I don't proport that evolution is false, but I do still hold on to the belief that there is a plan and a God and - most importantly to me, and thus the crux of my faith - a life after that on earth. Does this make me an idiot?
Not unless you claim that your beliefs -- which may be true -- regarding God are "science".
Funny how the definition of theory for science is just a rewording of the definition for other contexts. There's a reason why the same word is used - it's the same thing. Get over it.
Funny how if it's the same thing, it uses a different definition. It's not the same thing. Get over it.
The difference is that in all cases (scientific or otherwise) it appears to be an "unsubstantiated guess or hunch", but in all cases (scientific or otherwise) it is still based on information that may (or may not) be available to the person calling it "unsubstantiated" - which just means it has not been proven, or shown that the evidence proves it true - corroborating it - to the point where nothing else could be possible.
There is absolutely no way to prove any scientific theory to be "true". That's why they're always called "theories" and always considered "tentative". You are, like many creationists do, playing dishonest semantic games and telling scientists that they don't really mean what they say that they mean with the word "theory". Guess what: scientists aren't dumb enough to believe that you know better than they do about what they mean.
One idea posited by Intelligent Design is that the strong and weak nuclear forces are finely balanced.
Why does ID make this claim? Why would ID be proven false if this was not the case? What would make ID impossible if this were discovered not to be true?
Another idea posed by Intelligent design is that there is a certain minimum amount of information needed to have life--things like ribosomes and transcriptase.
Why would ID be impossible if it were discovered that life can exist without this "minimum information"?
Intelligent Design posits that life changed very slowly immediately after life began, then a profusion of new life forms came into existence during the cambrian period, and life has changed very slowly since.
Why could the process of "Intelligent Design" not occur if this were found to be false?
In spite of what the Slashdotters in the United Kingdom tell us; I still think the majority of their population believes in a creator.
Belief in a creator is not the same as accepting literal 6-day creationism and it is not the same as claiming that ID is valid science and it is not the same as rejecting evolution as valid science.
Why is this modded +5 Informative, its not true and its not informative?
Noone seems to be educated on basic physical laws, such as the 2nd law which has been categorically proven to require an intelligent direction of energy
This phrase, out of all that you have written, is the best example of how abysmally ignorant you are of science.
The "2nd law" of what? I'm not aware of any scientific laws that even include the word "intelligence" or "intelligent".
Actually, it is, when ToE is referred as an alternative possibility to creationism.
But the ToE is not an "alternative possibility to creationism." The ToE is simply a scientific explanation for the emergence of diverse species from common ancestry. It's not the fault of the theory of reality happens to contradict any number of religious myths.
They do crop the earlier season SG-1 episodes, and only present the episodes since season 5 (when it moved from Showtime to SciFi) in a 16:9 aspect ratio.
But then, I don't know if the earlier seasons were intended for a 16:9 ratio. It would be odd that the DVDs are formatted that way if not, though.
I wouldn't think that would happen here, since the nature of the exploit (like most exploits) is that it causes untrusted and potentially malicious code to be executed through a flaw in the WMF format. But if it's happening through Wine, then the exploiting code is being run through Wine's API layer. I don't see how it could make Linux syscalls doing that.
Another mitigating factor is that not all Windows software works with Wine, and not all works completely with Wine. It's possible that a malicious exploit that does terrible things in Windows wouldn't work properly when running through Wine.
Ignoring the fact that most people aren't using Wine to run the Windows software that would really be succeptable to this vulnerability, how dangerous is it for Wine to be vulnerable? What kind of damage could really be done? Could it actually affect things in a user's $HOME directory? I'd think that it would only be limited to the virtual drives mapped under Wine. And it's not like anyone runs Wine with full root permissions, so even then the damage is going to be severely limited.
ID is not meant to explain how God exists. ID is not even meant to prove that God exists, contrary to what most people think. ID does not mention God, it simply says that there is intellegence inherit in the mechanic of the universe that guides the development of existence.
The problem is that ID relies upon a logical fallacy (appeal to ignorance) to "necessitate" a designer, which itself suddenly becomes exempt from the same logic (or lack thereof) that was used to wish it into place at the start.
THE #1 issue that non-evolutionists have with evolution is the fact that there is no fossile record,
You mean that they refuse to acknowledge the well-established history of the fossil record.
nor observed occurrence of a eye evolving(or other sensory organ) where there was not one.
What are you expecting to see, and what kind of timeframe are you putting on it?
Theories, hypotheses, speculation, etc.
Theories are not speculation. If you don't understand how significant "theory" is in terms of certainty within science then you are not qualified to discuss the issue.
But the proof is in the pudding. And right now, I'm not seeing any pudding.
Nothing in science is ever proven. All explanations in science are subject to change.
Yes it is biased. It's a theory that is assumed true with evidence being gathered to support it.
If there were no "evidence" to support it then it would not be called a "theory". You DO know what a "theory" is with respect to science, correct?
Scientists don't want anything but their own arrogance to be proven true.
Absolutely nothing in science is ever "proven true". You are exposing only your abysmal ignorance of how science operates.
Do you actually think they would try to find any evidence that goes against it?
A scientist who thorougly disproves the theory of evolution would be a serious contender -- likely a shoo-in -- for a Nobel prize, not to mention all sorts of assorted fame and fortune. If you honestly think that evolution is not regularly put to tests that could potentially falsify it then you are woefully ignorant of the field of biology.
But then, you are a creationist, so I should expect as much.
Your right they are single collective explanations, but those explanations only go to prove the theory and do not attempt to disprove it.
THEORIES IN SCIENCE ARE NEVER PROVEN. Yes, the theory of evolution is made up of data points that support the theory. Why are there no data points included that disprove the theory? BECAUSE NO SUCH DATA POINTS EXIST. Despite the CONSTANT lies of creationists, the theory of evolution is actually one of the better supported and understood theories in all of science. It's far better supported and understood than the theory behind what makes gravity work, but I don't see religious fanatics clamouring to have warning labels slapped onto physics textbooks and have mention made of "intelligent falling" presented in physics calssrooms.
When someone is trying to prove something the sure as heck don't include something that doesn't fit,
So what "doesn't fit" with respect to evolution? Provide specific examples. Stop whining about information being excluded unless you can actually demonstrate the existence of such information. Complaining that the theory of evolution does not address data points that do not exist is idiotic.
and the stuff that doesn't fit is molded until it does
This is a lie. Theories are shaped to fit facts. Yes, there are some scientists who have altered data to fit predetermined conclusions. When they are caught out they are highly shamed and typically lose their jobs.
There have been data points that did not fully fit the theory of evolution. The theory was modified to account for these data points. That's how ALL theories work, and evolution is no different.
or simply thrown out as unrelated.
Well what do you do with information that is completely irrelevant? The distance between Earth and Alpha Centuri has no bearing on alelle frequency change over time, natural selection or genetic drift. How should that data point be addressed by the theory of evolution?
Scientists have one arrogant goal. Prove that mankind is in control and has an answer for everything.
Bullshit. This is nothing more than a paranoid delusion. Scientists can have their own individual goals. Some work because they enjoy the job and like the money, others genuinely enjoy increasing the knowledge of the natural universe in the world. This "scientists want to prove that men are gods" is a common idiotic creationist strawman with absolutely no basis in reality. It might sound like a good talking point to use an excuse for dismissing all of science, but to someone who isn't as delusional as you are it sounds like a dishonest cop-out.
I have a brother-in-law who worked for a major scientific research laboratory near Chicago. He told me that the ultimate goal of the company was to prove the big-bang theory.
Theories in science are never proven. There is no way to "prove" the big bang theory.
He said that any research that could be used as evidence was
The same could be said about evolution, if not more so, because it's allowed to be taught in schools. Keep your biased theories to yourself.
Evolution is not "biased". (note: if you disagree, then explain the bias, do not merely assert it)
If I'm not mistaken, theories have two viewpoints with neither one being forced upon us.
You are mistaken. Theories are single collective explanations for an observed phenomenon. They are not "two viewpoints". Perhaps you should consider that your problems with evolution are with your own understanding of both it and of science in general and not an actual fault with the theory itself.
It had an entire section devoted to evolution, and nowhere did it say that it was just a theory or offer a single opposing viewpoint.
Please cite the textbook in question. Also, would you expect a physics textbook to explain that the mechanism behind gravity is "just a theory" or offerin a single opposing viewpoint, or are you singling out evolution as being deserving of special skepticism for completely nonscientific reasons?
I also wonder why my child would get tested on evolution when it's only a theory.
You say "only a theory" as if it could be anything more. Theories are the end-points of scientific inquiry. An explanation can never reach a higher level of confidence than "theory". For some reason I think that you've been told this before, yet you never explained any objections to this. I wonder why you repeat the same claims that have been exposed as false previously.
Then again, I've been told that creationists treat every discussion as tabula rasa; trotting out the same false claims and fundamental misunderstandings of both science itself and scientific terminology no matter how often they are corrected.
You really need to keep up on your reading. Perhaps I'll find the article later, but there's been some interesting data showing that Newtonian models of motion do a better job of predicting some of the planetary motion.
You mean like Mercury's orbit?
So, I assume you would rather teach something that is known by scientific evidence to be false?
What is "known by scientific evidence to be false" with respect to the theory of evolution? Be specific.
Fossil finds are not evidence of evolution, they are interpreted assuming evolution occured.
No, fossil finds were the first things that led people to start to hypothesize about common descent of diverse life from single ancestry. There were direct observations that fossils existed at layers that did not resemble any existing organisms, and that no fossils of existing organisms were found in certain layers, which led people to believe that 1) there were organisms in the past that do not resemble any organisms today and 2) that organisms today did not exist in their present-day form in the past. Common descent was the explanation used to explain this find. This was before Darwin. If you'd atually studied the issues you would understand this and not make bogus claims that an "assumption" of evolution is behind every interpretation of evidence in biology and palentology.
The physical evidence I have that God created the universe and everything in it is the Bible.
That's not physical evidence, that's a religious story. It's no more physical evidence than Greek myths are physical evidence of the Olympian pantheon.
It contains a thorough account of the beginning of time.
So do the Greek creation stories. Why should I choose your God over theirs?
The God I refer to is the only God that exists.
This is known as an "assertion". You need to substantiate it with something called "evidence".
It is the God of the Bible. The Jews have known this God for centuries.
What about Brahman? The Hindus have known that God for centuries also. Why should I believe your claims over theirs?
Now we can know this God through Jesus Christ.
And I can know Brahman through Vishnu OR Shiva. Or one of the countless other gods of the Hindu pantheon, for all Gods -- and indeed, all things -- are merely an extension of Brahman.
I exclude all other possibilities because God said 'For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse' (Romans 1:20).
So you assume the God that you accept over other Gods because of something that the God that you accept said. But you have to accept your God to accept that your God said anything in the first place. That's circular reasoning.
Do you have an argument that isn't based on a logical fallacy?
That is, the world (no, the universe) declares God's existance each and every day in everything you see. I recommend reading the many available resources that can be found at http://www.christiananswers.net/.
That's great. I can get the same level of intellectual discourse from a devout Hindu. Can you give me an argument that does not appeal to logical fallacies and actually relies upon objectively observable evidence rather than a preexinsting assumption that you are already correct?
My beef is that they teach way to much science as fact.
Yeah. I remember gravity being taught as fact. And the structure and nature of the atom, too. We need disclaimers on physics and chemistry textbooks stating that the basis behind gravity and atomics are both theories, not facts, and should be carefully considered with an open mind.
There are plenty of science topics that can be taught in public schools without including theories that go against some beliefs.
So we should censor science because observed reality happens to contradict someone's religion? Sounds like a bunch of PC bullshit to me.
Leave theoritical science topics at the college level where they belong, and allow classes that look at all possibilities.
There are no other scientific "possibilities" when discussing evolution. Thus far no one has presented an "alternative" explanation that actually passes muster as science. That's why evolution is the only thing taught, despite the ranting and whining of creationists for affirmative action style "equal time".
Actually we do not know whether or not a specific scientific theory is indeed provable until it is indeed proven.
No. Scientific theories can never be proven. Scientific theories must always be tentative; that is, they cannot be considered so firmly established that absolutely nothing can prove them wrong. Scientific theories are always subject to revision or even outright falsification, no matter how much evidence mounts in support.
Slashdot Mirror
Common elements of humans found in rocks. Have we evolved from a common ancestor?
Do rocks regularly make imperfect, self-sustaining copies of themselves?
If not, then your analogy is completely and totally inane.
Some people are just underwhelmed by the evidence, and require more than mathmaticaly imposible theories to be persuaded.
And I'm sure that you can explain how evolution is "mathematically impossible".
Playing devil's advocate here - LOL, perhaps scientists don't want to believe that they (indirectly) were created by God!
That's a good characterization of a common lie told by many creationists: everyone who accepts evolution is an atheist.
It's a completely bogus claim, yet so many creationists still repeat it because, to them, lies are far more persuasive than the simple truth.
I don't proport that evolution is false, but I do still hold on to the belief that there is a plan and a God and - most importantly to me, and thus the crux of my faith - a life after that on earth. Does this make me an idiot?
Not unless you claim that your beliefs -- which may be true -- regarding God are "science".
Funny how the definition of theory for science is just a rewording of the definition for other contexts. There's a reason why the same word is used - it's the same thing. Get over it.
Funny how if it's the same thing, it uses a different definition. It's not the same thing. Get over it.
The difference is that in all cases (scientific or otherwise) it appears to be an "unsubstantiated guess or hunch", but in all cases (scientific or otherwise) it is still based on information that may (or may not) be available to the person calling it "unsubstantiated" - which just means it has not been proven, or shown that the evidence proves it true - corroborating it - to the point where nothing else could be possible.
There is absolutely no way to prove any scientific theory to be "true". That's why they're always called "theories" and always considered "tentative". You are, like many creationists do, playing dishonest semantic games and telling scientists that they don't really mean what they say that they mean with the word "theory". Guess what: scientists aren't dumb enough to believe that you know better than they do about what they mean.
One idea posited by Intelligent Design is that the strong and weak nuclear forces are finely balanced.
Why does ID make this claim? Why would ID be proven false if this was not the case? What would make ID impossible if this were discovered not to be true?
Another idea posed by Intelligent design is that there is a certain minimum amount of information needed to have life--things like ribosomes and transcriptase.
Why would ID be impossible if it were discovered that life can exist without this "minimum information"?
Intelligent Design posits that life changed very slowly immediately after life began, then a profusion of new life forms came into existence during the cambrian period, and life has changed very slowly since.
Why could the process of "Intelligent Design" not occur if this were found to be false?
In spite of what the Slashdotters in the United Kingdom tell us; I still think the majority of their population believes in a creator.
Belief in a creator is not the same as accepting literal 6-day creationism and it is not the same as claiming that ID is valid science and it is not the same as rejecting evolution as valid science.
Why is this modded +5 Informative, its not true and its not informative?
Demonstrate that it is not true.
Noone seems to be educated on basic physical laws, such as the 2nd law which has been categorically proven to require an intelligent direction of energy
This phrase, out of all that you have written, is the best example of how abysmally ignorant you are of science.
The "2nd law" of what? I'm not aware of any scientific laws that even include the word "intelligence" or "intelligent".
Actually, it is, when ToE is referred as an alternative possibility to creationism.
But the ToE is not an "alternative possibility to creationism." The ToE is simply a scientific explanation for the emergence of diverse species from common ancestry. It's not the fault of the theory of reality happens to contradict any number of religious myths.
They do crop the earlier season SG-1 episodes, and only present the episodes since season 5 (when it moved from Showtime to SciFi) in a 16:9 aspect ratio.
But then, I don't know if the earlier seasons were intended for a 16:9 ratio. It would be odd that the DVDs are formatted that way if not, though.
I wouldn't think that would happen here, since the nature of the exploit (like most exploits) is that it causes untrusted and potentially malicious code to be executed through a flaw in the WMF format. But if it's happening through Wine, then the exploiting code is being run through Wine's API layer. I don't see how it could make Linux syscalls doing that.
Another mitigating factor is that not all Windows software works with Wine, and not all works completely with Wine. It's possible that a malicious exploit that does terrible things in Windows wouldn't work properly when running through Wine.
Ignoring the fact that most people aren't using Wine to run the Windows software that would really be succeptable to this vulnerability, how dangerous is it for Wine to be vulnerable? What kind of damage could really be done? Could it actually affect things in a user's $HOME directory? I'd think that it would only be limited to the virtual drives mapped under Wine. And it's not like anyone runs Wine with full root permissions, so even then the damage is going to be severely limited.
Hopefully, this will be enough for the school to realize its uber-stupid mistake and for that case to be thrown out.
More likely this will be used as "proof" of the extent and seriousness of the damage done when they argue for a harsh sentence.
And the theory that the earth was flat was taught as fact.
"The earth is flat" (and, in fact, "the earth is round") is not an explanation, it is a statement of fact (whether true or false). It is not a theory.
Observed reality? You were there to witness evolution? LOL!
Evolution has been observed. Laughing about it doesn't change that.
Precisely. In otherwords there is an inherit intellegence that guides things
Non-sequitur. From where did you derive this "inherent intelligence"?
ID is not meant to explain how God exists. ID is not even meant to prove that God exists, contrary to what most people think. ID does not mention God, it simply says that there is intellegence inherit in the mechanic of the universe that guides the development of existence.
The problem is that ID relies upon a logical fallacy (appeal to ignorance) to "necessitate" a designer, which itself suddenly becomes exempt from the same logic (or lack thereof) that was used to wish it into place at the start.
Forcing christian students to learn evolution, which is a theory and not fact, prohibits the free exercise of their religion.
How? And why do you emphasize "theory and not fact" as though that is somehow significant? All explanations in science are "theory".
THE #1 issue that non-evolutionists have with evolution is the fact that there is no fossile record,
You mean that they refuse to acknowledge the well-established history of the fossil record.
nor observed occurrence of a eye evolving(or other sensory organ) where there was not one.
What are you expecting to see, and what kind of timeframe are you putting on it?
Theories, hypotheses, speculation, etc.
Theories are not speculation. If you don't understand how significant "theory" is in terms of certainty within science then you are not qualified to discuss the issue.
But the proof is in the pudding. And right now, I'm not seeing any pudding.
Nothing in science is ever proven. All explanations in science are subject to change.
Yes it is biased. It's a theory that is assumed true with evidence being gathered to support it.
If there were no "evidence" to support it then it would not be called a "theory". You DO know what a "theory" is with respect to science, correct?
Scientists don't want anything but their own arrogance to be proven true.
Absolutely nothing in science is ever "proven true". You are exposing only your abysmal ignorance of how science operates.
Do you actually think they would try to find any evidence that goes against it?
A scientist who thorougly disproves the theory of evolution would be a serious contender -- likely a shoo-in -- for a Nobel prize, not to mention all sorts of assorted fame and fortune. If you honestly think that evolution is not regularly put to tests that could potentially falsify it then you are woefully ignorant of the field of biology.
But then, you are a creationist, so I should expect as much.
Your right they are single collective explanations, but those explanations only go to prove the theory and do not attempt to disprove it.
THEORIES IN SCIENCE ARE NEVER PROVEN. Yes, the theory of evolution is made up of data points that support the theory. Why are there no data points included that disprove the theory? BECAUSE NO SUCH DATA POINTS EXIST. Despite the CONSTANT lies of creationists, the theory of evolution is actually one of the better supported and understood theories in all of science. It's far better supported and understood than the theory behind what makes gravity work, but I don't see religious fanatics clamouring to have warning labels slapped onto physics textbooks and have mention made of "intelligent falling" presented in physics calssrooms.
When someone is trying to prove something the sure as heck don't include something that doesn't fit,
So what "doesn't fit" with respect to evolution? Provide specific examples. Stop whining about information being excluded unless you can actually demonstrate the existence of such information. Complaining that the theory of evolution does not address data points that do not exist is idiotic.
and the stuff that doesn't fit is molded until it does
This is a lie. Theories are shaped to fit facts. Yes, there are some scientists who have altered data to fit predetermined conclusions. When they are caught out they are highly shamed and typically lose their jobs.
There have been data points that did not fully fit the theory of evolution. The theory was modified to account for these data points. That's how ALL theories work, and evolution is no different.
or simply thrown out as unrelated.
Well what do you do with information that is completely irrelevant? The distance between Earth and Alpha Centuri has no bearing on alelle frequency change over time, natural selection or genetic drift. How should that data point be addressed by the theory of evolution?
Scientists have one arrogant goal. Prove that mankind is in control and has an answer for everything.
Bullshit. This is nothing more than a paranoid delusion. Scientists can have their own individual goals. Some work because they enjoy the job and like the money, others genuinely enjoy increasing the knowledge of the natural universe in the world. This "scientists want to prove that men are gods" is a common idiotic creationist strawman with absolutely no basis in reality. It might sound like a good talking point to use an excuse for dismissing all of science, but to someone who isn't as delusional as you are it sounds like a dishonest cop-out.
I have a brother-in-law who worked for a major scientific research laboratory near Chicago. He told me that the ultimate goal of the company was to prove the big-bang theory.
Theories in science are never proven. There is no way to "prove" the big bang theory.
He said that any research that could be used as evidence was
The same could be said about evolution, if not more so, because it's allowed to be taught in schools. Keep your biased theories to yourself.
Evolution is not "biased". (note: if you disagree, then explain the bias, do not merely assert it)
If I'm not mistaken, theories have two viewpoints with neither one being forced upon us.
You are mistaken. Theories are single collective explanations for an observed phenomenon. They are not "two viewpoints". Perhaps you should consider that your problems with evolution are with your own understanding of both it and of science in general and not an actual fault with the theory itself.
It had an entire section devoted to evolution, and nowhere did it say that it was just a theory or offer a single opposing viewpoint.
Please cite the textbook in question. Also, would you expect a physics textbook to explain that the mechanism behind gravity is "just a theory" or offerin a single opposing viewpoint, or are you singling out evolution as being deserving of special skepticism for completely nonscientific reasons?
I also wonder why my child would get tested on evolution when it's only a theory.
You say "only a theory" as if it could be anything more. Theories are the end-points of scientific inquiry. An explanation can never reach a higher level of confidence than "theory". For some reason I think that you've been told this before, yet you never explained any objections to this. I wonder why you repeat the same claims that have been exposed as false previously.
Then again, I've been told that creationists treat every discussion as tabula rasa; trotting out the same false claims and fundamental misunderstandings of both science itself and scientific terminology no matter how often they are corrected.
You really need to keep up on your reading. Perhaps I'll find the article later, but there's been some interesting data showing that Newtonian models of motion do a better job of predicting some of the planetary motion.
You mean like Mercury's orbit?
So, I assume you would rather teach something that is known by scientific evidence to be false?
What is "known by scientific evidence to be false" with respect to the theory of evolution? Be specific.
The universe however is still a closed system.
And I never said otherwise.
Fossil finds are not evidence of evolution, they are interpreted assuming evolution occured.
No, fossil finds were the first things that led people to start to hypothesize about common descent of diverse life from single ancestry. There were direct observations that fossils existed at layers that did not resemble any existing organisms, and that no fossils of existing organisms were found in certain layers, which led people to believe that 1) there were organisms in the past that do not resemble any organisms today and 2) that organisms today did not exist in their present-day form in the past. Common descent was the explanation used to explain this find. This was before Darwin. If you'd atually studied the issues you would understand this and not make bogus claims that an "assumption" of evolution is behind every interpretation of evidence in biology and palentology.
The physical evidence I have that God created the universe and everything in it is the Bible.
That's not physical evidence, that's a religious story. It's no more physical evidence than Greek myths are physical evidence of the Olympian pantheon.
It contains a thorough account of the beginning of time.
So do the Greek creation stories. Why should I choose your God over theirs?
The God I refer to is the only God that exists.
This is known as an "assertion". You need to substantiate it with something called "evidence".
It is the God of the Bible. The Jews have known this God for centuries.
What about Brahman? The Hindus have known that God for centuries also. Why should I believe your claims over theirs?
Now we can know this God through Jesus Christ.
And I can know Brahman through Vishnu OR Shiva. Or one of the countless other gods of the Hindu pantheon, for all Gods -- and indeed, all things -- are merely an extension of Brahman.
I exclude all other possibilities because God said 'For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse' (Romans 1:20).
So you assume the God that you accept over other Gods because of something that the God that you accept said. But you have to accept your God to accept that your God said anything in the first place. That's circular reasoning.
Do you have an argument that isn't based on a logical fallacy?
That is, the world (no, the universe) declares God's existance each and every day in everything you see. I recommend reading the many available resources that can be found at http://www.christiananswers.net/.
That's great. I can get the same level of intellectual discourse from a devout Hindu. Can you give me an argument that does not appeal to logical fallacies and actually relies upon objectively observable evidence rather than a preexinsting assumption that you are already correct?
My beef is that they teach way to much science as fact.
Yeah. I remember gravity being taught as fact. And the structure and nature of the atom, too. We need disclaimers on physics and chemistry textbooks stating that the basis behind gravity and atomics are both theories, not facts, and should be carefully considered with an open mind.
There are plenty of science topics that can be taught in public schools without including theories that go against some beliefs.
So we should censor science because observed reality happens to contradict someone's religion? Sounds like a bunch of PC bullshit to me.
Leave theoritical science topics at the college level where they belong, and allow classes that look at all possibilities.
There are no other scientific "possibilities" when discussing evolution. Thus far no one has presented an "alternative" explanation that actually passes muster as science. That's why evolution is the only thing taught, despite the ranting and whining of creationists for affirmative action style "equal time".
Actually we do not know whether or not a specific scientific theory is indeed provable until it is indeed proven.
No. Scientific theories can never be proven. Scientific theories must always be tentative; that is, they cannot be considered so firmly established that absolutely nothing can prove them wrong. Scientific theories are always subject to revision or even outright falsification, no matter how much evidence mounts in support.