So you've decided you don't like evolution based on what you heard about it from people who know as little about it as you do. Great. Just great.
***Oh, good one. Ridicule. You must be a true holy warrior. Take comfort. I decided I don't like evolution based upon several things, and yes, one of them was from how I heard about it and the fact that they were abusing their authority when they proceeded with it. It is a case of haps folks not policing their own. But some of it was on the basis of reading both sides of the controversy, which I enjoy doing. Some of it was by wearing it as a philosophy (I used to be an evolutionist) and finding that there really was very little that kept me from becoming a lawless individual if I wanted to carry it forward. Some of it is with experience. Some of it is with instinct. Some of it is still undecided. If mainstream science can't convince the president that teaching this stuff side by side is a bad idea, I doubt your ridicule and scorn would be the straw that breaks the camel's back. So why don't we discuss this social policy issue on its merits?
Evolution is "social policy"? Wow. You're mixed up.
"But some of it was on the basis of reading both sides of the controversy, which I enjoy doing. Some of it was by wearing it as a philosophy (I used to be an evolutionist) and finding that there really was very little that kept me from becoming a lawless individual if I wanted to carry it forward."
Then you never had an understanding of what evolutionary theory is or what it's limits are.
"Some of it is with experience. Some of it is with instinct. Some of it is still undecided."
Was any of it a substantive dispute with what the theory says?
"If mainstream science can't convince the president that teaching this stuff side by side is a bad idea, I doubt your ridicule and scorn would be the straw that breaks the camel's back."
The president is not the arbiter of what is correct in science.
I you have studied evolution and used to be an evolutionist, then you could, no doubt, present a good summary of the best case to be made for evolution. You do that and post it, and I'll do the same for ID. We'll see who has the best understanding of the other's position.
Well-earned ridicule. You think whining about it will cause us to spare you?
Some of it was by wearing it as a philosophy (I used to be an evolutionist) and finding that there really was very little that kept me from becoming a lawless individual if I wanted to carry it forward.
Well, there's your problem. You thought it was a 'philosophy', when in fact evolution is a scientific theory. If you were looking for a philosophy, why didn't you take up Feng Shui?
If mainstream science can't convince the president that teaching this stuff side by side is a bad idea, I doubt your ridicule and scorn would be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
If his advisors can't convince the President we need a viable immigration policy or a curb on federal spending, I doubt they'll have any more luck with biology. At least Bush has the sense to employ a science advisor who does know the difference between science and ID.
So why don't we discuss this social policy issue on its merits?
Evolution isn't a social policy any more than it's a philosophy. Why don't we discuss it as a scientific theory?