”Are you suggesting that the Pope is a Scientist?”
Figure it out for yourself. The Pope deals in the truth. Is it not true that in Science, there is no such thing as the truth (or the TRVTH as Masters of the Universe are so fond of saying mockingly)?
Otherwise, there are some gaps in our dialogue:
You’ve still not explained how “wanting to puke” has damaged science.
Nor have you demonstrated how Christian parents, having no power in the matter, can retard the ‘progress’ of science education.
Do you agree with my objection to the Webster’s Universal Dictionary, edition of 1937, definition of ‘Creationism, in that it makes no distinction between a philosophical tenet and a scientific theory, or demonstrates no appreciation for their dissimilar functions?
You’ve not specified whose values you prefer be included in public instruction in the place of the ‘moral instruction’ of which Jefferson and Adams spoke. Are you genuinely indifferent to what values are taught in government indoctrination centers so long as they are not Judeo-Christian?
Do you dispute that it is impossible to teach any discipline absent values?
You’ve not said how you would explain to parents why it’s perfectly appropriate that values inimical to their beliefs ought be enforced on their children, but that they may not have any voice in the values taught in government indoctrination centers.
You’ve not offered your views on what composes the values of government indoctrination center teachers.
Nor have you offered a theory on what values those teachers will pass on to their students. Nor have you offered an opinion on how the chaff is separated from the grain in determining those values. Nor have you suggested who it is that should make the determination if it is not the patrons of the respective government indoctrination center districts.
Other than that, I guess you’ve done pretty well in holding up your end of the conversation.
I don’t know of any Christian who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created Mankind and the Universe (the heavens and the earth). Do you?
OK, it is rather nutty for you to insist that we use a definition that is particular to yourself for “creationist” instead of using the definition for what over 99.9% of people MEAN when they say “creationist”; including those who call themselves “creationist”.
It is rather nutty for you to provide definitions for creationist that you then take objection to us using; such as Websters that pointed out that creationism usually means opposition to the theory of evolution.
The Pope would not call himself a creationist any more than I would, yet he would, as I do, insist that all things in this universe are created by God.
Evolution, Pope Benedict XVI said is a “truth which enriches our understanding of life and being and such.”
Myself I would say that it is a “theory which enriches our understanding of life and being and such, which explains and predicts observations.”
That might avoid any traumatic feelings of being sneered at for you.
And it's just as non-sensical to assert that creation means: "an opposition to evolution". And create means exactly what it says in the webster's dictionary:
"create: make, or bring about". And does one find "evolve" as the opposite of create here? No.
And meanwhile, can any evo give us a definition of evolution?
Nope. It's like nailing jello to a wall. What a crock!