Replies

I love it when creationists think they know more about science than scientists, I love it.

So why should it be assumed that a creationist can't be a good scientist? A lot of evolutionists think they have the creationists all figured out. The minute they here creation, they lump them into a class of knuckle dragging, anti-intellectual, pseudo-scientists. What makes evolutionists so sure that they have a corner on the intellectual market? This is working on the presumption that having a non-God worldview is a neutral position and provides the only objective point of view. They are doing the very thing they condemn creationists for; not being willing to consider that a different viewpoint might be correct. So creation goes against current prevailing wisdom... So did the heliocentric view of the solar system, the idea that the Earth was round, spontaneous generation, the germ theory, etc. Each of these ideas was pursued, studied, and later proved to be true yet the men behind these ideas were mocked and threatened. Just because you don't agree with a theory or believe in it yourself, doesn't mean that it's wrong. I thought that science was to study all different viewpoints and see which are valid.

"So did the heliocentric view of the solar system, the idea that the Earth was round, spontaneous generation, the germ theory, etc. Each of these ideas was pursued, studied, and later proved to be true yet the men behind these ideas were mocked and threatened"

Spontaneous generation was proved true? When? I hope this was a mistake on your part.

As for creationism, it used to be the prevailing wisdom; it had it's day and was found inadequate. There is no need to continually dig up the dead corpses of old theories that science and the evidence has passed by.

So creation goes against current prevailing wisdom... So did the heliocentric view of the solar system, the idea that the Earth was round, spontaneous generation, the germ theory

Not 'against current prevailing wisdom', Creationism goes against all available empirical, scientific evidence. More, I think it is very clear from the literature A Beka posted earlier, the reason this is so is clear: for some Biblical literalists, who can not refute evolutionary biology using empirical means, are seeking to effectively abandon the scientific method. And, if such material is ones sole source of instruction, then clearly one is not capable of doing science. Of course, it is a perfectly valid personal choice to simply ignore science if one feels it conflict with ones religious faith. A majority of Christians do not have such a conflict, but some Christians (and some Muslims, some Jews, etc.) do--and that is a freedom they have under our constitution.

It is an interesting set of examples you offer of other theories. They did indeed become established as true, but by means of science, not by denying science--except for spontaneous generation, which was demonstrated to not occur. And in the case of the heliocentrism, it was established by science despite the opposition of the church, for at that time Biblical literalism was indeed 'mainstream' Christian theology.