I don't agree, Amos. At the point at which I made my statement, Shakey says, basically, that he already believes in an evolution that occurs without an intelligent design or god.

That implies the same unwillingness to accept any new data that disagrees with his pre-conclusion. It's inherent in his statement. He concludes that -- regardless of any new data -- people will conclude that man invented god and not the other way around.

Lots of creationists (probaby the majority) believe also in evolution. The arguement here is somewhere else, and the line demarking victory in this tug'o'war is whether there was design or merely random chance. And on that one, neither side is any closer to being drawn over the line in defeat.

And it is that kind of dogmatism that has led to stalemates such a Texas, where greater than 50% of the people who pay the taxes for public education, do NOT accept the same pre-conclusion that Shakey and his "science teaching" ilk demand. (science-teaching in quotes because, if the end is pre-concluded, it is not science).

And, see, it was just upthread that GUEST:meself was asking if I really thought that people insisted upon teaching that science disproves the existence of a god. Shakey and you have answered for me.