anameutrust of Hallowell, ME goatboy has the gist but he might appreciate further clarification concerning "dis-proof."

Scientific research does not prove the null hypothesis; the best we can offer is to state the probability that an outcome results by chance.

A little Christian kindness is due Mr. Russ and a lot of empathy should be extended Messrs Luce and Linkletter.

Imagine for a moment. You are in the eighth grade. Your teacher presents The Voyage of the Beagle (Darwin's beautiful tale of adventure and the Galapogos) and your classmates begin referring to you as the "Missing Link(letter)"; or you are said to be Luce as a Goose.

Relate to this. Young adolescents are more sensitive than bloggers. For decades after such teasing, boys become men bearing the wounds of their youth.

They fight back. They say, "Evolution is only theoretical. We have the greater truth."

Let them participate. They need roles within the community. They are not leaders, of course, but they do deserve our understanding and our respect as individuals.

Given enough time, who can guess what might become of them?report abuse

abb3w of Charlottesville, VA Stephen Russ asked "Evolution is still a theory, so how can it be so said it has been scientifically proven?" To answer at length:

Science begins with a few fundamental unprovable philosophical assumptions, and then makes inferences. It assumes formal logic, such as via the Robbins' axioms; mathematics, such as established by ZF set theory; and the nature of mundane evidence for proof-- the Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis is one formalization, but the key is the potential of finite inference between Reality and Evidence.

From this, one may formally prove mathematically (Paul M. B. Vitányi and Ming Li, "Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism and Kolmogorov Complexity") a statement that in English roughly says that the shortest comprehensive explanation for all evidence is most likely to correctly describe new evidence -- Occam's Razor, more or less. Thus, the criterion of minimum induction length serves as the basis for competitive testing of candidate hypotheses against one another. Which is to say, the basis of "scientific proof".

The title of "Theory" is like a prizefighter's belt, held by the current champion. Evolution has proven itself superior to all other hypotheses suggested given the current evidence. Until there is a better candidate, or the balance of the Evidence shifts, it is a "scientifically proven theory".

ID's only present support is not from evidence, but from religion. Any student of History determined not to repeat history should understand the dangers possible in state religion.

As for Mr. Russ's assertion that "District Court Judge Jones [...] was wrong", I challenge him to detail this claim. The evidence presented at trial clearly showed the Creationist Religious origins of ID. While the phrase "Separation of Church and State" may be argued, the disestablishmentarian intent of the First Amendment may not. Intelligent Design should no more be included in science class than Glossologia in English class.report abuse

Hermann Munster of AmishLand, PA Stephen Russ - people obviously smarter than you have decided that the principle of the separation of church and state is valid. That's not just Judge Jones but numerous Appeals Court panels and several forms of SCOTUS.

Also, try not to pull a Linkeletter on your community by suggesting that an item of faith is at the same level of science as evolution. It is not. Rise above that level of intelligence if at all possible.report abuse

Seth Staples of Readfield, ME Stephen Russ - for the last time, most scientists are not opposed to the teaching of differing ideas. What they are opposed to is the teaching of non-science in a science class. Do we teach reading comprehension and long division in a biology class? No. Want to know why? THEY AREN'T SCIENCE! And neither is intelligent design. A colleague of mine (a PhD chemist and very religious person) recently summed it up like this: Science is the testing of testable hypotheses. Intelligent design is not a testable hypothesis. No experiment can be designed to prove or disprove intelligent design. That is why it does not belong side by side with evolution in a science class. Teach it in a philosophy or religion class, where it belongs. As I stated earlier in the week, if people continue to insist that intelligent design be taught in science classes, then I insist on being allowed to teach scientific evolution in Sunday School.report abuse