yet another article...

...on the subject of teaching evolution. Here's a quote from a wing-nut:

"'Our goal is to not remove evolution. Good lord, it's incredible how much this is misunderstood,' said William Harris, a professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City medical school. 'Kids need to understand it, but they need to know the strengths and weaknesses of the data, how much of it is a guess, how much of it is extrapolation.'"

Therefore, we should insert a wholly unscientific counter-explanation as to what went on at the beginning of time. Next, kids need to understand that there might be an infinite supply of crude oil because dinosaurs [the paleoecosystem] weren't around long enough; they also need to understand that the intelligent designer has provided us with a planet that will never be affected by any actions of the designer's creations...etc., etc.: so, we should probably turn science on its head entirely and start from scratch?

Scientifically speaking, there are very few fundamental weaknesses in the theory of evolution: it takes what can be measured and provides a theory of how things came to be. On the other hand, I'm cool with allowing these academic discussions to go on in our schools, just don't teach this stuff in science class: intelligent design simply is and never will be "science" until there is clear evidence that there is an intelligent designer.