[tomzz]

Science may not be a democracy but our country is and our countries schools belong to the people, and not to self-appointed science censors or authorities. The question asks only whether or not the other side in a scientific controversy should have the opportunity to be heard by our young people in the schools which those young people's parents, not the self-appointed "experts', pay for. It's astonishing that the question even needs to be asked.

[Coyoteman]

Science may not be a democracy but our country is and our countries schools belong to the people, and not to self-appointed science censors or authorities. The question asks only whether or not the other side in a scientific controversy should have the opportunity to be heard by our young people in the schools which those young people's parents, not the self-appointed "experts', pay for. It's astonishing that the question even needs to be asked.

This is not a "scientific controversy." "Teach the controversy" is a PR stunt, not anything that has to do with science.

It is a flat out lie to say there is a major "controversy" in evolutionary sciences.

Here is the contents of the latest issue of American Journal of Physical Anthropology (Volume 131, Issue 2, October 2006):

• Primate remains from African crowned eagle (Stephanoaetus coronatus) nests in Ivory Coast's Tai Forest: Implications for primate predation and early hominid taphonomy in South Africa

• Brief communication: Predatory bird damage to the Taung type-skull of Australopithecus africanus Dart 1925

• Maximum likelihood estimation of human craniometric heritabilities

• Stable isotopes and dietary adaptations in humans and animals at pre-pottery Neolithic Nevall «ori, southeast Anatolia

• Hunter-gatherer postcranial robusticity relative to patterns of mobility, climatic adaptation, and selection for tissue economy

• Treponemal disease in the middle Archaic to early Woodland periods of the western Tennessee River Valley

• Dimensions of health and social structure in the early intermediate period cemetery at Villa El Salvador, Peru

• Great apes show highly selective plasma carotenoids and have physiologically high plasma retinyl esters compared to humans

• Application of an image-based weighted measure of skeletal bending stiffness to great ape mandibles

• Life history, enamel formation, and linear enamel hypoplasia in the Ceboidea

• Sifaka positional behavior: Ontogenetic and quantitative genetic approaches

• Population origins in Mongolia: Genetic structure analysis of ancient and modern DNA

• Mitochondrial genomics identifies major haplogroups in Aboriginal Australians

• Changes in body fat distribution in relation to parity in American women: A covert form of maternal depletion

See any "controversy" here?

This "controversy" is made up of whole cloth to try to fool school boards who don't know any better. Its not in the real scientific publications, but merely on the creation "science" websites.

What a farce. And you seem to believe it!

[Virginia-American]

The question asks only whether or not the other side in a scientific controversy ...

Objection! referring to "facts" not in evidence!

[Virginia-American]

... the opportunity to be heard by our young people in the schools which those young people's parents, not the self-appointed "experts', pay for....

The experts "pay" every time their field of study is misrepresented. Either teach biology, which by necessity includes the ToE, or don't teach it at all. Don't lie about the contents of science.

Neither the school boards nor the public has the authority or the competence to decide what is and isn't science. They have the authority to demand or forbid teaching it, but that's all.