Nicely put.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

I'm a late addition to this thread, so forgive me if this has already been addressed, but it seems that to make Creationism and Evolution compete at all, you have to be fairly specific about the types you're discussing.

The Creationism must either be specific about the date of Creation or precisely what was created, or the Evolution-ism must be not only dictate the method of biological change, but also the origin of all biological life.

It would seem the two could get along if both were relaxed enough to admit uncertainity has to precisely how and when life first appeared.

And even in the extreme cases of the "In six days circa 4000 BC God made everything just as it is today" version of Creationism, I'm not sure it rises to "anti-science". It's not like even extreme Creationists are against science in general; they simply dispute (unscientifically) some of its findings on this one subject.

Why? (the bolded text I mean)

Do either of them do this?

But if they are trying to make faith-claims scientific isn't that simply dishonest?

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

"During the months that have passed since that September morning some have asked me what understanding of Nature one shapes from so strange a year? I would answer that one’s first appreciation is a sense that creation is still going on, that the creative forces are as great and as active to-day as they have ever been, and that to-morrow’s morning will be as heroic as any of the world. Creation is here and now. So near is man to the creative pageant, so much a part is he of the endless and incredible experiment, that any glimpse he may have will be but the revelation of a moment, a solitary note in a symphony thundering through debatable existences of time. Poetry is as necessary to comprehension as science. It is impossible to live without reverence as it is without joy."
- Henry Beston, The Outermost House (1928)

If a given evolutionary theory specifies precisely how biological life came to be, it would necessarily conflict with most Creation-related beliefs that God created life (in some form).
I suppose it could still function without conflicts with an even simpler creation-model that only stated that God created the universe in general, not necessarily life within it.


That depends on the individual involved.

I've heard evolutionists who care primarily about the process of biological evolution works and don't really know (or care) precisely how it got started.
Similarly, I've heard creationists who aren't terribly particular about when creation occurred and are willing to accept that the original created life has changed and evolved since creation.

If they claim to be using a scientific process when they are not, then yes that is patently dishonest (and bad), though I still don't think it rises to being "anti-science". If anything it supports the legitimacy of science by trying to gain its approval.
But not all Creationists are guilty of such.

Beautiful quote. I guess I knew in the back of my mind somewhere that the creationist/ID argument from ignorance was not unique to that movement but it's instructive to see what a long and dishonorable history the tactic has.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

Of course creationists aren't against science. Not even the most extreme literalist is against science (at least not consciously). But dismissing a method when applied to a field that's been determined in advanced by personal presuppositions and having no qualms with the same method when applied to a field where no personal disputes exist, - that disrupts basic understanding of science.

There is no way one can properly understand the scientific method if such a conflict exists (and there's no way a person showing this particular conflict can be trusted as a scientist). Thus, I'd say that creationism disguised as science is subversive to scientific understanding, and, since no more precise definition of anti-science has been proposed, anti-science (though I'm willing to bet it's just a word put together for the occasion ).

Do you know of any evolutionary theory that specifies precisely how biological life came to be? If there are any, yes they would certainly conflict with creation beliefs. So what would be the implications from that?

The problem of course with the God created the universe model is that old conundrum, who created God? I know, there are all sorts of theological wriggles around that one but we still come back to it.

And why did God create life, etc etc. And it all gets a bit messy.

Religion is about faith. Science is about scepticism. I'm happy to go along thinking that. I have no problem with children learning about religion. I have a major problem with an education system that tries to teach Creationism as if it's about science when it's obviously about religion and faith.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

Ahh, I was about to reply to your post #107 that science has nothing to admit to or anything to sort out concerning any problems that some ideology claims to have with it but now you made my reply redundant. If a conflict exists between science and religion then it solely belongs to and concerns religion. Science is but a method and can't change the output to suit the presuppositions of an ideology.

So, as you say .. proposing a model that "could still function without conflicts" is up to the realm, or ideology, that claims a conflict to exist. That's what most creationists forget .. it's their conflict and their problem

Neatly done.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

Fair enough. It has no business in science class. That's obvious.

To me at least.

It has no business in a science class (his book).

This, to ME is a fairly simple issue. This behes creationism book has nothing to do with science. It isn't science, it isn't BASED on science. I don't know why we're still bothering with it :-)

Lets look at this single issue from a broader perspective for a minute. Maybe we'll be able to see why it's come UP in our cultures education system.

Lets consider what the opposite side of our culture has done to public education, and our culture in different ways.

Journalist John Leo of U.S. News and & World Report points out that when "Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York told New York Post reporter Deborah Orin he would vote to override Clintons veto of the partial birth abortion ban bill because partial birth abortions are 'to close to infanticide,'" the following newspapers suppressed the story: the Washington Post, the L.A. Times, the Boston Globe, and the New York Times. They ignored it. They acted as if it never happened.

[Suppressed History, B. Forrest Clayton second edition Pgs. 10 - 11]

Congress threatened to cut off funding for the Smithsonian Institution if they did not clean up their act. The Smithsonian in Washington D.C. had an exhibit on the Enola Gay. The left wing professors of history at the Smithsonian who wrote the explanatory material for the exhibit claim that it was racism that motivated President Truman to drop the bomb on Japan.

[Suppressed History, B. Forrest Clayton second edition Pg. 13]

The Princeton Review for the A.P. U.S. history test tells the high school students, "The A.P. U.S. History exam doesn't ask about military history." They beleive that decisive battles should be ignored while liberal social movements should be emphasized.

[Suppressed History, B. Forrest Clayton second edition Pg. 15]

The field of medicine is not even immune to the disease known as political correctness. The ancient greek physician Hippocrates wrote an oath known as the Hippocratic oath. Medical Doctors upon graduating from U.S. medical schools were to swear an oath of allegiance to the ethics contained therein. One of the lines of the Hippocratic oath forbids abortions. Another forbids euthanasia. Therefore many medical schools today are banning the oath or suppressing and editing out the "politically incorrect" lines. The goal of "The Medical Professionalism Project" is to abolish the Hippocratic oath altogether and replace it with the politically correct document entitled "The Charter on Medical Proffessionalism."

The History of Hippocrates and the specifics of his oath are now being suppressed.

[Suppressed History, B. Forrest Clayton second edition Pg. 15]

In communities throughout the country, ACLU membership is fighting to expunge all signes of faith. Aside from their countless attacks on the Ten Commandments, they are operating on many fronts to rob us of our faith and freedoms.

They threatened the National Park Service to remove three small bronze plaques, each bearing a bible verse, from a display in the Grand Canyon National Park.

They fought and successfully prevented the Boy Scouts of America from maintaining their 50-year-old Lease of Camp Balboa in San Diego over the scouts policy regarding homosexuals and their core belief in God.

They’re fighting to block a voluntary faith-based initiative in Harvey, Illinois, a crime-infested suburb of Chicago, because in their warped view it's government promotion of religious values.

They fought to overturn Florida's ban on gay adoption.

They asked the Virginia Supreme Court to legalize cross burning on public property. In their view, the current state ban suppresses the freedom of speech for the Ku Klux Klan and like minded pyromaniacs. [ Robert H. Bork, press release announcing release of “coercing virtue”.]

They fought to prevent students from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at Cherry Creek high School in Colorado.

They have defended, pro bono, the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a creepy group of child molesters.

Here's just a small sampling of actions our overzealous liberals have taken to reshape our society with THEIR views and ideas of social policy(ies). Do we see why maybe some more conservative people might be fighting back to push THEIR ideas just as AGGRESSIVELY as liberal thinkers and "academics" push THEIRS ?

You can't expect one kind of idealogical thinking to aggressively force IT'S view on an entire culture/civilization with no reaction can you ? The harder one side PUSHES the HARDER the other side will push BACK.

Just something to consider.

It looks like I touched a raw nerve and I apologize for that. However, when you make a statement like this:
And then go on to give examples of types of cars not turning into other cars, etc., and such, It makes me wonder if you understand what transitional fossils or whether you understand evolution. Your illustrations have little to do with evolution.

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!

Interesting quotes from Clayton, Captain Tripps.

I went to this guy's website in found this quote:
You'll forgive me if I don't trust what this guy is saying a whole lot. In the above quote he says in one sentence:

Now, from there he jumps to this conclusion:
So this guy invents a conspiracy about supposed liberals suppressing evidence because it's supposed to be "politically incorrect". This is intellectual dishonesty at it most blatant. Peer review that includes criticism to his theories and evidence are the normal process you HAVE to go through when you put forward theories. It's a normal process. This guy has had the opportunity to present his theories and evidence and is beeing peer reviewed like any other scientist would have to. In the brief 10 minute search for this information, I found many instances of him lecturing at universities. There is no conspiracy to shut him up or anythig close to that.

Clayton is just another one of those conspiracy theorist that keep trying to show somehow "liberals" are screwing up our world. He reminds me of Duane Gish with his selective editing and out of context quotes.

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!

This isn't surprising. Lets dismiss this all as "crazy conspiracy theories" so we don't expose liberals and academics for the lying manipulators that they are.

I noticed you didn't address ANY of the points I put up. No, you found another, focussed on IT and decided to dismiss EVERYTHING based on YOUR view of THAT ONE ITEM.

I don't care if you "don't trust what this guy is saying a whole lot."

Put your trust in the liars that are liberal academics. That doesn't affect ME.

All THAT, so you could dismiss and ignore this:

Lets look at this single issue from a broader perspective for a minute. Maybe we'll be able to see why it's come UP in our cultures education system.

Lets consider what the opposite side of our culture has done to public education, and our culture in different ways.

---------------------------------------

Here's just a small sampling of actions our overzealous liberals have taken to reshape our society with THEIR views and ideas of social policy(ies). Do we see why maybe some more conservative people might be fighting back to push THEIR ideas just as AGGRESSIVELY as liberal thinkers and "academics" push THEIRS ?

You can't expect one kind of idealogical thinking to aggressively force IT'S view on an entire culture/civilization with no reaction can you ? The harder one side PUSHES the HARDER the other side will push BACK. Just something to consider.

I'd say you're guilty of out of context reading

No, all THAT to make people aware that your source has a very strong agenda to push his opinion about a supposed liberal conspiracy. It will take me longer to refute each quote. But I can do it, if you want.

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!