Reading the comments there was deja vu all over again.

Yeah, it was. But I'm surprised that the proponents of evolution weren't outnumbered like they usually are.

Where's dmead? I thought you were going to come on in and help us with the evolution discussion? Come on man!

i'm here but, I've been sort of busy lately so i haven't scoured the intraweb for evolution related stories.

Evolution was front and center in the USA Today.

This book was reviewed. Looks like it would be an interesting read.

'Well-Dressed Ape': Humorous look into evolutionary mirror - USATODAY.com

As well as this story about a 300 million year old fossilized fish brain.

Oldest fossilized brain found in fish from Midwest - USATODAY.com

Evolution and the Catholic church.

An excerpt:

The Vatican under Pope Benedict XVI has been, for the most part, in favor of a compromised view that faith and science can coexist. In 2007, the pope said that the debate between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity.” He said that “there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such,” MSNBC reported at the time.

Religious Leaders Debate: Can Evolution and God Coexist?

I think it's clear that the Catholic church, the largest denomination of christians in the world, has no problem with the Theory of Evolution.

Vatican says Evolution does not prove the non-existence of God -Times Online

The Vatican has rejected the claim by Richard Dawkins, the biologist and campaigning atheist, that evolutionary theory proves that God does not exist, proclaiming that on the contrary Darwinian evolution and the account of Creation in Genesis are "perfectly compatible".

At a five day conference held to mark the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species this week, Vatican theologians said while Christians believed that God "created all things", the Vatican "does not stand in the way of scientific realities".

Vatican officials joined biologists, paleontologists, molecular geneticists and philosophers for the conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University, which ends tomorrow. Rafael Martinez, professor of the Philosophy of Science at the Santa Croce Pontifical University in Rome, said although the reaction of Catholic theologians, intellectuals and priests to Darwinian theory had been "generally negative" in the 19th century, "recent declarations by Popes have asserted the full accordance of Catholic doctrine and evolutionary biology".

So now the not so bright lawmakers in Oklahoma want to inhibit free speech at public universities. I think President Boren had the right answers. What do you make of this?

Tulsa World: State lawmaker files evolution resolutions

Is anyone else flummoxed that so many people on both sides of this issue put so much time and energy into it... given that so many American kids can't read, write or do basic math? Who cares what someone believes about evolution if he can't go out and get a job??? And that's not counting the young people who leave home without being able to cook a meal, do their own laundry, balance a checkbook, use birth control effectively or attend to their own personal hygiene.

Basic life skills first. Pipe smoke debates after.

I would offer that this is hardly a 'pipe smoke debate'. I've highlighted a sentence above. I would add to that sentence 'or understand basic science'. Evolution is the underlying basis for understanding all life sciences. So yes, I think it's important. Why minimize it by comparing it to normal everyday processes?

America falls behind in math and science every year, thats not my idea of a pipe smoke debate. Not sure where the jobs things comes into play since even the best education doesn't guarantee a job in this economy.

This is a little off topic, but on the subject of science. I good friend of mine has been suffering from cardiomyopathy for years and has had many close to death experiences in the last 6 years. He's been on the waiting list for a new heart since then. They found a match for him this past Thursday. On Thursday night into Friday morning he has a successful heart transplant. He is doing very well right now and is in good spirits.

It is just amazing that we are able to do these kinds of things, and without science and technology, we would not be able to. As mriff stated, science needs to be included in the above statement.

I disagree completely. I'd definitely call evolution v/s creationism a pipe smoke debate. How, specifically, we got here is interesting conversation material, but is otherwise largely immaterial. We're here. What we choose to do next is the important bit.

How specfically we got here is far more than just interesting material. It may be 'just interesting' to you or any other lay person, but as I said, it is the basis for understanding life sciences. People who work in life sciences use this understanding in every experiment they do. Evolutionary principles are so important to many branches of science. Interestingly, the other topic of debate, stem cells, has at it's very core the evolution of DNA. How basic is that? So it is not immaterial.

In the macro sense, my point is this:

If I were in a position to allocate time, energy and resources, I would choose for our president, our teachers, and our parents to spend more time making sure kids are up to speed on those "normal everyday processes" when they graduate, and less time debating evolution, religion, philosophy, the benefits of teaching multiple languages at once, whether juice is just as bad as soda, and other topics that are nice to debate but not vital unless (as you said) one is a specialist.

I truly see the amount of energy spent by both sides on this issue as fiddling while Rome is burning, given the general educational crisis in our country. I'd rather our elected officials and public schoolteachers spend my tax dollars (read: their paid time) focusing on more pressing concerns.

Yes dropping science, other languages, philosophy and history is a great way to improve the "educational crisis".(n)

who needs those things in the modern world.

Well said.

I don't know if you all have been keeping up with what's happening in TX, but it could very significantly effect science education throughout the US. Due simply to the size of the Texas school system.

Don McElroy is an avowed creationist. Here is an interesting story on his crusades.

Education board leader set to challenge evolution

Here's an excerpt from the story:

McLeroy — an avid reader of philosophers and theologians, including Christian theologian Norman Geisler and Dutch reformist Abraham Kuyper — said that in his Sunday school lessons, he seeks to give his students the tools they need to form their own arguments. In Texas public school classrooms, McLeroy says, he doesn't want religion taught. He just wants to let science be science. "If you want to tell (students) there are not weaknesses to evolution and it's as sure as the Earth going around the sun, it's not," he said. "You've got to be honest. You ask why I'm so passionate about this? I don't want America to lose its scientific soul. I feel I am the defender of science."

My irony meter just exploded through the glass. :?

Another snippet:

One by one, he said, his questions were answered by pastors and in Bible studies. The conversion took four months. Over the next year, he began taking seminars on creationism and biblical principles. He is now a young earth creationist, meaning that he believes God created Earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago.

So we have a Young Earth Creationist as the Chairman of the State Board of Education and who has his hands on the wheel of the science curriculum. Very scary stuff.

Higher and Lower Criticism vs. Evolution
 

Perhaps Higher and Lower Criticism of the Bible should be taught in Texas public schools as well as we all want equel time don't we. For those of you who do not know what I am talking about look up higher criticism on Wiki. The publication of a book in the 1850s in England discussing this caused far more outrage and public debate than the publication of Darwins book on Evolution. Higher Criticism was blamed on everything that was wrong in the late 19th century by certain learned scholars.

Did you know that there are more differences in surviving "original" language manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament? Something to ponder. Did you know that there are three separate versions of the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament? I am partial to the one in Deuteronomy.

I never said those subjects didn't matter or that they should be dropped.

You guys wonder why more people with differing opinions don't post. Well, this would be why. Who wants their remarks taken out of context and twisted?