Nicholas Tart of Athens, ME The fact that evolution is a disputed topic in schools is deeply troubling to me. What is even more frightening to me is the fact that, as justification for the argument against evolution, someone like Mr. Matt Linkletter would state that evolution cannot be "observed, shown, or proven"

Not only is the assertion incorrect in that the scientific study of genetics has time after time verified claims on the "evolving" nature of the descent of man, (not necessarily restricted to Darwin) but it is also fundamentally logically flawed.

Science teaches us that it is impossible to prove a negative, or to disprove something. No matter how many times a dropped stone falls to the floor, there is no way to empirically prove that there is something drawing it to the floor, or to prove that on the next drop, the stone will not float to the ceiling. Hence, the "theory" of attraction between masses ... quaintly known as "gravity".

That being said, even if some properties of the universe could be proven with utter evidence to denounce and disprove the existence of contradicting theories, then to accept and teach them as absolutes is to freeze the development of the knowledge surrounding the issue.

Schools aren't designed to create encyclopedias, or to breed a workforce to fill the tasks of civilization (and hopefully that isn't what they've become). Education isn't a goal. It is a means; a means to create more education.

Beyond primary education, schools are not meant to teach "facts" of the universe as they exist in a suspended section of time; they are designed to teach what is known at any given moment, and inspire the student to learn more. Education is about breeding education.

This is the fundamental flaw of theo-education; it leaves no room for development. A system based on faith assumes the existence of an absolute truth which can be understood; science makes no such claim, but rather sees human knowledge as a bank which must constantly be evolved.report abuse

Brenda Tucker of West Hills, CA I'm trying to stay abreast of the legal and political occurrences around the country concerning the teaching of evolution. I have worked for 13 years trying to publicize and communicate a new theory of evolution which I have written about on my webpage at http://www.homestead.com/theosophy/ascension.html

New debate material can be located by searching with a new word: "girasas". Mr. Movie in Oregon actually answered a letter I wrote to him asking why journalists aren't able to print my story? Science may have rigorous standards, but journalists respond more to public interest. Isn't a new old theory of evolution of interest to the public?

The books I had to read to study this theory were found outside educational institutions at The Theosophical Society and The "I AM" Temple or Saint Germain Foundation. I would like to see the schools recommit to studying material that was previously "misunderstood" even by those who operated within those organizations. I faced reporting to those organizations about their own material, but with a lack of support, preferred to focus my efforts on a more public forum. Facing churches and scientists as well as educators with a new theory is not something I enjoy doing, but I do it because I'm committed to this country's success, at all levels.

While this country allows "backwoodsmen" to rise to President, they do not typically allow a real estate appraiser with a degree in psychology to report to them a new theory of evolution, which while based on written texts, is not easily discernable in the written material, and errors in understanding the written material caused a misreporting on the content of the books to have occurred.

Redirecting educational institutions to a reexamination of the contents of these books with the key that I can provide them, should cause a resurrection of compromise between the two sides in the debate. Thank you.report abuse

joeldg of none, ME Wow.. Way to open your community up to national ridicule.
The Dover trial was very bad for Dover and all the school board members lost their jobs, these people clearly don't learn from history.
As for teaching "Theories", science is ONLY theories, like the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity and others. Any confusion here is just abject lack of education on a basic level.
We use "Theories" to do all kinds of things, from atomic energy and bombs, to medical uses in virology and treatment. The theory of evolution and it's mountain of facts collected over 150 years from many disciplines is one of the best examples of the various sciences working together.
To quote theologian John F. Haught
"Ever since the 17th century, astute minds have agreed that what we now call “science” can tell us only about the natural causes of things. Science does not talk about God, purpose, or values. It can neither affirm nor deny the reality of things divine. Of course, subsequent reflection on scientific discoveries may lead one person to God and another to atheism. But science, strictly speaking, is a self-limiting method of inquiry not equipped to answer theological questions nor permitted to introduce references to the supernatural whenever it gets bogged down in seemingly insoluble problems."

This Maine community should take a long hard look at the Dover PA case judgment and what the fallout of that was.report abuse

Elaine Kirk of Madison, ME I have read with interest all the comments posted here. I would like to note, since I was quoted for the article, what I really feel we should be teaching our children. Larry and I had a wonderful talk on the phone but I think he missed my point.

I believe we should teach our children to think for themselves. We should teach evolution in school and we, as parents, should take our children to church to learn creation. Children who learn to think for themselves will be happier graduates then those who memorize what their teachers tell them.report abuse