Changes

    I'm not sure that it's always "deliberately", but otherwise you're right, Ed; they confuse ignorance with disbelief.  

'''Ignorance and disbelief''' are often mistaken for one another, particularly by liberals. They frequently claim that Christian disbelief in [[Evolution]] indicates ignorance. This is odd, in view of the enormous number of practicing scientists who disagree with the theory. How can 5% of all scientists be "ignorant"?

    Why should students only be taught the leading theory? Wouldn't it be better for them to be taught about opposing theories and how to try and determine which is correct? Isn't teaching them only the leading theory a form of indoctrination (teaching them what to think rather than how to think)? And saying that the evidence leans to evolution is begging the question (and, in my view, incorrect).

 

 

Disagreeing with a theory is not the same thing as "being ignorant", but someone who applies that label is like someone who disagrees with [[President Bush]]'s policies and so calls him "an [[idiot]]". Taken literally, it's obviously untrue, but liberals are accustomed to having people avoid analyzing what they say closely. Perhaps they think the general public are morons.

 

In science, the cure for ignorance is to be taught the leading theories, along with the opposing theories. Then, as an exercise, the students ought to try and determine which is correct. Teaching them only the leading theory a form of [[indoctrination]] (teaching them what to think rather than how to think). Ironically, what liberals accuse Christians of doing is rather what they do themselves.

 

that the evidence leans to evolution. If there is evidence, it ought simply to be given.

If it's simply enough for a child to understand, then it can even be taught to schoolchildren.