The one view he expressed, which I felt was valid, was that there
must come a point where science ( and presumably scientists) say "We
don't know".
As a flat out atheist, I am perfectly okay with this.
There have been times throughout history where people have been faced
with many an issue and had to concede that they didn't know....then.
Yet much of that which we can now call historical science we do have answers for.
But the main issue central to the Kansas hearings seems to be what must be done about the 'We don't know' gap?
For those in favour of the Minority Report the answer was God. And
in context, not just any old god, but the tacit implication being it
must be the Christian god ( as these were Christians)
Even though
the proponents were hesitant to include this option in the supposedly
neutrality of scientific endeavour, when pushed, Sanford, for example,
expressed his Christianity and Young Earth Creationist views and
suggested the supernatural should not be discounted.
Ultimately, his beliefs fall back on the biblical genesis foundation, for which scientific evidence refutes.
Even archaeological evidence dismisses claims that afford any veracity to the Pentateuch.
In fact, for Sanford to admit that he believes the earth is around
10,000 years old is mind-numbing, as this implies he is a proponent of
dinosaur /human co-existence .
Worse, it involves such nonsense as no death before ''Adam's Fall''
and a belief that dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus Rex were herbivores,
and were included on The Ark ( another piece of Creationist nonsense)
which is utterly incredulous.
I am sorry, Jason, but ''god'' help people who are inculcated with this diatribe.
To hold such views is nuts enough but to want to teach such views on the basis of biblical interpretation to children is tantamount to abuse.
I would advise ( when you have the time) you read through the testimony from Part 1.
