[304065]

Well, no question that science has evolved, and continues to. But the cutting edge is about the nature of matter, boundaries of the universe and genetics and medicinal chemistry. Reconsideration of evolution just isn't on the list in terms of scientific priorities.

Are you suggesting that because we have thrown out, for example, the pseudo-science of "phrenology," that a healthy scientific skepticism means we should introduce into the scientific curriculum a theological opinion with no known scientific basis? This is rather like suggesting that since we don't have absolute proof as to the causes of migrane headaches, we should reintroduce the Radium Jar and allow folks to start their morning with a glass of radioactive water.

One other point. It does not do anyone any good to attempt to harmonize nature with religion, nor have religion "endorse" a particular viewpoint, and can lead to some embarassing consequences, such as the embrace of the Geocentric model of the Solar System, when in fact, the Copernican, or Heliocentric model, is the THEORY that fits all the observable data.

There is NO reason why religion and science cannot peacefully coexist, and science has no more place in attempting to provide RULES for the ORDERING OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR than religion has in attempting to define the ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE. It seems to me that each should stay out of the other's business.