I think you've scoped out the situation, Paul.

Kinda scoped it out, Paul. :D Maybe that is what just creationists think. Others think the other views may be ok as long as it came from God. Good parody...kinda fell in line with the subject. 5's

Great parody Paul, and sure to stir up some lively debate....555

Great parody, Paul. Too bad so many people believe in a "god" who allows limited humans to suffer unlimited punishment simply because of their opinions.

Clever choice of original song; I've seen a Christian parody site use it to promote creationism ("We're NOT Monkeys"), but the URL has slipped my mind. You played on the original lyrics more closely than that parodist did, though: three opposable thumbs up from me (and count the fingers, while you're at it...*grin*)

The Lone Star state's motto is "Don't Mess With Texas". You think the Badger State should adopt a motto that says "Don't Monkey With Wisconsin"? ;-) I think the schools should be fair and balanced and teach both since no one can absolutely prove either side of the argument. Then there is always that nagging question of "If we came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys"? Good parody just the same.

Thanks all. 100% proof of evolution (or anything that you cannot actually witness, as I understand it) cannot be obtained. But the theory plays very well with the world we observe. Much, much better than the "Creation Theory", which depends on "Faith", which ought to be kept OUT of Science. If people want to teach "Creationism" it ought to be in an ELECTIVE "Religious Studies" class and as a Theory, not presented as Science, which I believe is a mandatory class in most places (it ought to be mandatory, anyway). If people don't want their kids subjected to that awful, terrible study of things through empirical evidence called "Science" I would allow them to opt out, I suppose, but I sure hate to think of their kids going through life without any understanding of the Physical Universe. I don't think this is all that complicated really. And neither do the people who try and teach Science and apparently many of those who teach about Religion as well. And School Boards, or anybody else for that matter, should not attempt to impose their religious beliefs on others. And I don't think that is all that complicated either. Is this so really hard to understand?

I go to a Catholic school . . . I actually love my Science class, though -- we're taught a blend of both theories! Woot, I say!

Highly-evolved near-human primate looking for a mate in a prehistoric Garden of Eden: "OOGA-OOGA-OOGA! OOGA-OOGA-OOGA! OOGA-OOGA-OOGA! OOGA-OOGA-OOGA! [---sudden flash of divine intervention occurs---] GOTTA FINDA WOMAN! GOTTA FINDA WOMAN! GOTTA FINDA WOMAN! GOTTA FINDA WOMAN!"

So if creation does not belong in Science class then neither does Darwinism since neither are exact. Perhaps they should both be taught in a philosophy study. All I am saying is that there seems to be two schools of thought on this and they should be both taught in the same class so that the individual being taught can have the benefit of getting both sides so they can form their own opinions on the subject. If you put one in Science and the other in a Theology study then this still breeds division on the subject since not every student taking Science will also take Theology. Why teach one and not the other? This is not balanced.

The problem with teaching creationism of any kind--Christian, Native American, Hindu, or even (gasp!) Norse--is that creationism IS based in theology, not in the scientific method. As such, it could be considered an attempt to proselytize students: the last thing public schools need is a whole slew of 7th-12th graders asking to be excused from biology class because they don't accept the Genesis story as true. (If someone in my religion tried to teach the Nordic creation story as a scientific theory, you bet your life that would happen; thankfully, most of us don't take the story literally and neither do I.)

And I suppose that there is scientific fact behind Darwin's theory? Neither one of these belong in a science study. Everyone is always shouting for fair. Seems to me that this is fair. I'm fairly sure that Science is not an elective. I am simply stating that both should be placed in an elective study. Where would a science student who is aspiring to be, say a scientist or biologist ever need anything that Darwinism would teach them? By the same token the first amendment of the US constitution grants religious freedom. There could also be a whole slew fo 7th to 12th graders who are asking to be excused from science class because it steps on their 1st amendment rights.

The evolutionary theory is *darn* important to the life sciences and to geology (people use fossils to estimate the age of rocks, after all)--so yes, a student aspiring to be a biologist would need to learn about it. Only those sciences which don't involve living beings in any obvious way (physics, astronomy, some branches of chemistry) do NOT depend on that theory.

I thought science was all about examining pros and cons of competing theories in light of the evidence??

This is so true Steven, so I am at a loss to understand why anyone in an "enlightened" scientific community would ever want to abandon any theory that was relative to the research.

Oops I typoed with relative. Should have been relevant.

Ingeborg, very nicely explained. But I don't think you will convince those who believe that all theories are created equal, no matter how much logic dictates that one has a very high likelikihood of being correct and the other does not. But I learned some things from your explanation so they were not in vain.

Perfect choice of OS Paul. If Darwin's theory had gained support before Christ, the New Testament would have accommodated it - ie. the only reason it wasn't accommodated was that the writers didn't have the benefit of the next 2000 years of scientific, artistic and philosophical progress that we have now - religion is too important and vital to our lives to retard it with fundamentalism, with all of its irrational and violent consequences - phew, what a day for religious issues! - 555

Thanks, Stuart, good points. Yes, it did seem that Religious issues dominated today's entries. Adagio, did your "Fate" parody have anything to do with that confluence of ideas?

Paul...I think it was mere cooincidence.............mmmm....maybe not!

Give a man a beer, and he will thank God. Give a man 20 beers, and he will act ass too prove our evolutionary relationship to the monkeys. Give a man 20 beer every day for years and years and he will vote for the most primate candidate.

Know 1 - There is true "wis-dumb" in drinking 20 beers every day. I wrote a parody about that, but no one, including you, know 1, knew the original lyrics (which I kind of expected with the OS song I chose, but it was one I always liked, "Run From Tears", a Steve Stills compostion done by Crosby, Stills & Nash on their 2nd Studio album, circa late 1970's).

Darwin was a wack just like most all evolutionsts are

Blasting opposing opinions only helps to make yours appear emotional, thus questionable. Might be best to keep it civil, Storm. Good discussion, people. We may not always agree, but if we can't agree to disagree, we won't survive (take a hint, Dems and Reps). Just my 2 cents.