First, as a practicing Christian who is also a practicing scientist (and not an "evo"), I'd like to address GGG's parenthetical addition to the title:
"(according to the evos, these men and women aren't scientists)"
1) No genuine scientist believes in and dedicates himself to a premise and sets out to "uncover evidence" to "PROVE" it. (That is precisely the problem uncovered with the "Climategate" files: men who claimed to be "scientists" prostituted themselves on the altar of "PROVING" that "AGW" is real and a threat to humankind.) By their dedication to "PROVING", rather than "investigating", both the CRU/IPCC and "Creation Scientists" have surrendered any claim to being true scientists.
2) No scientific branch has a sub-discipline with accredited courses in "Apologetics". It is theology -- not science -- that is dedicated to "PROVING" its premises.
~~~~~~~~~
BB, you left out the pitifully confined world of
"Camp 3": Proponents of the ego/anthro/geocentric drivel of Bishop Ussher -- who confine and constrain the majesty of the truths told in Genesis 1-3 and John 1-5 and struggle to PROVE they can cram them into the infantile prison fashioned by Ussher's medieval mind-barfs.
Intended to address #214 to those addressed by Betty Boop...
==1) No genuine scientist believes in and dedicates himself to a premise and sets out to “uncover evidence” to “PROVE” it.
Absolutely not true. All kinds of scientists “believe” in hypothesis. Some find out that their belief is confirmed by the scientific method, some find out that their belief has been falsified. The key is to make sure that entrenched interests don’t develop that are capable of putting protective hedge around certain beliefs, thus making them unfalsifiable. Hunan caused global warming would be one recent example of this...Darwin’s evo-atheist creation myth would be another.
==No scientific branch has a sub-discipline with accredited courses in “Apologetics”. It is theology — not science — that is dedicated to “PROVING” its premises.
Sure they do, it’s called Creation Science. And btw, science is based on a number of assumptions that cannot be themselves proven by empirical science. They must be taken on faith. Should we then toss out the scientific method because it rests on faith-based assumptions?
PS And speaking of “drivel”, I can find no greater example of drivel than nature selecting from random processes to create a complex, specified, super-sophisticated, digital DNA code, when the only known cause of digital codes fitting this description are intelligent designers...and those codes pale in comparison to DNA. Now that’s drivel!
"Camp 3": Proponents of the ego/anthro/geocentric drivel of Bishop Ussher -- who confine and constrain the majesty of the truths told in Genesis 1-3 and John 1-5 and struggle to PROVE they can cram them into the infantile prison fashioned by Ussher's medieval mind-barfs.
Guilty. Great call, TXnMA!!!
Thanks for setting the record straight — we do need to consider/include Camp 3.