Replies

Scientists from disciplines from genomics to paleontology rely heavily on evolution and support it 100%. If you want ID taught in schools, fine. But under no circumstances may it be taught in science class, since scientists unanimously agree it is NOT science
Name me a single important scientific discovery with evolution as its basis. You can't. And don't give me any drivel about "speciation and genetic research leading to cures for diseases" nonsense. Speciation is not evidence of evolution, but, on the contrary, is evidence of intelligent design. Speciation does not add to a population, but detracts from it. Something is lost when populations can no longer breed and produce viable offspring. That is devolution, not evolution. Frogs only become princes in fairy tales and biology textbooks.

Name me a single important scientific discovery with evolution as its basis. You can't.

Most certainly, creation "science" is a desolate field, producing nothing but comic books, fraudulent tapes, and websites that are pits of ignorance.

Consider, for example, the biotech industry, which is unquestionably involved with the science of biology:

The survey, promoted by the Commerce Department as the first comprehensive survey of the U.S. biotech industry, found 1.1 million total employees in the 1,031 responding companies, with 130,000 employees engaged in biotech activities. Those firms reported $50.4 billion in net sales related to biotech in 2001, with an operating income of $9.4 billion.
[snip]
The survey also found that biotech-related research and development spending in 2001 amounted to $16.4 billion, about 10 percent of all U.S. industry R&D that year. Biotech R&D was a heavy expense for firms responding -- it accounted for more than 33 percent of the respondents' biotech budgets ...
[snip]
More than 66,000 of the firms' 130,000 biotech employees had technical-related jobs, with 55 percent of those technical jobs belonging to scientists.
Source: Survey: U.S. Biotech Industry Poised for Growth. (From 13 November 2003)

I wonder if any of those scientists are "creation scientists"?

Speciation is not evidence of evolution, but, on the contrary, is evidence of intelligent design.

I must say that I had not heard this absurd claim before.

Something is lost when populations can no longer breed and produce viable offspring. That is devolution, not evolution.

I do believe that this is one of the more absurd twisting of semantics that I've seen amongst creationist arguments. Imagine, trying to argue that the emergence of two species where previously there had only been one is an overall loss. Still, I see that he's trying to tie it into the intellectually dishonest notion of "devolution", which is a meaningless word with no relevance in biological study.