Would the Brown's suggest opening up Geology to those who say the earth is flat? Or Astronomy to those who say the Sun revolves around the Earth? How about those who say the earth is hollow, or that man has never orbited the earth or set foot on the moon, or that Pi is actually 3.0 and not 3.14? If they're standing for academic freedom rather than science then shouldn't they be supporting those theories in the classroom as well?
in the same terms as Provine? Wrong country to do that, as it was founded on a precept of Providence.
Your post truly is a Non-Sequitur, as all of those theories have been proven false. There is no absolute scientific proof that evolution occurs. So the debate must go on in order to be true to the scientific process.
“opening up Geology to those who say the earth is flat? Or Astronomy to those who say the Sun revolves around the Earth? How about those who say the earth is hollow, or that man has never orbited the earth or set foot on the moon, or that Pi is actually 3.0 and not 3.14?”
more to the point, how about opening up Darwinism to Lamarck?
What do the evolutionists say—to those who would like to be certain that their belief in evolution is based on firm science—about the lack of fossil evidence for transitional forms?
Is the theory of Evolution falsifiable?
I’m sick of these moronic discussions. People have some nerve. The argument always boils down to:
“The very people who demand undeniable proof from “evolutionists” when faced with a variety of evidence supporting the theory but do not hold themselves to the same standard. Matter of fact, they think their argument is the strongest even though there is zero science to support it.
It must be nice to engage in an argument where your opponent is the only one bound by any burden of proof.
“Academic Freedom” is nothing more that people on the losing side of a debate running to Uncle Sugar and calling foul, like good liberals.
Yes. And then the class would discuss these theories and find them to be false. That's called "critical thinking," my friend.
Now I'll go in the corner and shut up, as you'd like.
Every single one of your examples can be shown as nonsense by repeatable experimentation in the here and now. Evolution, as a theory of what happened in the (very) distant past, cannot be directly tested by repeatable contemporary experimentation, in the good old here and now.
As a theory of history...not at all subject to direct observation and experimentation, (and by it's own hypothesis actually pre-historic...) Darwinism is unique in science, in that so many scientists hold to it as firmly as gravity, and yet unlike gravity, and practically everything else in science (since it is claimed evolution happened over hundreds of millions of years), no one can directly test it.
It's no wonder that the most ardent evolutionary scientists are atheists, and, virtually all atheists are evolutionists. All religious beliefs have a philosophy of history, and Darwinism is no exception.