>Bertvan
>You say no one knows for certain what accounts for complexity and the
>question is open. In that case what is all the controversy about?
Susan:
>It's about teaching religion in science classes. Not all religion, of
>course, just Christian mythology.
I doubt very much that the controversy boils down to this.
Bertvan:
>Atheists, and apparently some Christians, should be free to believe it
>happened without purpose, plan or design.
Susan:
>none can be detected by science even if it is there.
Which is why it is completely meaningless and vacuous to
assert science has found no evidence of purpose, plan,
or design. They don't score touchdowns in baseball, either.
Bertvan:
>Theists, and some agnostics,
>should be free to believe purpose, plan and design were involved.
Susan:
>they are--in church.
Translation: stay on the reservation and there will be no problems.
>They can't inject their religious beliefs into science
>class or suppress science (as Kansas has done) to protect religious
>mythology from challenge.
I personally think the Kansas decision was quite flawed, but the notion
that Kansas is suppressing science is (IMO) ridiculous. I am
often fascinated by the way people inflate the actions/consequences
of their perceived enemies.
Mike