No one is "afraid" of alternate theories.
Then why are they illegal to teach?
Best scientific practice demands that the theory that best fits the available evidence is the one taught.
That is idiotic.
In other words, you just follow whatever happens to be the most popular or latest trend or fashion in science.
Science is not a popularity contest. Save the popularity contests for highschool prom and MTV.
Science is about controversy not consensus.
"You know we receive an education in the schools from books. All those books that people became educated from twenty-five years ago, are wrong now, and those that are good now, will be wrong again twenty-five years from now. So if they are wrong then, they are also wrong now, and the one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. All books that are written are wrong, the one who is not educated cannot write a book and the one who is educated, is really not educated but he is misled and the one who is misled cannot write a book that is correct." -- Edward Leedskalnin, stone mason, 1936
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck, physicist, 1949
"The human mind is a lot like the human egg and the human egg has a shut-off device. When one sperm gets in, it shuts down so the next one can't get in. The human mind has a big tendency of the same sort. And here again, it doesn't just catch ordinary mortals; it catches the deans of physics. According to Max Planck, the really innovative, important new physics was never really accepted by the old guard. Instead a new guard came along that was less brain-blocked by its previous conclusions. And if Max Planck's crowd had this consistency and commitment tendency that kept their old conclusions intact in spite of disconfirming evidence, you can imagine what the crowd that you and I are part of behaves like." -- Charles T. Munger, philosopher, 1995
"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert." -- Arthur C. Clarke, author, 1999
"The history of science demonstrates, however, that the scientific truths of yesterday are often viewed as misconceptions, and, conversely, that ideas rejected in the past may now be considered true. History is littered with the discarded beliefs of yesteryear, and the present is populated by epistemic corrections. This realization leads us to the central problem of the history and philosophy of science: How are we to evaluate contemporary sciences's claims to truth given the perishability of past scientific knowledge? ... If the truths of today are the falsehoods of tomorrow, what does this say about the nature of scientific truth?" -- Naomi Oreskes, historian, 1999
"Science, we are told is tentative. And given the history of science, there is every reason to be tentative. No scientific theory withstands revision for long, and many are eventually superseded by theories that flatly contradict their predecessors. Scientific revolutions are common, painful, and real. New theories regularly overturn old ones, and no scientific theory is ever the final word. But if science is tentative, scientists are not. As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn rightly noted, it takes a revolution to change scientific theories precisely because scientists do not hold their theories tentatively. Thus, in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn quotes with approval Max Planck, who wrote: 'A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing it's opponents and making them see the light, but rather because it's opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'" -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, March 16th 2000
"Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." -- Michael Crichton, author, January 17th 2003
"Everything I'm gonna present to you was not in my textbooks when I went to school. And most of it was not even in my college textbooks. I'm a geophysicist and (all my earth science books) when I was a student I had to give the wrong answer to get an A. We used to ridicule continental drift. It was something we laughed at." -- Robert D. Ballard, oceanographer, May 2008
That theory is evolution.
I disagree and so does the majority of the world.
"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert." -- Arthur C. Clarke, author, 1999
Teaching theories other than the one that best fits the available evidence is something other than science. So by all means, teach creationism all you want, just be aware that what you're doing is not teaching science. Thats all.
Until such time as a theory that better fits available evidence comes along, evolutionary theory will be taught in science classes. Complaining about how unfair this is to your prefered theory doesn't change the way science works, unfortunately.
That is idiotic. See above.
