they need to make an informed choice."  Another absurd statement.  No one is denying anyone information.  If parents want to brainwash their children to believe in totally unbelievable stores and have them also live a life of delusion, there is nothing, unfortunately, that can be done about that.  But I, and others, strongly feel that schools are not the place for inculcating children into a religious cult.  And one other thing.  I am quite sure that those in favor of teaching this claptrap in school are only referring to the christian version of the fairy tales.  I can just imagine the outcry if the teachings were based on some other religion.   Islam, say.  What about that?

77) Comment by potkcalb - 20/08/2012

And incidentally Country/Attorney creationism is not a theory. As I have said before beliefs, notions, surmises, conjectures, convictions are not theories. In science a theory is a "well- documented explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."The the modern theory of evolution meets all of those criteria. Currently no other explanation meets any of them.

78) Comment by potkcalb - 20/08/2012

Everyone has the right to believe in creationism, but the bottom line is that it is belief and not science.There is no conceptual or theoretic basis for it, no evidence, and no way to investigate or analyze it. If the first thing a science teacher said is that some believe there was a creator what is the second thing that the science teacher would say? The answer is nothing because there is nothing to say. There is no scientific theory, no data, no explanation except the supernatural and that's not science. The only thing that a teacher could do in an attempt to support a belief in creationism is to cite belief (not theory) in "intelligent design" and "irreducible complexity" and other pseudoscientific notions that creationists have employed to make their beliefs sound science based.

79) Comment by CountryAttorney - 20/08/2012

My point was this: when the government dictates what can and cannot be taught, then the free exchange of ideas stops, education intellectual progress comes to a standstill, and people have the government's beliefs forced upon them. I went to Catholic school where we were taught both creationism and evolution. We were tested on the theories of both, and not one teacher told me one theory was true and the other was false. I personally subscribe to a combination of the two, much more heavy on the evolution, but that it was all set in motion by a higher power. To say that students aren't smart enough to make an intelligent choice is to discount the though processes of young people. Freedom is about the ability to make decisions on your own. I neither advocate creationism nor evolution. I think to subscribe wholeheartedly to one or the other is error. But everyone should be given the opportunity to make that decision on their own. Give children the information and let them decide which, if either, they wish to take as fact. Neither can be affirmatively proven. Stop denying individuals the information they need to make an informed choice.

80) Comment by Engineer - 20/08/2012

No one really wants students to judge for themselves, least of all those Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates who are most vocal in asking for it. The Biblical story of creation may be a marvelous allegory, fable, myth, or literal devine revelation, but it isn't science. Any reasonable discussion comparing the two under any reasonable definition of "science" will show that Creationism makes no scientific sense for the origin and development of species. Darwinian evolution makes predictions that have been tested. (To my knowledge none have failed.) It provides explanations for already-discovered data. And it does this all in a conceptually simple theory (in the scientific sense of the term). This is how science is supposed to act. Creationism says "God did it." This contrasts shows one of the foundations of science: the willingness to change belief in the light of new evidence. This doesn't always happen rapidly; sometimes scientists have so much invested in the old theories that they hang on to them long after they have been disproven. But most scientists change with the data. They're willing to say "We've got more data. It looks as if we'll have to revise theory X." No Creationist is willing to say "We have more data. It looks as if we'll have to revise Genesis." Actually I believe that there are circumstances in which Creationism provides answers as good as anyone else. I'm speculating outside of my field of expertise. I may be wrong. As I understand it, no one has yet developed a way of looking "back though" the Big Bang. It is, as far as anything has been, St Thomas Aquinas "uncaused cause." Perhaps my understanding has been overtaken by events, but that's a risk --- and the glory - -- of dealing with science. Your understanding grows as you learn more.

81) Comment by prbeav - 20/08/2012

Here's why some children need protection from their parent's wishes or negligence: http://ncse.com/news/2012/08/louisianas-loch-ness-mythology-0014528 .

82) Comment by chem - 20/08/2012

I agree with potkcalb about the silly comment by countryattorney. It's always unfortunate that man has to find a way to make better bombs to destroy his fellow primates. By the way, Newtonian physics works just fine for everyday objects at speeds much slower than the speed of light. I prefer to think of Einstein's accomplishments as better than a bomb. The paper for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize, the photoelectric effect, is the basis for semiconductors. His theory of relativity is responsible for the amazing NASA missions to every planet in our solar system. It is responsible for satellite communications. Without relativity, GPS would not work. Chemistry, my own field, has brought many wonderful advances that we enjoy and take for granted everyday, from detergents, to textiles, to polymers (plastics), and other advanced materials. The range of modern drugs that we enjoy is based on chemistry. And of course, the many other branches of science -- biology, anthropology, geology and others have likewise brought important advances to this world. What has religion done? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

83) Comment by chem - 20/08/2012

Science is science and religion is religion. The former is based on EXPERIMENT AND EVIDENCE, the latter on nothing but hearsay and ZERO EVIDENCE. That concept is not difficult to understand. How can a rational person even equate science and religion? The answer is a rational person does not. It is the delusional person, the one that believes in myth and superstition, i.e., religion, that truly can't see the forest for the trees. I feel sorry them. They are missing so much by keeping their heads full of gods, angels, demons, and other such nonsense. Religion is the problem, not the solution.

84) Comment by mcarter - 20/08/2012

Hmmm, you can't make comments on the "Fishy School Board" letter.

85) Comment by potkcalb - 20/08/2012

Country/Attorney neither DMJ nor anyone else who has posted on this topic has suggested that there not be an open exchange of ideas, and no one has advocated indoctrination which is the uncritical acceptance of a set of beliefs.No one is indoctrinated with the theory of evolution. The basic tenets of the theory remain but because of "open exchange" (your phrase Country) Attorney) there have been major revisions and new understandings that have come to light from fields like paleoanthropology and genetics that hardly existed in Darwin's day (see NOVA science Now, "What Darwin Never Knew"). No one is prevented from believing in the supernatural, but it is not the subject matter of science because it it not amenable to scientific investigation or analysis.

86) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 20/08/2012

CountryAttorney, I hope you argue better in court than you do here. Einstein didn't just point out flaws. He used the scientic method to change the way we looked at Newtonian Physics. The discovery institute doesn't care about true discovery, nor progressing thought. They care more about taking us back to the middle ages, where science and scientific discovery was repressed.

87) Comment by grimcity - 20/08/2012

I guess it's just a coinkydink that "dissentfromdarwin.org" is owned by The Discovery Institute... one of the largest and most powerful anti science front groups in the US? Just do a whois on the domain name. Not to mention, the site doesn't present a theory or hypothesis to explain where they're coming from.

88) Comment by jedleland - 20/08/2012

sept 30 to oct 6 i expect beingstupid to be at his library every day that week apologising for being a fool

89) Comment by jedleland - 20/08/2012

blaming the aclu for banning books just riles me up man. they spend milions every years for decades defending your right to read any book you want when you want and challenging local censors and what thanks do they get? they get blamed for banning books which they fight every day for years. kinda like swiftboating isnt it take someones strength and make it a weakness but man thats real low blaming the only national organisation that takes on banned books for free every time and acting like they stop you when its your glenn becks and focus on the family and traditional values groups that would like to tell you what is appropriate for you to read and get rid of every religious book that isnt the bible for being 'ungodly ' or 'satanic'. theres making an innocent mistake and then theres making garbage up and lying and being stupid stepped right over that line and its some kind of insulting to all the people protecting his right to read what he wants even if its glenn beck junk

90) Comment by jedleland - 20/08/2012

banned books week is spet 30 to oct 6 in EBR and around the country and all local libraries are participating with the ACLU in highlighting censorship and making sure people can read whatever they darn well please without religious or church groups or glenn beck pressure groups getting int he way to 'take back america' and censor books that dont promote 'traditional values' think im joking? see how many of the books banned over the years have been antisegregation or 'problack' like roots or invisible man or autobiography of malcolm X they upset traditional meaning white values in their day and got banned until he ACLU stepped up. i urge everyone here to get off the computer for jsut one day that week and head up to a library even beingstupid and borrow one of the books from teh banned book list and thankt he ACLU for making sure you can do that without worrying about offending the church glenn beck or some such gang of clowns

91) Comment by jedleland - 20/08/2012

Heres your jokers looking to burn books there are hundreds and hundreds of stories in local papers all on google around the country all targeted by the ACLU free people read freely campaign to let you read whatever the heck you choose “An incident occurred in May of 2010 when a New Jersey school board voted to ban a book that involved gay themes from a high school. The board, which banned three books in total that were about human sexuality, made their decision after a they received a complaint from a local chapter of Glenn Beck’s 9.12 Project, a conservative organization that asks individuals to "Help us restore America” that’s right right wing crusader glenn beck loves him some book burning hed have the Koran in flames if he wasn’t so scared but ACLU has to defend minority religions like muslims every day from right wing censors so they can worship where they want and when they want liberals love liberty that’s why they call us liberals and we think you should be able to read anything you want go where you want do what you want see who you want when you want as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else and its up to the right wing religious do-gooders to prove harm which they never can Limbaugh doesn’t go off on the ACLU any more since they helped him with his drug problem they even defended Nazis in Skokie and no one is more right wing than a nazi they love burning books and you know what if its your own book you can burn whatever you want the ACLU knows that to protect all rights you have to protect even the smallest ugliest stupidest minority and it gets you bad headlines but you need to do it again ask rush limbaugh

92) Comment by jedleland - 20/08/2012

more total garbage every year the ACLU holds banned books week to bring attention to local governments or churches or school districts that try to ban books because of profanity or because they insult jesus or some foolish thing they will have signs and tables at your local library here in EBR this september witha selection of books that are often banned and why they were targetd and by which church group or fundamentalist sect liberals beleive everyone should be free to read whatever they want whenever they want no matter what big right wing government tells you and the ACLU is there to defend even idiots against censorship or big conservative government just ask Limbaugh. right wingers love love love love love big government cause it lets them tell you what you can read and what you cant and what you can watch and what you cant and what you can listen to and what you cant they can do this becuase jesus gives them the right

93) Comment by prbeav - 20/08/2012

Humankind has developed a process for understanding that works in both physics and art. The process utilizes evidence that is not only verifiable but repeatable.>>>>We artfully say, "The sun'll come up tomorrow." But we know that the earth's rotation toward the east will reveal the sun each morning and hide it each evening.>>>>We know from nature that when someone dies, they are dead. However, there are many reports of supernatural resurrections; there is no evidence for resurrections--only reports. Humankind has established the credibility of death, the natural, but rejects the supernatural in all its artful forms.>>>>To give credence to the supernatural (religion) one must reject the natural. I will not and will continue to oppose those who do, especially the present Louisiana administration.

94) Comment by CountryAttorney - 20/08/2012

So DMJ, what you're advocating is that we not have an open exchange of ideas to foster a true educational environment, but rather that we indoctrinate our children? How progressive of you. Who needs another Einstein? I mean his work at pointing out the flaws in Newton's laws of gravity was totally meaningless. He should have just stayed in line and kept his mouth shut. Of course without people like Einstein, who question the world around them, we might be speaking Japanese and worshiping the emperor. Then we wouldn't have to worry about what to think, the emperor would just tell us what to think...kind of like you're advocating anyway.

95) Comment by Being_Stupid - 20/08/2012

There are many religious books in the Public Library that discuss God, Judaism, Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc. paid for by the Tax Payers. Perhaps, the Public Library should burn and ban all these books in accordance with the wishes of the ACLU.

96) Comment by jedleland - 20/08/2012

anyways i promised myself i wouldnt get sucked into this echo chamber yet again and here i am more fool me so i'll leave it at that...(the elipses is there to make me appear thoughtful does it work? didnt think so)

97) Comment by Being_Stupid - 20/08/2012

Catholic Schools already teach creationism in religion class and evolution in science class, the student is given free will to decide what to believe.

98) Comment by jedleland - 20/08/2012

i pay for the library but i buy books can i have a barnes and noble voucher from the government i pay for rural roads but live in town can i have a rural road rebate voucher from the government i pay for an army but i want to choose my own ammunition can i get a government voucher for the ammo store? i pay for nasa but i never get to go to space can i get a governmetn voucher for a ride on the next trip to the space station? i pay for medicare but im too young to use it can i get my governmetn voucher that says im an honorary old person and so get free health care you get the idea im sure if you want govt out of education then get them all the way out and pay your own way to a religious school like you already can dont sit around waiting for your socialist voucher and pretend your not mooching like every other moocher if you like a private school then go and enroll a and pay yourself and the whole problem goes away and you can creationism yourself silly every day with like minded dopes quit waiting on a governmetn handout to do it and then pretending govt is the problem even though you want that money and ill quit demanding my barnes and noble voucher (i stole that analogy from Noel Hammit cause its a very good one)

99) Comment by nimby? - 20/08/2012

chem , agreed . my point ; giving young minds the tools , the evidence , the opportunity to form their own opinion , without outside influence . while teaching I proposed a class in religions , from a social standpoint , as an elective . explore it's cause and effect on cultures thru history around the world . as different religions each have their own "genesis" , comparisons of fact , fiction , theory , myth , would make for a spirited debate . young minds need something more challenging than world of warcraft ...

100) Comment by Being_Stupid - 20/08/2012

This will become a non-issue once the Voucher-System / School Choice System is established. No more ACLU needed. Parents and Students will choose the school, not the Government. If the Consumer disagrees with the religion being taught at that particular school, then they can choose a different school to attend with their voucher.

101) Comment by potkcalb - 20/08/2012

nimby no one is suggesting that students should not ask questions about theories or anything else. What is clear is that pseudoscience disguised as religion...irreducible complexity...intelligent design... and other creationist beliefs that do not qualify as theories should not be infused into science classes thereby adulterating both science and religion. There is no "choice" in science classes between science and the supernatural because the latter is not science. Currently the modern theory of evolution is the only explanation of how life evolves that meets all of the criteria of theory, no other explanation meets any of the.

102) Comment by DMJ - 20/08/2012

How's a kid presented with "both sides" of an argument going to distinguish between science and fantasy? They won't....which is why we have teachers! And to answer your question: No, I don't think they're smart enough....not if they've been taught that science and fantasy are the same thing their whole lives. And the Fox News reference was meant to show my dismay at people being able to choose which "facts" they want to believe. At this, Fox News is a pioneer and industry leader. We don't need it in public schools as well, so we? There aren't 2 sides to every issue, nimby, as you well know.

103) Comment by chem - 20/08/2012

nimby?: There's nothing wrong with the statement. But one cannot overturn a theory or evidence simply by "questioning" its propositions. To do that, one must put forth a hypothesis and design an experiment(s) to confirm or deny the supposition. It is EVIDENCE that is needed, not just a belief in supernatural nonsense.

104) Comment by jedleland - 20/08/2012

ill repeat for effect what a total crock

105) Comment by jedleland - 20/08/2012

next you need to decide which creation myth you want to present as we know there are thousands and you only have a short class time to get through them all so where to begin? i gues you jsut read them as a long list without explaning anything about them and then let the kids decide by vote of hands which sounds coolest after all its about the kids making upt heir own minds and we cant let one creation myth be given preference cause its a scince class so we have to be thorough about covering all the bases like a real scientist would. what a crock.

106) Comment by jedleland - 20/08/2012

The teach the controversy garbage again and as stupid an argument as it ever was I know lets allow holocaust denial into every history class after all they have quite a lot of experts and have written many books some with graphs and diagrams and they obviously believe it even if they are the tiniest minority of far right loons (fox news again) and even though they have no evidence of any kind and even though their arguments have been debunked for decades and even though they are driven by anti-Semitism and racism not history but despite all of that well lets just let the kids decide by presenting competing opinions and questioning that’s what its all about right? What a load of garbage and shame on the fools who present that as some kind of case how about we make schools present both sides of each and every war including competing facts for instance they could be given texts on eugenics and the scientific case against black people and intelligence as a tool to decide on the value of slavery in civil war class after all there are two sides to the story and cant kids make up their own minds? How about whether American Indians were the victims or the aggressors against white superiors with a god given mandate none of us was there after all and books have been written by scholars about how indians were war hungry and primitive and below human and animalistic so lets teach the kids and let them decide man the teach the controversy junk riles me up its such a copout there is no controversy and hasnt been for generations except with far right fundamentalists and you guessed it fox viewers although not all of them

107) Comment by nimby? - 20/08/2012

the Fox news boogeyman again . DMJ , do you have any faith in the youth of today being able to make a decision of their own when presented both sides of an argument ? "Teaching students that good science is based on questioning existing theories helps them understand how science has progressed successfully over the centuries through the challenges of Galileo, Descartes, Newton and other founders of modern science" , anything wrong with this statement ?

108) Comment by Chucky - 20/08/2012

Bring back the Weather Lizard and teach it's ( do not know the sex) power.

109) Comment by jedleland - 20/08/2012

look man i know i said i wouldnt bother with these comment pages again and go out and actually live a life instead but this last one was too good to pass up by mr herman there. i love the observations of moses bit but here the hard part how did moses manage to describe his own death at the end of his supposed writings and even do it in the PAST TENSE? come on herman your bible thumping fuindamentalism is not better than another of the other creationist mouth breathers here everyday

110) Comment by hzcummi - 20/08/2012

If pastors, priests. rabbis, and "so called" Christians would stop their false (old Earth) and foolish (young Earth) teachings, and start promoting the truth of Genesis (Observations of Moses), then there would hardly be any room for the ridiculous teaching of evolution. Collectively, Bible believers are so "blind", that their approach to Genesis is a joke. Instead of seeking the truth, they continue to support the current lies and foolishness of Creationism. Genesis does not have any "Creation accounts". When you keep telling a person that their car is running out of gas, and they refuse to look at the fuel gauge and go to the gas station, you begin to wonder how "dumb" they are. Perhaps they are just like the Jews, who value tradition over the truth of scripture. I wrote the Governor, state house, every high school, the state board of education, every local school board that had a website, and every church with a website I could find in Louisiana. They ALL were too lazy to respond, and were not interested in teaching the truth of Genesis. So blame your present state government, your atheist school board members, and your infidel clergy for refusing to have the truth taught in Louisiana. I also wrote the Missouri state Government. Not one response. Just like hypocrite clergymen, they want to teach falsehoods, rather than the truth of Earth's history to students. Herman Cummings ephraim7@aol.com

111) Comment by chem - 20/08/2012

Religion, and by extension, creationism, was "invented" thousands of years ago by illiterate people that knew nothing about nature. They cringed at thunder, lightning, earthquakes and other natural phenomena that we don't give a second thought about these days. They came up with the concept of a god to explain all of these things. There were the Greeks, Mesopotamians, and others at the time who were educated, literate and on the cutting edge of civilization at the time. But where does "god" of the current monotheistic cults choose to announce itself -- to a bunch of backwards (even for that time) illiterate people in the desert. Now I ask you: Does that make any sense? And this superstitious nonsense is what Mr. Phillips argues for in the classroom? Amazing!!

112) Comment by DMJ - 20/08/2012

Yeah, and while we're at it....let's let students decide for themselves if the Declaration of Independance was signed in 1776 or in 1983....and if water's chemical makeup is H20 or fairy dust. You don't teach kids by offering one theory supported by evidence and the other theory supported by fairy tales and say, "You choose which reality you want to believe." Don't we already have enough of that on Fox News?

113) Comment by potkcalb - 20/08/2012

I would like to think that if the "discovery institute" was exposed for the fraud that they are that people would become educated enough to grasp the difference between science and pseudo science, but its probably wishful thinking at least for the near future. Too many do not accept that this is supposed to be the Age of Reason, not the Middle and Dark Ages.

114) Comment by nimby? - 20/08/2012

too many are missing the point of this letter . parents tend to force their values , opinions on their children , whatever they may be . in many cases the child resents this and acts in a contrary fashion . or the child draws into a shell , introverts himself , becomes a walking time bomb . raise an intelligent child , talk WITH THEM NOT AT THEM !! teach him how to think , ask questions , form their own opinion . let them know mom and dad don't know everything . engage them , ask them question , value their thought . rather liberal approach if I may say ....

115) Comment by chem - 20/08/2012

Mr. Phillips, a management consultant, certainly has a right to state his opinions, even thought he is wrong. The link he gives in his letter is another silly creationist website. The website puts up the names of Ralph Seelke, Edward Peltzer as "prominent scientists", but those two are creationists, associated with the "discovery institute", a notorious religious fundamentalist organization trying to pass off supernatural nonsense as science. For Mr. Phillips enlightenment, there are NO REAL biologists or other scientists, that dispute the theory of evolution. Religion does not belong in the classroom. If parents want to brainwash their children, possibly ruining them for life, then that's a travesty that should not be allowed to happen. Currently, there is nothing that can be done about that, but perhaps in the future, religion will be outlawed and the human race can begin to move forward. Until that time, the stupidity of teaching "creationism" should be left to the various cults and remain out of the classroom.

116) Comment by warreni - 20/08/2012

rgeraldwallace: It's obvious to everyone that you're "speaking as a layman" because anthropogenic climate change is a scam in much the same way that it's true that an old bearded white guy magicked a couple of humans into existence 4,000 years ago. As to the original letter, it's yet another "teach the controversy" pro-creationism screed, decrying how unfair it is that we won't discuss creationists' manufactured controversy in public school science classes (at least outside of Louisiana).

117) Comment by potkcalb - 20/08/2012

Correction: I should have said that private schools that receive public funds should meet the same restrictions as public schools.

118) Comment by potkcalb - 20/08/2012

Everyone in this country has freedom of religion. America is the most religious country of the industrialized nations and the most religiously diverse. Prayer and other religious activities are legal in public schools (see U.S. Department of Education guidelines). But there are some limitations on religious activities .Public schools are government agencies funded by tax payers of many different religions or of no religious persuasion. Therefore religion cannot be organized, integrated, inculcated or receive official approval or sanction of the schools any more than health departments or other government agencies.Religion is solely a personal and private matter, the province of the individual, the family, the church, the religious denomination school, the private school if so elected. That should satisfy everyone except those who are determined to infuse religion into public education. Private schools should meet the same restrictions as public schools in regard to religion.

119) Comment by Chucky - 20/08/2012

“ good science is based on questioning existing theories  “ Gravity does not exist, so go jump off a bridge and see if the theory of gravity is false or true.

120) Comment by rgeraldwallace@cox.net - 20/08/2012

Another thought: How long will it take for progressives to completely intimidate politicians, their sycophants, and their apologists to the point that they can outlaw any belief that does not support their own?

121) Comment by rgeraldwallace@cox.net - 20/08/2012

Speaking as a layman, after observing the feeding frenzy that scientists went lemming-like into over the Global Warming scam as they tried to glom onto all of the grant monies being doled out I cannot but doubt that their devotion to Darwin's theory as the ONLY possible explanation of man's development is partly due to the anachronistic herd instinct that is flourishing among them and partly to a refusal to consider anything else.

122) Comment by Being_Stupid - 20/08/2012

The ACLU, Teacher's Union, Atheist Cults, and Democrat Socialist Party Elites want total thought control over our students. They do not want to allow them the freedom of religion. Atheism is the mandatory religion dictated to all students trapped in Government Micromanaged Public School, versus the Voucher System which allows the student and parent freedom of religion and the option to attend a religious school or not. Voucher System = Free Choice. The parent & student (not the government) decides whether the student will learn about a particular religion or not. Nothing is forced upon the student in a Voucher System.

123) Comment by potkcalb - 20/08/2012

Phil should the possibility of a tooth fairy be taught in public schools? The belief of the Hopi Indians that people came from the underworld? That people are reincarnated? What next?

124) Comment by potkcalb - 20/08/2012

The theory of evolution is the only theory that's "out there" if you understand what a theory is. Did you fail to understand the scientific definition of a theory that I just posted? No one is opposed to anyone, in or out of class, stating beliefs or opinions but they have to be evidence based or founded on theory or they are not science.

125) Comment by Whatnow - 20/08/2012

Did any of you go to the website he provided in his letter? Nothing is pure fact. Anything is possible. Teaching students all the possibilities and theories out there is opening their minds to all possibilities. What you believe is just your opinion and one of those possibilities. Nothing is written in stone.

126) Comment by phil - 20/08/2012

There was an article in the Sunday Advocate entitled "What is Life?" It basically states that scientists do not even have a good definition of what life really is. So evolution theory is about the evolution of life on earth and scientists cannot even define what life is? Another article discussed cell phone use and whether it is harmful. Gee after all of these years scientists can't even figure that out. Yes there is a God and the possibility of the existence of God should be taught in school and it does not need to be specific to one religion.

127) Comment by potkcalb - 20/08/2012

This letter is abject nonsense as anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of science knows.The modern theory of evolution is supported by every branch of science unless one is referencing religious fundamentalist web sites. Scientists are always open to new ideas, and they are not opposed to theories in addition to, or in lieu of, evolution but they have to qualify as theories. In science beliefs, opinions, conjectures, surmises, convictions are not theories. In science a theory is a "well- substantiated explanation of some aspect of a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." The theory of evolution meets all of those criteria. No other current explanation meets any of them. Letting "students judge for themselves" is too absurd to warrant comment, especially given the level of ignorance reflected in the letter.

128) Comment by lovemykids - 20/08/2012

Cecil, write another letter to the Advocate with your scientific theory and the evidence to support it.

129) Comment by Spudaroonski - 20/08/2012

It's clear that Mr. Phillips doesn't understand the theory of evolution since he obviously thinks it explains how life originated. It doesn't. It explains how living organism evolve over time not how they came to exist. It's ok if people choose to have an invisible friend but their invisible sky buddy has no place in a science classroom.

130) Comment by Bighug - 20/08/2012

I would like to hear the scientific theory that refutes evolution. If living organisms are too complex to have been developed by evolution, then how did they come to exist? Is the writer hinting that the method was magic? That was the answer always arrived at when people didn't understand. There was a god of wind, a god of fire, a god of lightning, etc., when ancient people didn't have science to provide them with knowledge. My guess is that Cecil has a favorite god he thinks magically created those things too complex for evolution. Great scientific reasoning.

131) Comment by gary - 20/08/2012

I thought mythology was already offered from preK to 12, keep it out of the science classes - the kids already have the Harry Potter, Spider Man and Star Wars movies to learn about "make believe" stuff.