I'm not sure if I'm for creation to be taught in science Linda.....because I always think that if you teach solid science as is, then students can consider theories on their own without having a teacher upfront telling them what to believe, rather than letting them come to their own conclusions based on the evidence given. It then allows students to use their minds and consider where the evidence may take them. If one student feels that it leads to ultimate design, fine. If the other does not? Fine. See two people can interpret the "evidence" very differently from eachother and even evolutionists can argue on aspects of evolution, it is not an open or shut case.

Otherwise I believe it is a dishonest form of indoctrination. As I've mentioned before, I know a guy who teaches science and he said to me, frankly I don't push evolution my class, I put across the evidence, the stuff we DO know and if they believe this is the result of evolution, they are welcome to come to that conclusion, but he doesn't stand up there playing God and tell them what to believe, he teaches them science as it is. In fact, I've not seen him have a problem yet or requiring evolution to teach science. Linda, just because you have the majority of scientists on your side, it does not make evolution a fact. Look, how many dentists feel that mercury is ok in amalgam? The majority of them, though this is slowly changing.

I could say to you, these guys are trained, we are not. They know more than we do, therefore mercury in amalgam must be ok and the biologic dentists are the fools because they're a minority (though again the tide is slowly changing).

I feel that there most definitely IS dishonesty surrounding these things, but I don't necessarily blame those who have been trained and studied what they are told. I blame the ones right at the top. You cannot teach science now without indoctrinating the kids about evolution. You think it's the best and closest explanation so far to how we explain life? But none of it explains where the information for DNA comes from, the code to life itself. You do not even really know if anything evolved Linda, because you were not there to see it in action.

You think you see a pile of fossils in a certain way in the fossil layers and you interpret this to mean evolution and transitional forms, when you don't know if ANY of them are in transition or not. You're assuming they are, because this is coming from a pre-conceived belief system, one that you cannot admit to. HOw many animals are alive today that you could try and match up as being in transition to becoming something else, just because you want to believe that and could try matching it up with your preconceptions. It may not be happening, but if you believe it, you can simply say "well we don't know it hasn't or won't happen"..... No amount of variation within a kind is one animal becoming another. You can breed dogs and try and get cat-like physical characteristics all you want, but guess what? It'll never become a cat, no matter how much breeding you do. If you throw billions of years onto it, in hopes that enough time will give us the idea that anything is possible, it doesn't mean it will or has happened. E.g. say you find a dog with more pointed type ears or a smaller, sharper nose and you mate this with one similar and keep doing so until it almost resembles a catlike looking dog....(mind you, I've yet to see a dog resemble a cat to be honest, even with all the attempts at breeding different dogs)...however, you'll never make the dog a cat. What makes you think that this process could happen on it's own if we can't even MAKE it happen through breeding? The most unusual dogs, no matter how much they may differ in looks and size, are still dogs and can mate with eachother without problem. (unless one dog is huge and the other is tiny). Dogs don't become anything else, they stay dogs. Ever think this might be the case with all creatures?

I can say to you that I see evidence of creation in my everyday life, because it seems to me that it takes an already complex signature to life in order for it to bring forth after it's own kind.....how else did it get there we wonder? All you have is theories, but they are theories that we did not see take place. Is it fair then to teach children that they most likely DID take place...just because in their eyes it seems "logical" whereas is it really logical to believe that this resulted out of chance? But again, what is the alternative to evolution's big bang theory and primordial soup? Possible intelligent design. Guess what Linda? That is unthinkable right? Therefore, anything can be proposed, so long as it rules that out.

Come up with somehting that "sounds" logical, but once you break down the complicated terminologies, it still seem to require the miraculous. DNA didn't just come from luck. I'd say purpose and intellect are very hard to deny, but somehow you people do your best to exclude it any chance you get. You can say that God may have been involved, as though if He did exist, He's just a bystander to His own creation. Not really in control so to speak, just started off the spark and crossed His fingers. Or sat around for billions of years watching it unfold.

I don't see it that way, nor do I see this as the result of a chance happening. But again my belief isn't taught in a science class and until I could give absolute proof of what happened in the beginning, I wouldn't stand in front of a class without scientific evidence and state that it did. I'd simply give the evidence, the stuff that really speaks for itself and the belief that arises from that is really up to the individual to interpret. Obviously evolution is not concrete, or we'd not be able to debate about it.....simple as that. How can you debate the undebatable?

One thing we do agree on, life produces life. I wonder how it was different in the beginning, because I see nothing different that's been happening in all our recorded history....yet apparently according to you people, it was. Yet what can you give us? A video recording of it taking place and showing that once upon a time it really wasn't like this.....? Or just a bunch of scientific sounding words and explanations with drawings to match....by people who weren't there and can't give anymore than their "ideas".

Let's keep the ideas exactly where they belong and stop preaching them as fact. Do you think it impossible that there was a creator Linda? You absolutely know this for certain because you were there right? As you really can't be 100% certain, seeing as you are not all-knowing, then why do you think it's ok for you to push YOUR theory and say it's an absolute fact? when you cannot be certain 100%, that a big bang or primordial soup is responsible for this. How on earth can you know that or in fact anybody know that without actually being an eye witness. The stuff you find today is not digging up the origins, it is simply digging up the dead. Pinning labels on it to make it what you want it to be, doesn't make it so.

We're not the ones pushing for creation in the science room, the burden of proof does not lie with us, it lies with you people. If I had to start with something that I felt was evidence for design? I'd have to start with the code of life - DNA. You know the one? The one that is so complicated and ordered, that even the libararies around the world would not contain such information. And you believe it arrived from what? simple celled organisms.

How do you know this? Where is an example of simple celled organisms becoming complex DNA? We don't have to accept anything as fact until it's been proven. And has it been proven that complex DNA can arise from simplicity, given enough time? Could you give me a scientific experiment that shows proves this?