When?

bq. cyberiahome: I worked 2.5 hours extra yesterday
cyberiahome: so, I get to leave work at 3:300
cyberiahome: yes…. 3:300
cyberiahome: it’s a new time
cyberiahome: the 3 PM now has 301 minutes

Thomisism

bq. cyberiaucf: It would be really easy to poison me
cyberiaucf: I eat anything that looks good without questioning it
cyberiaucf: even stuff that looks bad
cyberiaucf: There was some candy on my keyboard this morning
cyberiaucf: I ate it
cyberiaucf: I’m dying

Science is science.

Thank God there are still some judges with “common sense”:http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/6822028/ out there.

The best part of the article is the judge’s quote:

bq. “While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community.”

Notice that he said “criticism […] with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred.” This makes an important point that many critics of evolution don’t seem to understand. There are two uses of the word “evolution.” The first use is that life on this planet has changed over time. Plant and animal species have been appearing and disappearing since earth was formed. This is evolutionary change. This is a _fact_. The second use is the _theory_ of evolution. This is the mechanism by which this change occurred. This part states that more recent species evolved from previous species through natural selection. But this is only a theory in the same way that relativity and gravity are theories. It is so testable and observable (one example: scientists have been using evolutionary theory to create new medicines to combat the germs that have evolved to get past our current medicines) that it is commonly accepted as fact.

The major “alternatives” to evolution are not testable and observable. They either rely on trying to come up with a flaw in evolution, usually through a misunderstanding of it (e.g. Intelligent Design). Or they rely on a complete leap of faith (e.g. Biblical Creationism), which is fine as long as it is taught as religion, not science.

I could go on for a while on this, but it might be better if you just started reading “this site”:http://www.talkorigins.org/. Start with “the FAQ”:http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html.