So yes Virginia - Creationists are anti-science. The only type of science they like is “Creation Science” which is not science at all as its methodology is in direct opposition to the scientific method.
Moreover it is to be expected that Creationists are not very conversant or knowledgeable about science - as the less educated someone is - the more likely they are to be a creationist.
That being said - creationists cannot seem to help sounding like total idiots talking about theories being “unproven” and offering up inane idiocy like “if humans evolved from apes - why are there still apes?”.
That is the general level of knowledge about science and evolution we have to deal with from people on the creationist side.
because you say so.
Corollary: Government owned and run socialist-entitlement schools have **NEVER** been religiously, politically, or culturally neutral!
Solution: Begin the process of privatizing K-12 education. END the government school curriculum wars!
Anecdotal Observation: Atheists are the biggest defenders of the godless government schools. Gee! Good for them! They get the taxpayer to fund their religious worldview. How convenient! /sarc
Truth: The **NARROW** field of evolution is important to only a very SMALL number of scientists working in this area of science. The VAST VAST VAST majority of scientists ( even in the area of biology) rarely deal with it in their day to day research and work. As for the rest of the population of American citizens it is of NO IMPORTANCE in their daily lives or work whatsoever.
Since all Christians are, by definition, Creationists, the idea of Creationism is as old as The Bible. Why do you choose to dirty up a whole people and an entire religion with what you consider a denigratory, disparaging, and scurrilous pejorative term?
Many Christians have varying and specific ideas about Creation. So . . . there are “good” Christians and there are “bad” Christians? According to allmendream, only the “bad” Christians shall be known as “Creationists”? Do you perhaps propose that the “bad” Christians wear armbands? Or, would a large “C” branded on their foreheads be a better solution?
I know of no Christian who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created the Universe. Do you? Even the unconventional Thomas Jefferson believed that God created Mankind and the Universe.
With all the simple-minded directness of a three-year old, you begin in typical propagandist fashion with a bait & switch tactic: starting with a specific target (“special” creationism, and - later in the same sentence – “modern creationists”), which you immediately drop for the generic term “creationism.” You’ve had conversations with very scientifically sophisticated Christians (much to your detriment, it must be said), so you know it is a gross misstatement to accuse them of being anti-science. You might as well accuse them all of being lactose intolerant, for all the sense it would make.
Aside from the generic term Creationist, or Creationism, there are any number of terms used to describe certain Christian Creationist ideas: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Day-Age Creationism, Gap Creationism, Evolution Creationism, Modern Geocentrism Creationists, Omphalos hypothesis Creationism, Creation science Creationism, Progressive Creationism, Special Creationism, Neo Creationism, Intelligent design Creationism, Creation Literalism, Evolution Theist Creationism, Micro-Evolutionary Creationism, Progressive Creationism, Flat Earther Creationism, “hard core” Creationism, Modern Creationism (not proposed as an exhaustive list). Be specific, and identify with whom it is you have a quarrel. Stop trying to dirty up a whole culture with your calumnious insults
Who gave you the authority to hijack the lexicon and arbitrarily alter the meaning of terms? That’s the tactic of those who look to smear a whole people by demeaning their identity. 0bamatrons and admirers of Goebbels would applaud your calumny. Not many others.
So when Darwin offered his hypothesis in opposition to that days convention he was demonstrating his opposition to science? When Einstein proffered the general theory of relativity he was unscientific and demonstrating his opposition to that days convention. When Eddington took measurements and proved Einsteins theory to be correct he was going against convention? When Hubble confirmed the origin of the universe he violated convention and thus was unscientific? When Freidman and Lamatreyia again proved origin and threw in with Einstein they were unconventional and thus unscientific? When Hoyl agreed to dispose of the steady-state theory and threw in with Einstein, he was violating his duty to 'science'?
I guess my point is, these men seemed committed to truth, and the search for the truth, not a presuppositional committment to their comfort zone. As you know, Einstein's committment was so strong that he conjoured a cosmological constant to actually make void his earth-shattering theory...and finally, to Hubble, at the telescope at Mt.Wilson, just outside of LA, as Einstein himself looked at Hubbles findings, he finally admitted that his cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his life.
Some of us ask questions....some criticize those questions.
So when Darwin offered his hypothesis in opposition to that days convention he was demonstrating his opposition to science? When Einstein proffered the general theory of relativity he was unscientific and demonstrating his opposition to that days convention. When Eddington took measurements and proved Einsteins theory to be correct he was going against convention? When Hubble confirmed the origin of the universe he violated convention and thus was unscientific? When Freidman and Lamatreyia again proved origin and threw in with Einstein they were unconventional and thus unscientific? When Hoyl agreed to dispose of the steady-state theory and threw in with Einstein, he was violating his duty to 'science'?
I guess my point is, these men seemed committed to truth, and the search for the truth, not a presuppositional committment to their comfort zone. As you know, Einstein's committment was so strong that he conjoured a cosmological constant to actually make void his earth-shattering theory...and finally, to Hubble, at the telescope at Mt.Wilson, just outside of LA, as Einstein himself looked at Hubbles findings, he finally admitted that his cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his life.
Some of us ask questions....some criticize those questions.