Replies

You are incorrect in one regard...legitimate science simply seeks a provable answer. Creationists seek a particular answer. As stated, if evidence emerges which contradicts evolutionary theory, it will be modified or discarded at that time.

Scientists do not, as a rule, "marry" a theory. In fact, evolution is almost constantly tested and refined.

I fail to see where "faith" comes in to play in science. The scientist either has evidence and repeatable results or he does not. If he does not, the method demands that the theory or conclusion be rejected, or altered.

Those who claim that evolutionists engage in "faith" of some sort only seek, once again, to blur the distinction between science and creationism. They are in no way that similar.

I fail to see where "faith" comes in to play in science.

In the nonscientific, theological extrapolations some make from science.
Rather than viewing science as a valuable tool with certain limitations and unique areas of utility, many folks of every theological understanding (or misunderstanding, for that matter) apply it to areas of legitimate inquiry about reality that are completely extra-scientific.

I fail to see where "faith" comes in to play in science. The scientist either has evidence and repeatable results or he does not. If he does not, the method demands that the theory or conclusion be rejected, or altered.

There are no "repeatable results" when it comes to evolution, any more than there are with archaeology. The study of life's origins, whether you look at it from a creation or naturalistic POV, is a historical science, not something that can be repeated in the lab. There's a big difference in the methodology between the two: Physical science lends itself to experimentation, where historical science depends on an interpretation of an ever-increasing body of evidence that cannot be reproduced in the lab. Disagree? Then I propose that you create life and let it evolve into an entire world of different species . . . in the lab.

Of course, then all you'll be doing is proving that it takes an intellegence to create life, but that's the Catch-22. ;^)

If the "other side" were mentioned, honesty would require the disclaimer that no verifiable evidence supported it.

Certainly there is. There's an entire body of data that supports the theory that life does not spontaneously appear from inorganic material, which is what purely naturalistic evolution requires. We've discovered that the so-called "simple" cell isn't, and that it requires millions of very carefully balanced parts and interactions to function, which could not have arised by common chance. Irreducible complexity. We have a derth of transitional forms in the fossil records, when according to evolution we should have almost nothing but transitional forms--that is, we see stable species going along virtually unchanged for millions of years, not slow changes over time.

And we have an increasing number of biologists acknowledging those facts. Evolutionists are being disingenous when they paint the struggle as being between naturalistic evolution and Biblical young-earth creationism. There is a vast amount of middle ground, from those who posit a creative intellegence who was only responsible for abiogenesis to those who see a need for a mechanic other than natural selection to explain the abundance of different lifeforms and the missing transitions in the fossil record, all of which are represented in the growing ID movement.

The question is, do we tell our children about this ongoing debate honestly, or do we try to lock them into one viewpoint or another by allowing only one to be taught in schools and elimiating the conflicting data? I vote for honesty.

Surely you are not suggesting that atheist scientists, committed to atheistic evolution, enter into their theorizing, research, etc. without a worldview?

The atheistic scientist carries with him or her a 'theory' --- he or she no doubt has, as every human being, a particular worldview, a 'faith' if you will. I suspect that most atheistic scientists do not enter into their work open to the possibility of intelligent design. From the public writings of most, they are decidedly set against that option. So too, no doubt most creationists are not open to the possiblity that there is no Creator.

However, when a scientist, theist or atheist, goes about his or her work --- measuring, weighing, quantifying, hypothesizing, evaluating and so on ---- they do that from a particular worldview. To advance a hypothesis, one must have some view of reality, the world, natural probabilities, etc. My point simply is, neutrality is a myth.

Beyond that, it is my estimation, that atheistic evolutionists are smuggling the language of theism into their own rhetoric in order to prop up their worldview. In a universe and world of random chance, chaos, meaninglessness - one cannot speak of rationality, logic, and so on unless their is a basis, a standard, from and against which to define and evaluate that which is reasonable, rational, logical and the like. Only a intelligent designer or Creator provides such a standard.

Nonetheless, I don't begrudge the scientist who attempts to do his or her work as thought there is no Creator. I simply think it makes them look silly.