So it is obvious that you are not qualified to have an opinion on this subject. Did you ever hear about DNA?

Oh yes we are.

“The atheist must come face to face with the question “if there is a god, would we expect him to communicate with us or not?””

Since the premise is assumed to be false, the question is silly.

Turn the question around - if a supernatural entity (whatever that might be) did “communicate with us” in the past, why doesn’t it do it again in the present? But if it really did communicate in a convincing (scientific) way, then it would no longer be supernatural. We would ask it questions and it would give answers and we would say “perhaps you’re smarter, but you don’t have all the answers”. After all, at that point it’s only a natural entity.

So there’s never going to be a “compromise” between natural science and supernatural religion.

Science is an internally consistent ”game” made up by humans to describe the physical world. It has rules. It isn’t the only way to look at the world. Isn’t even mutually exclusive of other ways of looking at the world. Creation Science and ID people are like a kid showing up at a football game carrying a bat because they want a hit. All I can say is it’s the wrong game with the wrong rules for what they want. The hostility and argument is like what you sometimes get with a 5 year old that doesn’t get her way. ”But I want it to work the way I want it to!”

Sorry kid, those are the rules. Go make up your own game. But don’t call it science, there is already a game with that name.

Actually, take a class on the whole idea of science in the first place so that you’ll know what “theory” means.

IAMBs last blog post..*Cough* *Gurgle* *Croak*

Even Darwin understood it was not a tenable philosophy in the sense that he said that he would not want to live in “such a world” as far as human morality (or lack thereof) might be derived from evolution. However, it is the only tenable science. And now T. Rex DNA is similar to modern birds. And there’s Tiktaalik. So sure, if you want to ignore astronomy, geology, physics, chemistry, and a host of other fields of science, (not to mention biology), go ahead and believe your dusty old book.

“As for sources, they are numerous”

Yes, there’s certainly no “suppression” of creationists’ silly ideas. Now about that “Germ Theory of Disease”. Let’s not get carried away and let a child die by ignoring modern medicine and simply praying that she will get well. Oh, they did. I’m sorry. Well, ideas have consequences.

And then there’s the understanding about lactose-intolerance, gluten intolerance, etc. All genetically-based problems. Well, modern medicine doesn’t need “evolution”, just ask Egnor, the DI’s medical stooge. So we wouldn’t want to actually come up with a cure for these problems if it required us to understand the genetics, would we? That might be a little too close to endorsing evolution.

“given one of my chief arguments– that TENS and YEC (Young Earth Creationism) both are worldviews explaining facts around them”

So of course your “creation science” is just as good as “real science” - that’s why the Supreme Court and the judge at Dover ruled it religion, not science. They actually had real trials, not pseudo-trials.

The ICR wanted to have a master of “science education” degree program and the Texas board to permit such a thing said “go away and file your lawsuit”. So maybe we will have yet another “my religion is too science” trial.

“but it’s intellectually dishonest to say they haven’t seen it.”

No one claims that they have not seen it. So no one is “intellectually dishonest”. You’re just trying to score debating points by beating up a strawman. We’ve all seen that silly “evidence” 100 times in the last 40 years. But it’s obvious anti-science nonsense. So it’s not really “evidence”. So it is true, in fact, that there’s “no real evidence”.

Marys last blog post..It Was a Dark and Stormy Night

With regard to the finches, Darwin was later proven wrong. Haeckel’s embryos were faked, and there’s been no good explanation for the gaps in the fossil record, only good excuses in my opinion (and I recognize that as my personal opinion.)

As for sources, they are numerous and I would encourage you to look them up on your own. You will find plenty of sources (as I did) citing these as evidence or proof despite their flaws.

If Darwinism were taught as merely a theory or as one possibility, I would not be nearly as bothered (although it’s obvious I disagree.) What concerns me most is that it’s not treated with any objectivity by those who hold on to it as not a theory, but as AG stated a worldview in which there is no room for the possibility of a divine Creator.

Christine @ Serenity How?s last blog post..The Ways of the Lawn - Part 2

AGs last blog post..Crazy Beautiful!

Such as?? (and the source, please)

Musicguys last blog post..Quote Monday

Christine @ Serenity How?s last blog post..Blogger’s Day Planner