> I have to thank you for pointing to this link. It was while reading an article on there that I ran across this little tidbit, quoted as as attack against the bible which really struck home to me, particularly the highlighted part.
> 
> 1 Timothy 6:3-4: "If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and the constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain."-I guess I was a little short on this post, when I reread it. What I am trying to say here is that on many of the forums, many of the posters, including myself on occasion, tend to relinquish civil discourse in favor of heated arguments over words. AW.com is beyond a doubt one of the few places where that is absolutely not the norm, and it is something that I appreciate immensely. -So, let us enjoy the spirit of fine discourse, without resorting to 'an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and the constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth'. In that spirit, I think I will refrain from topics that are really just opportunities to bash on someone that I disagree with, like our Dawkins' thread or the some of the others floating around. After all, what he thinks does not shape my reality and is of little value to me personally aside from his pure research oriented material. So let him go on talking and writing as he wishes for the atheist cause, and for those foolish enough to read it as Holy Writ, best of luck. For those willing to take the road of religion to its fullest extent of fundamentalism, best of luck. I refuse to get drug into the muck and mud slinging.-I think that AW.com has already set a high standard in this regard, but I think we can go one better and actually teach some of the other forums the only type of lesson worth teaching, namely one that is set by a good example.

A survey on how high school teachers handle the issue of evolution. Interesting statistics, with about 1/4th of the teachers actively presenting Darwin theory as the truth. Note the comment in the article that the scientists who published the article believe that macroevolution is proven, and should be so stated in classes!-http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-high-school-biology-teachers-reluctant.html


> As of two theists in this discussion group, I like to raise the question of Darwin's gradualist method. Stephen Gould questioned just as much, and I can see why his 'punctuated equilibrium' is a much better fit for evolution:
> 
> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Stephen_Jay_Gould_say_that_fossil_evidence_completely_con... is an organism with 535 million years of stasis:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110324153024.htm-http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900277-6?utm_source=ECE001&utm_campaign=&utm_content=&utm_medium=email&bid=Q2JS22F:R3CZ4