Ok. At what point did God step aside to let evolution take over?
"God never stepped aside. He is continuously guiding the process of evolution. What seem to us to be random mutations and changes in the environment are not radom from God's perspective."
Is that example of the scientific method? Many evolutionist would dismiss your statement because it clearly isnn't!
"And, BTW, the assertions in the book you quote are simply wrong."
Now see that what scares me, that my kids might one day have a science teacher as close minded as yourself and who will blindly dismiss other scientists even other evolutionists because they don't fit your indoctrinated interpretation of the data!!
„Ï Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation, especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested. EVOLUTION IS RELIGION, NOT SCIENCE
- IMPACT No. 107 May 1982
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.228
A prominent British biologist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, in the Introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, said that "belief in the theory of evolution" was "exactly parallel to belief in special creation", with evolution merely "a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature". 2 G.W. Harper calls it a "metaphysical belief". 3G.W. Harper, "Alternatives to Evolutiotism", School Scince Review (V. 51 Sep. 1979), p 16.
two leading evolutionary biologists have described modern neo-Darwinism as "part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training". 1Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch, Nature, Apr. 22, 1967, p. 352.
The British physicist, H.S. Lipson, has reached the following conclusion.
In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it. 8H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin (V. 31, n.d. 1980).
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge", saying that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth". 10 In another address he called evolution "story-telling". 11Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge", saying that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth". 10 In another address he called evolution "story-telling". 11
OUR KIDS HAVE A RIGHT TO THIS INFORMATION WITHOUT CENSORSHIP!!
You said:
Is that example of the scientific method? Many evolutionist would dismiss your statement because it clearly isnn't!
My reply:
No, the belief I describe above is not "an example of the scientific method.[sic]" It is a religious belief, that is impossible to prove or disprove using science. As such, no evolutionist has any basis upon which to dismiss it. In fact, many evolutionists hold it. The worst an evolutionist can say is that it is not scientific, which I fully aknolwedge. There is more to life than science. I hold the belief because I think the philosophical case for it is compelling, but I cannot prove it scientifically. If an evolutionary biologist wants to argue against it, that's fine, but he's stepping out of the realm of science and into the realm of metaphysics, which is not his area of expertise.
Regarding all your quotes, they're just assertions with no supporting evidence by people with dubious credentials. Frankly, I don't have time to carefully study what every crackpot has to say. Give me a real argument, and then I'll see what you have to say. And please, don't just cut and paste from a creationist website.