Replies

And let me add that this: do you think that evolutionists 'believe in' evolution in the way that religious believers 'believe in' God? If so, I'd say that you're mistaken. Scientists (those worthy of the name, anyway) entertain theories as 'current best explanations' of the facts in evidence, always subject to review and modification as new facts are discovered or old facts are re-interpreted. This is not the (common) attitude of religious believers with respect to belief in God.

Yes and Yes.

Yes, evolution is a belief system requiring faith. It is an interpretation of observations based on certain philosophical presuppositions, many of which are absurd.

The very fact that evolutionary theory is changing removes any sense of absoluteness about it. What is "true" today may not be "true" tomorrow. Therefore what is not true tomorrow is false today. Yet you'd have us believe it as fact regardless. Kleibold and Harris believed it as fact. I will not set aside my intellect in order to conform to the wishes of a few. If evolution is true, convince me and the other %54 of conservative, educated, successful Americans who are still waiting to be convinced.

If reasonable people are not convinced, why not? Are they all ignorant, as you imply, or is the case for evolution anemic at best?

As for the "attitude of religious believers with respect to belief in God," you should expect nothing less. God's existence is different than the evolutionary theory in many ways:

Theists do not mindlessly rule out the existence of things unseen. Naturalists do.

The existence of God automatically requires absolutes. Evolutionists fear absolutes.

An omnipotent omniscient eternal God does not and cannot change. Evolution is a Mexican jumping bean.

The very fact that evolutionary theory is changing removes any sense of absoluteness about it.

Are you reading what I'm writing? Your sentence which I've just quoted implies that I made some sort of claim for the absolute truth of evolution theory. I made no such claim; in fact, I made just the opposite claim.

Here's what I wrote in the message you were responding to (you quoted it yourself!):

Scientists (those worthy of the name, anyway) entertain theories as 'current best explanations' of the facts in evidence, always subject to review and modification as new facts are discovered or old facts are re-interpreted.

There's nothing unclear about that, I think. And, considering what you wrote in the remainder of your message, I believe you agree with me about the differences between the attitude of mind of a scientist and the attitude of mind of a religious believer.

His existence is not theoretical. Evolution is.

Well, now here we are at the prime directive of Creationists. To create a "scientific aura" around their claims that somehow they've proven God's existence.

This is the goal of Creationism.

It's just a carbon copy of the "scientific" methods of the Environmentalists, which are just as bogus. Wherein they take one small slice of scientific evidence, ignore the rest, and procede to install themselves in positions of power.

Maybe someday the Creationists will win and we'll have a Creationism Promotion Agency operating out of the old EPA dept.

What post are you angling for Dataman? Counting your government retirement checks yet?