Comments:Senator David Vitter to earmark $100,000 for creationist group

No. How does giving money to a creationist organization "...develop a plan to promote better science education"?

Perhaps once Creationism is backed by mountains of empirical evidence, establishes hypotheses, or even maintains any kind of peer reviewed model of the early earth that is even remotely feasible, as well as completely refutes evolutionary theory, maybe it could be taught in schools.

Evolution is observed, makes meaningful predictions, has mountains of evidence supporting it, and has a peer reviewed model that has developed and withstood scrutiny for about 150 years. That's why it's taught in schools, and creationism is not. "teach both sides of the controversey"? There is no controversey in the scientific community. Hard evidence does that to conflict.

No, empirical means observable. Unless you can give eyewitness testimony of the creation of all things, you cannot empirically say evolution was involved in creation. Now, this is not to say that species do not evolve in traits over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.82.39 (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)