Texas State Board of Education votes to drop “strengths and weaknesses” language from evolution curriculum

AnnMarie Wilson, says:

And we actually wonder why we're lagging in the science fields/community.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I really have no desire to go back to the dark ages of superstition, church sanctioned only views, bigotry, close-mindedness, and repression.

If you want to believe a church held view - that's fine; learn about it in church.

Please leave science alone. Science belongs in our schools - cold, hard facts.

Travis Bush, says:

"Actually, the more that is learned about any branch of science gives even more credence to an intelligent designer."

Really glad you decided to retire...

alexander troup, says:

PLANET OF THE APES......and Heaston is dead...Darwin is D.N.A and Adam wants his rib back before the next Republican Party., A/T, Cave man on the loose.

Pavel Lishin, says:

<i>"I am saddened by those viewpoints that say that the possibility of a Creator (intelligent design) cannot coexist with “science.”"</i>

I am saddened that "magical invisible friend" CAN coexist on an equal footing with science in people's minds. "Well, the Bible says so" isn't science, shouldn't be science, will never be science.

<i>"Man has never come close to creating even a single living cell. "</i>

What about http://thecurrentaffairs.com/index.ph... and http://www.newscientist.com/article/d... ?

<i>"Of course you’ve heard the analogy that living cells assembling after the “big bang” have less of a chance happening than a tornado hitting a junkyard and the pieces falling into an assembled 747."</i>

That analogy is nearly always used by Creationists, and it is an incorrect analogy of the formation of life.

<i>"Another weakness of evolution that cannot be overlooked is that a species can’t evolve into another species. This is simply a scientific fact."</i>

[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources">citation needed</a>]

<i>"If it could, we would have all classifications of life in varying stages of evolution crossing over and there would be evidence of this. Fossils would attest to this."</i>

Fossilization is a tricky thing. A dead critter has to be in the right place at the right time. If you drop a dead bird on the ground, it probably won't become a fossil - a coyote would come along and drag it away, ants would disassemble the corpse, and rain and wind would scatter what remained. You might as well claim that you can tell me everyone who's ever been in my apartment simply by looking at the footprints left on the carpet.

<i>"Darwin was an intelligent man, but he had almost no training in the biological or physical sciences."</i>

Are you talking about Darwinism of evolution? People have moved on since Darwin's day; new discoveries have been created. Just because the founder of a branch of science was wrong about some things doesn't make the whole field invalid. Freud's being wrong about certain factors of human psychology doesn't invalidate the entire field. Rutherford's model of an atom was wrong, but it doesn't invalidate all of Physics.