Your "we can never be completely sure" argument isn't the one that motivates creationists, and you know it. Yes, of course it's possible that evolutionary theory is wrong. It's possible that anything we think we know about how the universe works is wrong. Acknowledging this basic fact is required for any kind of scientific inquiry. But creationists are completely sure that their explanation is right, and they will continue to be sure of this no matter how much evidence accumulates against their position. By invoking "the idea of evolution as a religion," you're arguing against a straw man; the beliefs based on faith rather than science are entirely on one side of this argument, and it's not the side of evolutionary biology.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the ancient desert nomads who told and retold the collection of folktales which eventually got written down as the Book of Genesis meant anything at all other than the literal meaning of the word "day." The Hebrew "yom" has exactly the same meaning as the English "day," and while it can be used poetically to indicate other periods of time ("in those days," "a day will come," etc.) there is nothing in Genesis to indicate such a usage.

... "I hope you're right. I really do." But we know how that worked out.

Leakey is being wildly optimistic. The evidence for evolution is already overwhelming (and no, "intelligent design" is not required.) There is a large and noisy group of people who have made it very plain that they will not accept this evidence. It's an ideological issue for them, not a scientific one. And they will continue to maintain this position in the face of any new evidence that is presented to them. There's no way to win them over with appeals to logic. The only solution, AFAICT, is to continue to shower them with the mockery they so richly deserve, and hope that they're driven back to the lunatic fringe where they belong.

Bush lost in both 2000 and 2004, but nobody cared then, why would you think anyone would care now? I moved the hell out of the US because of that crap. It's only going to get worse. Have fun with 8 years of Romney. I'll come back after the revolution.

You are wrong. "that worked for me, once, as a single data point" is far from "this works" (implying it's much more general than your one solution once. Not to mention that you didn't say what works. "stand up for yourself" was implied, but no comment on how to do so, especially when dealing with those who don't care, other than they decide you are a target, and there exists nothing you can ever say that will stop them from verbally harassing you. I was bullied too. The *only* thing that stopped it was when I was bullied, I'd kick them in the balls. *nothing* else ever stopped them. But doing that twice, and nobody else really messed with me. But I'm not sure that's the most appropriate action for work. I stood up for myself and pushed back and all that, and it was all useless. Based on my experience, your advice is useless, and more likely to get you beat up than to decrease the occurrence of bullying.

Quotas were made illegal, but it was affirmed that a diverse student body was of value, so weighting race to the effect of a quota was fine, so long as the quota was value based, and not number based.

And if you don't, you sill re-enforce the stereotypes due to the underrepresentation of the groups.

Quotas are *never* necessary under AA (unless you are racist). So the only assumption I can make is that since you assume quotas are required, you must be racist, and you want AA abolished so that you can discriminate without constraints. Quotas are an effective defense for those who can't even pretend to be racially blind for 5 minutes, but are in no way required.

What do you think AA is? Quotas and preferences? At the most basic, it's requiring documentation that proves non-discrimination. Not a requirement for "equality" in numbers or pay, but in treatment. If a white person walked in with that resume, are they treated the same as a black person with that same resume?

In real world studies (even in the world of Affirmative Action) then answer is "no". The black people with the same resume will be less likely to be interviewed (well, in the case of the one I read, they used "ethnic" names, rather than identifying race, so Shaniqua wouldn't be interviewed, but Jane would be - no word on whether Bubba Billy Joe Jr. the third would get an interview).

That's what affirmative action is.

My favorite is when people like Bush Jr. come out against AA because they think nobody should get something based on who their daddy is, but should be judged on their own actions. When AA for whites ("legacy") is the only thing that got him in Yale. Does nobody else see the irony and hypocrisy?

Career decisions are made long before working conditions are known, so IT company's "hostile environment" can't directly affect those entering the field.