From that link: "Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term" "...Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory"...
The first half speaks for itself. According to YOUR link evolution is a theory. It's the second half that didn't make any sense to me.
I agree, but the Tea Party might want to raise the bar just a wee bit.:eek: WILMINGTON, Del. â Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion. The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine. Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools." "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him. When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience
I can't comment on the debate, but many legal scholars would take the position that nothing in the First Amendment would bar teaching creation theory in public schools. Does it bar teaching students that muslims pray to allah and think mohammed was his prophet? The idea that just because something is a religious doctrine, it can't be mentioned in public schools, is bizarre. I don't understand O'Donnell to be demanding that it be taught as scientific fact. The fact is however, evolution is only a theory as well. Certain aspects of it can be proven but many others cannot. I'm relatively certain that O'Donnell knows about the First Amendment and that it bars an establishment of religion. The question is how far that bar extends. Coons apparently is one of the anti-religion zealots of the left who want to bar any mention of religion, unless it is islam, in public.
Even after she clearly stated that she didn't know what was in the first amendment, you're relatively certain that she does. Impressive.
I'm not so sure she did know that. I think that she, like most Americans, if you ask them what's in the First Ammendment they'll say it's about freedom of speech and won't know about the establishment of religion part. The point I'm laboring to make is that we need to be careful what we wish for. It's easy enough to come here and write, anybody but a lefty. I've done it myself, but in truth I'd like to see some people with a little more gray matter than the Tea Party has been able to produce. I'm not so sure that simply saying, government sucks, will bring us back from the abyss. We need a plan and I've yet to hear a comprehensive plan from the right. The left has a plan. It's the wrong plan, but they do have one.
True, evolution is proven, unlike creation - which at best turns out to be a myth. So the fact is you are incorrect, evolution quite clearly isn't "just a theory".