so vehement in their assault on scienceThe first thing to understand is that those who "assault" Darwinism are not assaulting science, despite the fact that many scientists have embraced Darwinism. Both Creation and Darwinism are, fundamentally, religions. Christian Creation cannot be proven, though an excellent case can be made that it takes less faith to accept Creationism than it does to accept Darwinism.
Darwinism cannot and has not been proven. The fossil record does not support a slow morphing of species into each other and the timelines that scientists parrot at every opportunity are sheer speculation. The process of carbon dating relies on assumptions that are unscientific and unproveable, besides unlikely like: the rate of carbon depletion is constant, the rate of carbon depletion is unaffected by external conditions, there are no traces of the daughter element to be found in the original specimen. These are all unproveable and highly improbably, generally speaking. To sum up: Darwinism is unscientific, ergo attacking Darwinism is not attacking science.
It should seem rather self-evident why this is such a heated topic. It is heated because there is infinitely more at stake here than mere origins. It is a fundamental clash of creeds. Whether we are humans created in the image of a merciful, fearful, loving, merciful, just, all-powerful God granted human equality with others of our race and endowed with the dignity due a being made in God's image or a chance smattering of atoms, whose very existence under the cosmology of the average Darwinist is a more bizarre mystery than the Trinity, a developed ape and the universe's joke is a broader issue than simply "where did I come from?". It is the root of philosophy. If you were created in God's image (and I would assert that you were), then equity, justice, honor, duty, and sacrifice have logical origins. If not, then none of these can be justified in the worldview that Darwinism must logically imply. Rather, the only just government is an anarchy where only the fittest may survive. Justice is an illusion and honor is a dream. Self-sacrifice is for fools and duty is for the naive. Yet none of this is relevant if it is true (it would be a fallacy to assert otherwise)--but the implications of that truth are far reaching.
This is not intended to give you an impulsive emotional response to Darwinism, but to explain what is really at stake in the debate.
I admit that my position is based on faith which, in and of itself, is far more intellectually honest than the Darwinist who cannot accept that he does not know that of which he is absolutely sure. I freely admit that I cannot prove my position--but he (the Darwinist) cannot prove his either. Furthermore, I would argue that we can never definitively, imperically prove how the world began as none of us were there and the experience is not reproducible. Even if, tomorrow, you were to go ahead and show in a labratory that everything the Evolutionist believes is possible, you cannot show that it actually occurred in pre-history.
If, then, all we have is faith then you must look around you and decide which is more plausible. I firmly believe that the Creationist account of the world requires less faith than the evolutionists'. If you are interested any further, I would recommend http://www.answersingenesis.org/ I do not agree with everything written on that site, but it is, overall, quite good.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." John 1:1-5
I have spoken my piece and, while I don't expect to convince you of anything, I hope I have shed more "light than heat."
The first thing to understand is that those who "assault" Darwinism are not assaulting science, despite the fact that many scientists have embraced Darwinism.
Those who assault "Darwinism" are also assaulting scientists. The phrase "Darwinism" is a creationist construct - There are no "Churches of Darwin" or Darwinist Schools or anything that gives that term credence. Charles Darwin was a mortal man who lived in the 19th century and through diligent research, published a few really good, really important books. One was all about barnacles. Another was about his ideas on speciation. Nothing more. That said, by attacking Darwin's ideas, you ARE attacking science as a whole. Or, at least ALL of biology and all its branches, like it or not.
Both Creation and Darwinism are, fundamentally, religions.
I suppose this may be right if you can show me where this "Darwinism" is practiced. Since it doesn't exist in scient, maybe it IS a religion of some sort.
Christian Creation cannot be proven, though an excellent case can be made that it takes less faith to accept Creationism than it does to accept Darwinism.
It's not just that Christian Creationism can't be proven - it can't even be studied. That's the problem. Nor can any of the thousands of other creation myths out there. Evolution (which is what I guess you mean when you continue to type "Darwinism," CAN be studied and falsified. Hence, it's science, NOT religion. Now, if you could please state this "excellent case," we're all ears.
Darwinism cannot and has not been proven.
There is no such thing as Darwinism. What IS your idea of what Darwinism is anyway? Do you not understand that tens of thousands of scientists have built upon Darwin's ideas and that while he certainly nailed the framework, his word was hardly the last in the biological sciences. And oh, as anyone who has ever read a single CREVO thread knows,
no one can ever, EVER "Prove" a theory. Ever. Never ever. Never.
The fossil record does not support a slow morphing of species into each other and the timelines that scientists parrot at every opportunity are sheer speculation.
I'm not sure which fossil record your creationist pamphlets have been lying to you about, but there is literally mountains of fossil evidence that would blow your mind, if you chose to look at it.
Fish to elephants, courtesy of Ichneumon, for a start.
The process of carbon dating relies on assumptions that are unscientific and unproveable, besides unlikely like: the rate of carbon depletion is constant, the rate of carbon depletion is unaffected by external conditions, there are no traces of the daughter element to be found in the original specimen. These are all unproveable and highly improbably, generally speaking.
You forgot to add, except when dating shrouds, ark pieces, or bible stuff - then it works fine. Aside from your falsehoods about C-dating, surely you realize that now in 2006 there are LOTS of other dating methods. When different methods are independently used on something, and they date that something the same, it works damn well.
Here's another excellent essay by Ichneumon refuting your creationist talking points.
To sum up: Darwinism is unscientific, ergo attacking Darwinism is not attacking science.
Hmm, methinks you must do some more work. What's funniest here is that if we pretended your points were valid, they were, "Darwinism is a religion, it can't be proven, the fossil record is lacking, and carbon dating is prone to error." Wrong, theories never are, You could spend a lifetime studying fossil lineages, and we would do fine without C-dating, if we needed to. Whoops.
You then prattled on about how "Darwinism" results in all sorts of anarchy and lawlessness and men without direction adn origins and atoms and space blah, blah, blah. You know, typical creationist claptrap. Evolution says nothing of any God, government, or social more. Y'know, stuff like this:
I would argue that we can never definitively, imperically prove how the world began
... which has absolutely nothing in the world to do with evolution. Then you linked AiG, which explains where you get your empty arguments from (though I think they are the most honest creationist site.)
And besides, "Intelligent Design" pretends that it isn't about "faith," that it is indeed science. So thanks for dispensing with that nonsense forthrightly.