Blutarsky, not all viewpoints are equal. For example your Christian fantasies have not one shred of evidence while evolution (a basic scientific fact and the foundation of biology) is supported by massive evidence from many branches of science.
Also, it's not really correct to call evolution a viewpoint. Reality is not an opinion. Reality is what it is, the truth about how our world works, and no scientific fact is more true than the reality of evolution.
It's not fair to students to give childish religious ideas equal treatment in a classroom that should be teaching only science.
The teacher is incompetent and he should be fired. His students should demand he be thrown out the window because every student has a right to be taught science by a real science teacher instead of a science denier.
-- Stephen Jay Gould
Unfortunately I need Gould's famous quote too often, and even when I use it America's theocrats still don't understand.
StealthisBlog wrote "I am completely tolerant of various viewpoints ..."
Here's where we're a bit different. I'm completely NOT tolerant of various viewpoints especially when those viewpoints are extremely stupid and childish, especially when those idiotic ideas are used to brainwash children with superstitious nonsense.
Teaching magical bible creationism or magical intelligent design creationism is inappropriate everywhere because lying to students is child abuse. Anyone who teaches magic as fact has my complete contempt even if the brainwashing is in a church.
Blutarsky wrote "(and yes, it's still considered a theory)."
John Blutarsky, it's interesting that you claim you have a "molecular biology background" even though you don't know what a scientific theory is.
It's apparent to me, John Blutarsky, you're a liar. You don't have a "molecular biology background". You don't even know what science is.
THEORY: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
-- National Academy of Sciences
I don't know who Mike Toreno is but I saved this priceless comment he wrote a long time ago:
ID creationism is misrepresented by its adherents, not its critics.
The various statements of what ID creationism is are simply obfuscations of the following argument:
I don't understand the reason for X phenomenon. Therefore X phenomenon originated by magic.
For example, take the contention that the bacterial flagellum could not have originated through a step by step process. That's an obfuscation of the true argument, which is "I don't understand how the bacterial flagellum could have originated through a step by step process."
The response, of course, is:
Well, maybe you not understanding something doesn't mean it can't be understood. There are other reasons why you might not understand something. Maybe you're just stupid.
Dembski gave some talk in Oklahoma, and he got totally pwned. He talked about the bacterial flagellum, and some guy in the audience, during the question and answer session, said, I can explain how the bacterial flagellum could have originated through a step by step process, and did it. Of course, then Dembski wanted more steps. No matter how many steps you present, the ID creationist wants more. This is a slight variation of the ID creationist argument, and reads as follows:
I won't admit that X phenomenon could have originated through natural means. Therefore, X phenomenon must have originated by magic.
And the answer, of course, is: Well, maybe you're just a liar.
The idea that proponents of ID creationism have been discriminated against is based on a misconception - namely, that every idea is of equal merit. ID creationists aren't able to gain acceptance for their ideas not because of philosophical resistance, discrimination, or conspiracy, but because their ideas are stupid. I mean, when a real scientist explains phenomena that an ID creationist says is unexplainable, is the ID creationist still entitled to a respectful hearing for his claim?
ID creationism adherents believe in ID creationism because they haven't considered, or don't want to consider, the possibility that they're just retarded. Well, it's time for them to consider it.
-- Mike Toreno