Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Name one argument against evolution that is "scientifically sound'.I'm fine with not making creationist arguments in schools - the problem is that they are practically a foundation of Darwinian teaching, as long as they are formed to explicitly support Darwinism.
e.g. the 'bad design' argument- the old laryngeal nerve in the Giraffe etc- are often held ups as 'proof' of unguided evolution. Teachers in many countries are forbidden to allow any counter argument- that's not in the best interest of science. In this case it means ignoring what science has learned about the elegant multi-functionality of that nerve since the argument was formulated- that's anti science
If Darwinism is scientifically sound, it should be able to compete on it's own merits, not by censorship and tilting the playing field to suit Victorian age science
And your terrible ignorance about the recurrent laryngeal nerve does not help you. Of course it has secondary uses. Evolution finds ways of using existing structures. How does the fact that it has secondary traits help your claim in any way at all? All sorts of vestigial organs hang on because they pick up a new use. That does not mean that they are not vestigial. You appear to be a creationist grasping at the thinnest of straws.