On 13 Dec 2006 22:33:17 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:ans0o2tjpmnhntqmashl448skfu4b8k63s@
4ax.com:

But I don't think that trying to hide the idea that it is
the way life came about is conducive to education,

No, YOU believe that this is the way life came about,

I do? And you arrived at this new untestable hypothesis expounded as
truth how, exactly?

and your absolute statement using the phrase "is" speaks well to your faith.

Ah. No, it doesn't. The use of the _word_ "is" in the _phrase_ "it is"
is completely accurate when describing the idea. The phrase nor its use
speak to the writer's beliefs or faith. It would be the noun that would
do that - i.e., if I had used the word "fact" rather than "idea," one
might reasonably (but still possibly erroneously) guess that I
personally believed it to be a fact.

Others, in fact many others, don't believe this to be the case, and have a variety of
hypothesis that all fall under the general class of "evolution". The
hypotheses are close to, if not actually testable and demonstrable, are
very consistent with current concepts of genetics, and none of them call
for the precendent "and then a miracle occurred". For me, that last phrase
really encompasses the difference between science and religion.

All fair enough. And most of the former part of the above is why
"evolution" cannot be "taught," only "taught about" without moving from
hypothesizing to hypostatizing. And how do you reconcile the above,
acknowledging the variety and the fact that the hypotheses are not
absolutely "testable and demonstrable," with your pervious statement
regarding "untestable hypothesis" being crap.

R