[A. Pole]

The evidence for Darwinian evolution is so provoking, and the evidential support for ID so weak, that liberals have decided that the only way to protect Darwin's theory is to legislate it into law.

I see serious consequences for such laws. Darwin theory does not include genetics (as it was developed in XIX century), it does not includes DNA paradigm (that organism develops from the DNA) etc ...

Congress would have to worked out definitive synthesis of these three and other principles. It would freeze the improvements and updating the school materials and will force schools to teach false things (DNA paradigm is useful but obviously false).

The science as opposed to religion does not aim to formulate eternal truths. Elevating scientific knowledge or assumptions to the rank of legal dogma will damage science.

We see twin attack on science - from free market side when science is corrupted by the profit motive, and from Political Correctness side where science is to serve the eradication of moral rules and establishing Soviet style atheism as state anti-church.

[wintertime]

when science is corrupted by the profit motive,

A. Pole,

OOOhh! That eeeeevil "profit-motive"! ( sarcasm)

You are kidding aren't you?

Not to get off topic, but it is the "profit-motive" that has driven most of science forward and given us the good life that we enjoy.

I'll think of you as I down my Fosomax, levothyroxine, and Premarin, and dress in entirely petroleum based clothing this morning.

[ex-snook]

Thanks for ping.
ID is not biology. It is like blind men feeling an elephant [existence]. Evolutionists only touch life. ID is a more general theory of existence of animal, vegetable and mineral in the universe. It is much more than biology science and can't be taught in such a self-limited sphere.