Replies

Just like plate tectonics is "faith-based speculation"?

Is plate tectonics something to do with creation science or intelligent design? If so, those are faith based speculations also. Any speculation about the beginnings of the world and life is necessarily based on faith as nobody was present to watch and creation from nothing is beyond scientific study. Unless we are planning to raise up a generation of creators of universes, I see no reason why origins is a fit subject for study in any school. Kids need to learn knowledge that is useful for the here and know.

While I admire the creation scientists and IDers for their willingness not to leave the the field of faith based speculation to the Darwinists, I generally think that the time of Bible believers would better be spent in proving the Bible. Romans 10:17 states that faith comes by hearing the word of God, not by some vague "feeling from the Holy Spirit" and not by fossils.

And for those that reject the Genesis account of creation out of hand, I wonder if you have spent effort in proving or disproving the Bible? My lack of extensive knowledge of evolution is suggested as a disqualification to my competence to judge it. Yet on the other hand, lack of Bible knowledge is seen as no disqualifier to rejecting the Genesis account. Why the double standard?

And for those that reject the Genesis account of creation out of hand, I wonder if you have spent effort in proving or disproving the Bible?

Why should those who don't accept the creation story of your religion waste time trying to disprove it? There are countless religions out there with their own creation stories; are those who accept science to set out to disprove each and everyone, or is your religion the only one that gets special treatment inthis respect?

My lack of extensive knowledge of evolution is suggested as a disqualification to my competence to judge it.

When you suggest that rats giving birth to cats would be evidence for evolution, yes your credibility comes into question.

Yet on the other hand, lack of Bible knowledge is seen as no disqualifier to rejecting the Genesis account. Why the double standard?

There's a double-standard, but not the one as you suggest. Evolution is backed by an extensive history of multiple lines of evidence. The Genesis account...is written in the Bible. That's about it. It isn't our fault that a literal reading of the Genesis account is contradicted by observed reality, and it isn't our responsibility to "disprove" an assertion not supported by evidence in the first place, yet many Biblical creationists insist that their creation story -- out of all the others -- somehow be given "equal treatment" with evolution despite the total disparity of evidence.