Government in the US is Promoting Anti-Creationist Dogma Evolution

Percipient:
I'm curious how much people still perceive Creationism as a threat to public school science education.John Paul:
I am sure there are many that do, judging from some of the other discussion boards I have visited. The main problem being "Creationism" is being all lumped into one group. There doesn't seem to be separate theories from the Creationists. YEC is based upon a literal interpretation of Genesis, with the age of the Earth determined by the genealogy contained therein.But if we look at the Creationists' verison of biological evolution, I posit it is just as scientific as the accepted paradigm. The main differences in the two are the starting points (some unknown population of single celled organisms vs. the "Created Kinds"), the direction (even though the theory of evolution does not speak of a direction, the way it is being applied here implies "simple to complex" vs. variations within the "Kinds) and the extent (unlimited vs. limited). Just as the current theory of evolution doesn't care about abiogenesis or where that first population of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate, came from, the same goes for the Creation version concerning the "Created Kinds". (Baraminology is currently trying to answer the questions pertaining to the Created Kinds.)
Then we have the Creation version of cosmology as peresented by Dr. Russell Humphrys in Starlight and Time which would rival the "big-bang" theory and the solar nebula hypothesis.
I would say there are at least two parts of the Creation account that are at least as "scientific" as there more accepted naturalistic counter-parts.Percipient:
It seems as if Creationism, at least as publicly expressed on the Internet, has undergone a seachange away from strict literalism and toward ID.John Paul:
The feeling there is that if schools start teaching ID then teaching the children at home or in church that God is the ID(er) would be much easier. After Watson and Crick made their double-helix discovery circa 1953 the question of ID should have been answered. But here we are some 48 years later still trying to decide whether or not the obvious is "scientific". Go figure.

tgamble:
Witness the kansas incident where they removed a nice chunk of science including evolution and the age of the earth. As well as the Big Bang.John Paul:
The Kansas "incident" was blown out of proportion by the media with help from deceitful evolutionists.Read this article: Here's the scoop - what's really in the standards!We should teach our children to be critical thinkers by teaching them there are problemas at the present with the current scientific views of life and the origins thereof. There is more than one possibility of how we got here. To say otherwise would be close-minded and hardly critical.Soon ID will be in biology textbooks, as it should have been since the 1950s. What will be the complaint then? The old tried and failed "the apparent design is only illusory." bit? Natural selection cannot create or design an original. It can only act on what is already there.------------------
John Paul

gene90:
The difference is that abiogenesis itself has some evidence going for it.John Paul:
Yeah, evidence shows it is as close to impossible as you can get. But I guess that is the only way you guys can say any Creationist version of biological evolution is not science because it starts from an "unnatural" beginning. Of course no one mentions abiogenesis is a big fairy tale.gene90:
Now, about ID. We start with a pre-supposed God, and some elements God has already made.John Paul:
ID does not start with a pre-supposed God. God is a possibility but not a necessity.ID looks at life and its specified complexity and infers an intelligent designer. The mechanism for ID would be very similar to Dr. Spetner's Non-Random Evolutionary Hypothesis which he lays out in his book Not By Chance.gene90:
How does God reach down from Heaven and make the molecules align to generate a living thing?John Paul:
That is what we are trying to find out.gene90:
Does He cast a spell? Surely not, that is sorcery, not science.John Paul:
I will put it this way, IF God did cast a spell to Create life, than any science that tries to attempt a different answer is worthless because it is not indicative of reality.gene90:
How are you going to find the mechanism, and how are we going to test it empirically?John Paul:
Read Spetner's book. But now I have to ask you, how do you test that procaryotes can/ did evolve into eucaryotes?gene90:
You see...if the naturalistic version can use abiological processes to make amino acids,John Paul:
Under controlled laboratory experiments, which is hardly natural. Not to mention the fact that the experiments also created many toxins such as tar or that the presence of water or oxygen would spell peril for any alleged early chemical reactions.Evolution starts after life appeared on Earth. Regardless of what you may believe, neither side has a viable "purely natural" method of how life first appeared. You have faith that science will someday find an answer. Origins science meanwhile has faith that Mother Nature together with Father Time can overcome just about any obstacle. Back to the point- leaving out origins the Creation model of biological evolution is just as scientifically valid as any theory that states common descent from some unknown population of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate.What Creationists need to do, is to better define what a "Kind" is.