Replies

In other words, there are people of Christian faith who believe in God but also accept the reality of science.

What's funny is this whole type of discussion is that creationists aren't even "rejecting science", they are rejecting bad science passed off as received truth - something that evolutionists argue that religion does.

Let's face it - there are quite a number of conceptual and evidential reasons to question just about every tenet of evolutionary theory. Some of these reasons might end up being good reasons, and some might not. The problem is not the invalidity of arguments made by creationists (well, except for that whole "geocentricity" thing). The problem is that evolutionists point-blank refuse to allow their theory to be challenged scientifically. To "prove" their theory, they come up with any number of circularly-reasoned arguments based off of their own theories that they then USE to suggest that they've proven their theories. When someone DOES challenge, instead of responding like the mature adults that degrees in science might suggest them to be, they instead act like spoiled five-year olds who are told that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

The problem is that evolutionists point-blank refuse to allow their theory to be challenged scientifically. But that is a false argument IMO. Because it is not "evolutionists" you must debate if you are a YE creationist. It's geologists, astronomers, paleontologists, a whole SLEW of scientific disciplines. To focus on evolution alone is a canard in my opinion.

The problem is that evolutionists point-blank refuse to allow their theory to be challenged scientifically. To "prove" their theory, they come up with any number of circularly-reasoned arguments based off of their own theories that they then USE to suggest that they've proven their theories.

False. Theories cannot be proved. They can be supported or, in some cases, disproved.

The problem is that creationists do not bring scientific evidence to the discussion; they bring religious belief couched in scientific terms. A challenge to a scientific theory must first of all be based on science. If you go to Answers in Genesis or some of the other creationist websites, the level of science they present in most of their arguments would result in a failing grade in first year classes.

When someone DOES challenge, instead of responding like the mature adults that degrees in science might suggest them to be, they instead act like spoiled five-year olds who are told that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

Sorry, that is generally not the case. What you may be seeing is a natural reaction to the hundredth (or thousandth) time a scientist responds to a creationist's claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits evolution, or asks "If we descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Even scientists do not have endless patience.