The difference is doing something to the act (making it infertile) and not doing something to the act (waiting until it is infertile).

Anyway, why do you care?

Timing renders that sexual act infertile. Or chemicals render that sex act fertile.

No difference.

Thank you, Susan.

Quite to the contrary.

Take a nice internship at Hell's Creek, Montana.

Find a dinosaur bone in a Cretaceous layer.

Take it to the lab.

Open it up.

Notice blood cells, soft tissue, collagen.

Call your prof.

Have him look through the microscope.

Notice how he frowns.

"What do you think they are?", asks prof.

"Looks like blood cells and soft tissue to me", replies intern.

"So prove to me that they aren't", says prof.

True story.

The intern was Mary Schweitzer.

The prof was Jack Horner.

The story is told in "Blood From Stone", in a 2011 issue of Scientific American.

Evolution is not a scientific research program.

As Karl Popper had it right the first time, evolution is a metaphysical research program.

http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2012/02/marys-bones-part-iii-is-evolution.html

Beautiful post, Q. Quine.

I'd have never gotten anywhere if the profs has said, "Make up your own truth, see ya."

Your profs would never have gotten to be your profs, in science, if they taught students that way. You have to go to the postmodernist or theology dept. for that. Science tests against empirical evidence. If the test does not work the theory must change, not the other way around, which seem to be the case when you write:

I see God as Truth, and the Church the guardian of it.

In science, the conclusion is the last step, not the first.

Thanks for the clarification. But I am curious, has anyone here said that science should be 'Make up your own truth'?

Glen

That article is about getting into college (passing standardized tests), not being successful once there, or thereafter.

I appreciate your concern. I have no problem teaching evolution, I support it, I teach it to my own children. I study it myself. I just don't think it is the biggest educational crisis before us, and if your point was that religious values hurt education, I strongly disagree. But that's a whole other discussion.

There was a great line in the comments about Chesterton being merely clever and not often profound. It think that characterizes the quoted passage above. A clever writer, but not a clever philosopher or apologist. I"m sure if one were a Christian his musings would seem excellent. But to an outsider his musings look unexamined, and shallow.

Stacy, the question has been examined. Please take a look at:

http://ncse.com/rncse/18/3/quantifying-importance-evolution