Teaching of evolution/Special rights to gays

Letter in response about subject of evolution:

Larry Christian states that the teaching of evolution is teaching of the "religion" of humanism. Some, though just a handful today, of God believers believe the earth is flat. Does teaching that the earth is round constitute the teaching of a religious view because it goes against the religious belief of some that the earth is flat? Now, very few people (including Christians) take that view but if 20% of Americans believed the earth was flat (about the same number of Americans who believe in a 6000 year old earth) would we have to teach the dual "theory" that the earth is flat along with it being round in geography classes? Or do we only teach alternatives dependent if a certain percentage of Americans hold those views? If so, then science because a popularity contest, nothing more. We would not state, if a sizable number of Americans believed the atomic theory of matter went against their religion, that it should not be taught in physics classes. In fact, most people who believe in evolution believe in God. About 1/2 of Americans believe in evolution to a certain extent but only 1/10 of Americans are without a belief in God, so 80% of evolutionary believers in fact, are religious to some extent. Do these religious Americans believe that their belief in evolution is part of their religion or part of their knowledge of science? The fact is, something should be taught in science classes when it has solid evidence behind it. Evolution meets and exceeds that test. There are not only fossils but transitional fossils such as homo habilis and homo erectus. There is the fact that fossils are only found in certain geological strata and not randomly in the geological layers. Creationism or the new buzzterm, Intelligent Design, rests on the idea that something can't be explained (because of its' complexity) without a deity. It leaves unanswered wouldn't a deity be more complex then the answers he supposedly solves and second why when the knowledge of science keeps expanding at such a great rate, we would expect that there is certain knowledge that cannot be answered without a deity? After all, we find the idea of Thor hurling lightning bolts laughable in our modern day. Lastly, a scientific theory is not a guess by the way, but a set of principles built on observations. Creationism or ID fails that test.


Gays and evolution redux

Joel. Hendon writes that the American people disagree with “granting special rights to homosexuals.” What special rights? Heterosexuals can marry the people they love, gays can’t. Laws on discrimination and hate crimes cover religion, race, sex but not sexual orientation. If homosexuality is a choice, isn’t religion and should they be covered by these laws? Finally Mr. Hendon makes a statement about “teaching an unproven theory in our schools and calling it scientific fact.” Obviously he means evolution. First a scientific theory isn’t a guess or a hunch. What is meant in the general public as a theory would be a hypothesis in science. A theory in science means a set of principles that described observed events, finds or data. Evolution is a fact and a theory. For example, if evolution wasn’t true then the fossil record would be scattered wildly in the fossil records with homo sapien bones with dinosaurs or mammoths with early reptiles. This doesn’t happen. That evolution has happened, which I would say conservatively 99% of those who make their living in this field would agree, is a fact. The exact mechanism or model of how it happened, is the part that deals with theory. Again, a scientific theory isn’t the same as a theory in the general sense. Strangely, no one ever criticizes Relativity or electro-magnetic theory because they are just “theories.”