What follows is opinion, and what follows that is opinionated. These are less arguments than just statements which I hold to be true.

-----------

This isn't the real issue, but it's the one that gets the most political rhetoric. Should creation/evolution be taught in public schools? Being conservative, I would leave the issue to state and community decision, as I feel they are more finely aware of the needs of their own students. So, in my opinion, my opinion should count. ;) Still, the controversy is somewhat muddled.

Public schools must teach science, and must not teach doctrine. Science mandates the observance of two key ideals: empiricism and naturalism. Anything lacking either of these is not science. Though the evidence persuades me to be a young-Earth creationist, I do not support teaching creationism in class. It is not science, because it is not natural, though it is empirical. Also, nearly all forms of creationism are peculiar to Protestant Christianity. Though the First Amendment merely prohibits the government from restricting religion and does not give it the right to ban such from schooling, I agree that teachers should not endorse one religion actively. Evolution, on the other hand, has the ability to fit the definition of science. The problem is, it is rarely taught that way. All the biology texts I have seen simply assume evolution is true and proceed from there. No evidence, circumstantial evidence, or "evidence" such as embryology that no respectable evolutionist would use are the norm. This is silly. Plus, it removes the support of empiricism from the theory, which makes it unsuitable for teaching. There is empirical evidence for evolution, and if it were used, I would have no objections to the subject in school. I am peeved when it is taught as dogma.

Incidentally, I read today that the AAAS (some association of sciences, I guess) studied all the most popular biology books and gave them failing grades. Evolution was one of the four aspects under consideration.

-------------------

Now for more of a rant. I'll try to keep it short and sweet.

Stephen Jay Gould and Phillip Johnson stand out as two of the best apologeticians in the arena. I'm currently reading a book by the latter, entitled "Darwin on Trial." Johnson spends no effort defending any part of creationism. In the book, he looks only at evolution, examining it as a lawyer. His treatment of the subject is the most professional that I've seen yet.

My main irritation with the theory of evolution is the general attitude of the scientists. Any attempt to challenge the theory is dismissed as poppycock, not even worth listening to. The vast majority of fossil studies show no change, which is interpreted as "no results," rather than evidence to be dealt with. Fossil experts demand saltations as a mechanism, since change is not exhibited; genetic experts demand gradualism as the way to go, since saltations aren't possible. There isn't even any empirical evidence that micromutations add up to macromutations. The flaw is that most evolutionary scientists are asking the wrong question. To them, it's not whether evolution occurred, it's how evolution occurred. All science must be open to the possibility of disproof; evolutionary scientists don't allow such.

It's not a new phenomenon. Darwin was heavily opposed by the scientific establishment of his day. Galileo's contemporary scientists couldn't get rid of him, so they accused him of heresy and sicked the Church on him. Some of Da Vinci's structures were not built until recently because the "experts" claimed they would never stand. Scientists used to be sure that rockets could not travel in space. They once knew that light emanated from the eye. That whites were superior. That tadpoles came from mud. That photosynthesis should destroy the plant. That nothing could go faster than the speed of light.

gab"And so on and so forth"by