Science in Public Schools

It would be easier to answer your question if you could provide some examples of the evidences you mean.--Percy

Hi Jbthree,In your opening post you said: I asked for some examples of this evidence, and your response contained only arguments against evolution. I have much the same response as NosyNed: Where is the evidence for creation, global flood, young earth, etc.?I also agree with NosyNed that the [forum=-4] forum isn't the proper place for a discussion of these topics, but I was only looking for examples of the kind of evidence you were thinking of.The short answer to your question is that of course evidence for these things should be admissible in public school science classrooms, as long as that evidence is scientific. But science classes present the current concensus views of science, and the ideas you suggested are broadly rejected by the scientific community. Those ideas belong to a conservative branch of Christianity, not to science.The way for these ideas to gain representation in science classes is for Creationists to take them to the halls of science and persuade scientists. Once these ideas become the prevailing views within science, then they will quickly become represented in science classes.--Percy

I already said this in Message 9, but since you didn't reply I raise the same question again.In your opening post you said: But you haven't offered any examples of evidence for these things, only the opinion that some issues in evolution represent "problems".As I said before, public school science classrooms are for teaching prevailing views within science. It is not a prevailing view within science that the Cambrian explosion is a problem for evolution, which is the opinion you would like taught. The only way for that to happen is for Creationists to take their views to the halls of science and persuade scientists so that these become the prevailing views within science. Right now they are only the prevailing views within a conservative Christian sect.The mystery of the Cambrian explosion is how it happened that all the major animal phyla emerged in such a short span of time. That we have no firm answers as yet has not caused scientists to question evolution. Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are both views within evolution. Abandoning one for the other does not call evolution into question, and Gould's punctuated equilibrium is actually just an application to the science of paleontology of an idea already current within evolution. That evolutionary change can be episodic was already known before Gould came on the scene to find applications to the fossil record.Your quotes are intended to make it seem as if science sees the Cambrian explosion as a great challenge to the validity of evolutionary theory, and you would be conveying a false impression in public school science classrooms were you to use them in the way you would like. But I see no problem using these quotes as long as they're used to convey what the scientific community thinks, rather than what the evangelical community thinks.The misleading nature of quotes drawn out of context is why quote mining is not endorsed here at EvC Forum.--Percy