Please do not take this as a personal attack, since I do not know you and have nothing against you personally. It is rather my skeptical, somewhat weary response to a predictable line of lame reasoning that I have come to expect from the die-hard evolutionists.
No, God doesn’t talk to me, any more than fossils do.
Deny, if you dare, that evolutionary scientists have for decades, with supreme arrogance, labeled any dissenting voices as cranks, only to discover that they needed to modify their own theories in light of new discoveries. It’s easy to come up with a crappy theory that is constantly band-aided when it comes up short. After all, that’s what your evolutionist colleagues accuse the creationists of doing (I make no claim to be a “creation-scientist,” either, whatever that is.)
BTW, I didn’t start off disbelieving evolution. I was raised a mainstream Presbyterian, not a Baptist or a fundamentalist. I still don’t know if God created everything in six days, but the implausibility of chance resulting in what I see around me required too big a leap of faith. It just became too difficult to deny that the Darwinian emperor had no clothes.
And yes, they did “lie.” Just as the hot-air cultists are doing today, it is the evolutionists who have been enshrining vast bodies of theory as though they are some sort of gospel from on high. They are teaching it as fact, “more compelling than the THEORY that the earth revolves around the sun,” to quote a previous post. For God’s sake, wake up. Most of my stalwart evolutionist friends are a very small part of the academy. Most scholars tend to comparmentalize, seeing no need to deny either the Bible or evolution.
Nobody outside your own pitifully small mutual admiration society believes you anymore.
>enshrining vast bodies of theory
the beauty of science is that theory DOESN’T get “enshrined” at least not for long. When it’s refuted by experiment (and sometimes by better theory) it gets replaced. Of course that’s the perfect model, because scientists are human, sometimes you have to wait for the current crop of “lead bulls” to die off before the new paradigm prevails, See Thomas Kuhn’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions for a good overview of THAT dynamic!) but usually not.
“Deny, if you dare, that evolutionary scientists have for decades, with supreme arrogance, labeled any dissenting voices as cranks, only to discover that they needed to modify their own theories in light of new discoveries.”
You call it arrogance when science incorporates new findings and research and modifies theories and understanding when such information becomes available?
That’s what science IS, my friend.
What is arrogant is not bothering to understand that science is not static, and to trying to exploit that there are always new findings that increase the scientific body of knowledge as somehow being a fatal flaw in scientific endeavors.
Science is humble.