Whenever an opening thesis includes the phrase "..within a Biblical framework," this is immediately telling the audience the game is rigged -- the investigators have no intention of letting the chips fall where they may. In all of these journals, cutting edge research consists of nothing but looking for inconsistencies in an established theory and presenting that as 'evidence' to support any claims one wishes to make regarding Creationism.
It is surprising, then, when this camp collectively soils their pants because the academic community does not believe this type of 'research' actually belongs in a standard science curriculum. If they would abandon this approach and actually use evidence to objectively evaluate their hypothesis put forth instead of using an attempt to dismantle evolution as proof of their theory, the academic community would have no problem allowing such a theory in the classroom, should the evidence show such a hypothesis is viable.
Unfortunately, when asked to display any evidence that supports the claims being made, they always revert to the Legendary Chewbacca defense:
- Ewoks live on Endor
- Everyone knows Chewbacca is a Wookie
- Wookies are not from Endor
- Therefore, Creationism is Science
The more I hear abut these journals, the more I start to think that perhaps allowing Creationism into the curriculum could be a good thing -- it would actually offer the high school student a prime example of what an invalid theory actually is, and why.
™ Version 4.2
