Back to article
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
No. How does giving money to a creationist organization "...develop a plan to promote better science education"?
Perhaps once Creationism is backed by mountains of empirical evidence, establishes hypotheses, or even maintains any kind of peer reviewed model of the early earth that is even remotely feasible, as well as completely refutes evolutionary theory, maybe it could be taught in schools.
Evolution is observed, makes meaningful predictions, has mountains of evidence supporting it, and has a peer reviewed model that has developed and withstood scrutiny for about 150 years. That's why it's taught in schools, and creationism is not. "teach both sides of the controversey"? There is no controversey in the scientific community. Hard evidence does that to conflict.
No, empirical means observable. Unless you can give eyewitness testimony of the creation of all things, you cannot empirically say evolution was involved in creation. Now, this is not to say that species do not evolve in traits over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)