That's not what they said. Just a different kind of education, one that realizes that science is just another imperfect human endeavor, that it's not the only source of knowledge.
What else is there? Tarot cards? Pendulum dowsing? Believing a story about a talking snake without a shred of evidence for it? In what sense would the latter be "knowledge"? Would it also be "knowledge" if someone believed the Norse myths without evidence for them?
That there's no defined line where science stops and atheism starts.
If true, that would be an excellent argument for atheism.
There’s really nothing new about it. To maintain one’s position, to double down is no different than what evolutionists did when Darwin’s Black Box came out, is it?
Actually, by and large they ignored his trivial mistakes, though one or two bestirred themselves to point 'em out.
Is it different from the move made as evolution is protected from the criticism that ID makes of evolution? Have creationists tried to use the court system to protect something from criticism?
No, nor have evolutionists. They have, however, used the court system to prevent children from being illegally taught religiously-motivated crap. Creationists are free to criticize all they like, just not to spend taxpayers' money on teaching nonsense to children.
Well, he's either a phoney or a fool. Consider this:
One concerns the word "paraconformity". In The Genesis Flood, I had heard that paraconformity was a word used by evolutionary geologists for fossil systems out of order, but with no evidence of erosion or overthrusting. My heart really started pounding when paraconformities and unconformities came up in geology class. What did the professor say? Essentially the same thing as Morris and Whitcomb.
It is surely not beyond his ability to look up the word "paraconformity". It has nothing to do with "fossil systems out of order".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.