Replies

"you'll find a horde of creationists jumping at the chance to attack or challenge the finding, whatever it is, and rail about 'evolutionists', 'naturalism', or 'humanism'."

If you follow through on their thinking, there is no basis for human rights, democracy or freedom. Who is to say that slavery is evil or that terrorists that crash planes into buildings full of people are wrong. If our world is the result of a game of dice, than morality is just a tool used by society to maintain order. Who is to say that there are unalienable rights. Morality is what the majority think at a given time in history. Basically, our constitution is a bunch of crap if evolution, naturalism and humanism are true. Who is to say that the nature of man is basically evil? Why is the separation of powers needed? Why not just follow communism which is based on humanism -- the notion that man is basically good.

Anyone with a brain knows that the conservative philosophy is true to human nature. The underlying assumptions stem from a theistic philosophy (specifically Judeo-Christian).

A lot of people claim that Creationists distort science, but the reality is that Naturalists distort science effectively disallowing the possibility that God may exist. The reality is that science was built upon the work of Creationists. The Judeo-Christian philosophy expected order in nature due to the hand of God.

It is sad to say that the Naturalists have taken control and are unwilling to even allow a debate concerning evolution and the notion of a special creation. The issues aren't related to science -- the arguments are based more on philosophy and pseudoscience (e.g the notion that macro-evolution is established fact).

A lot of people claim that Creationists distort science, but the reality is that Naturalists distort science effectively disallowing the possibility that God may exist.

Are we suggesting that we start with the assumption that a specific God exists before examining the natural universe? Why should we make such an assumption, and why must it be the speific God that you would choose as opposed to one of a different religion?

It is sad to say that the Naturalists have taken control and are unwilling to even allow a debate concerning evolution and the notion of a special creation.

A debate assumes some sort of equality between the positions. Evolution is science, complete with a huge body of evidence supporting it and fairly accurate predictive powers. Creationism has neither and is essentially a religious notion. The two are nowhere near equal in any shape, manner or form.

The issues aren't related to science -- the arguments are based more on philosophy and pseudoscience (e.g the notion that macro-evolution is established fact).

What is the magical mechanism that keeps "microevolution" from spilling over to "macroevolution?" We've been asking this question for years from creationists, and not one has ever been able to answer it. You posit the theory; where is your evidence to back it up?