All you need to do is conduct an experiment refutating some elemental part of evolution. Show, for instance, that differential survival is irrelevent to the relative frequencies of different genes in a population and you'd disprove natural selection. That would be very easy to do, and suddenly every scientist in the world would be searching for alternative models. No miracles are needed at all.
And those of us called “Creationists” won’t abandon our faith (I’m not ashamed to call it that).
I'm glad you call it faith. Because faith, rather than fact, calls you to your beliefs. There's not necessarily anything wrong in believing in something regardless of the facts, but it is important for creationists to understand that their beliefs are faith-based, not fact-based. That should inform public debates about whether creationism best belongs in a fact-based forum (a high school science class, for instance) or rather in a faith-based forum (a church or mosque).
Oh yes there is. It is a rejection of one of the few things that make us human, that set us apart from other living things.
In case you haven't heard yet, science is not about either truth or proof. In that case, it must be taken on faith. It is important for evolutionists to understand that their beliefs are faith based because if there is no truth or proof to support it, there's nothing else on which to build their case.
Church or mosque? You are aware, aren't you, of what tends to happen to those who equate creation with islam?
“Show, for instance, that differential survival is irrelevent to the relative frequencies of different genes in a population and you’d disprove natural selection.”
Why would I want to disprove “natural selection.” It can be clearly demonstrated in “real time.” Also, I see it as a means whereby a species is preserved, not one where a new species arises from a previous one...that cannot “clearly” be demonstrated in “real time.” New genes are not “happening” per se, they are just being shuffled and expressed under the right environmental conditions.
“I’m glad you call it faith. Because faith, rather than fact, calls you to your beliefs. There’s not necessarily anything wrong in believing in something regardless of the facts, but it is important for creationists to understand that their beliefs are faith-based, not fact-based. That should inform public debates about whether creationism best belongs in a fact-based forum (a high school science class, for instance) or rather in a faith-based forum (a church or mosque).”
This all hinges on how one defines a “fact.” For instance, I cannot reproduce the resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, I can present pretty compeling evidence that it did occur. Just because a “fact” (which can also be called a truth) has its origen in religious belief, does not automatically disqualify it for consideration in science classes where origins are discussed. Now to what degree it should be considered is not something I want to be dogmatic about, but I do think it should be considered....if the majority of persons in that school district what that to be so. Materialistic “scientists” do not hold a monopoly on what is acceptable thought in “science.”
We live in a society that values free speech; especially political speech. Science has clearly become political (i.e. global warming) and is fare game for free thought and the expression of it.
I sincerely, without rancor, submit that the days of old school materialistic “scientists” being able to dictate what is or is not acceptable “science” is coming to an end. As I in good humor like to point out, one can either adapt to the change or risk becoming extinct by “natural” selection.