Science Forums 2

[questor]

Since we are now starting the second round of the Scopes monkey trial and schools are being forbidden to even mention the fact there may have been a creator of the universe, it may be pertinent to ask why this supression of free speech should be allowed to exist, when there is no proof of the absence of a creator? in fact there is much more evidence that there was and is intelligent design than that it does not exist. while the argument seems to be crystalized between the believers and unbelievers of the theory of evolution,this is an extremely narrow view of the subject of creation and only speaks to one small part of the overall activity ( and maybe an unimportant one ) of the cosmos.
it seems to me that the ''scientists'' who are so cocksure that there was no creator stand on shaky ground when there is no proof either way. i would say we know far less about the workings of the universe than some posture. why don't we get on firm ground about forces we don't understand such as gravity,before we take an indefensible stand which could easily be incorrect. if someone has proof about the non existence of a creator, i
would like to hear it.