Yay for Kansas!

[JenBKR]

Molecules? Atoms? Quarks? If I can't see them with my own eyes, then I'm not going to believe them.

Hmm, that's kinda what I say to people who don't believe in God...

[lbaker]

I posted something a few weeks ago about the theory of "Intelligent Falling" that disputed the "theory" of gravity. "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down." I believe this too was being debated in Kansas.

[tatsxxx11]

Connie, dear friend, you're doing a great job keeping this civil and on track...not easy to do as this is a very passionate subject for debate And I'm not taking sides here when I say the following, just trying once again to clarify the definition of the term theory

Your comment about evolution, that "it's just a theory." Please go back and read what I posted yesterday, I worked hard on that People continue to repeatedly misuse the term, believing, and leading others to believe, that a "theory" is something yet to be proven. That is not the case!

Everyone in science class is taught what a theory is...a theory is just one EXPLAINATION of something that is fact. It does not mean that "it," the fact, lacks credibility or is invalid. You can still believe in Creationism, Intelligent Design and not use that argument..."It's just a theory." Not even taking sides on this issue!!! Just drives me nuts that the term theory has come to be so misused or misunderstood and used as weapon in their thesis', by those on both sides of the issue.

For argument's sake here, let's assume that man "evolved," that evolution is the fact... Now, the means by which man evolved is the "theory!" The apple will fall when dropped; a fact. The common THEORY is that it falls via gravity. But be it by gravity (one theory) or by some other means, explained by some other theory, fall it will!

And Lady's Human...the last time I was in comparative religion class, philosophy, we weren't discussing alleles, DNA, genetic drift, isoenzymes, morphology, radiometric dating, etc. Hard science belongs in the science cirriculum, not in the humanities. When and if the Intelligent Design theory of creationism includes hard, imperical scientific data, (I don't know if does or does not) then it too belongs in the science lab. Regardless, all benefit when both sides of the debate are freely discussed in a forum of some sort...like this