quote:Originally posted by halcyonwaters: Thus, if we don't teach we evolved into our present form, all of that research will stop. I don't want to call anyone dishonest... but surely they see the difference. Surely you must see the difference!
The point is that all science uses the same rules of inference that creationists wish to discard in the special case of evolution, claiming that these methods are insufficient. Since the scientific method is the same across the board, it seems a bit weird to accept it sometimes but not others.
John, well said. I concur. It seems to me passing strange that creationists pick and choose the bits of science which they want (which might offer some support for their religious views) whilst denying the validity of any part of science which conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Why don't creationists simply rely on faith and their scriptural readings to cure their medical conditions? It is the ultimate authority for them on all matters.
Sorry, Halcyonwaters, but there is great confusion here caused by using wierd terms like 'evolutionary science'. Evolution is a scientific theory, just as are general relativity, optics, quantum mechanics, etc. What is at issue is the way science is done - looking at the data, developing conjectures, testing them, making predictions from the conjectures, and, if they work, relabelling them as theories. But the questioning and testing never stops.
Evidence in astronomy and cosmology indicates that the universe has evolved. This has nothing to do with Darwin's theory, which only applies to living organisms. Geophysics (Plate Techtonics, etc) also indicates that the earth has evolved over a vast period of time. This again has nothing to do with Darwin or Hubble.
Various areas of science independantly indicate that large changes have occurred over vast periods of time. YECs claim that the arguments are circular, geology based on evolution and evolution based on geology. But this is a lie. Geological time frames were developed by Hutton and Lyell around 1780-1800, 60 years before Darwin published his book. And the Hubble constant (age of the universe) is another totally independant measurement. So it is not science which is evolutionary. It is the universe and its components.
But be aware that totally different types of evolution occur at different levels. There is no planetary or cosmic 'survival of the fittest'. Indiscriminate use of this one word in all cases by YECs is a ploy to deceive the confused.
To get back to your original point, various medical procedures and 'miracles' are the result of scientific research. They use theories like Harvey's theory about blood flow, or Watson and Crick's theory about the DNA helix. Why should these theories be more acceptable than those of cosmology or geophysics? They are all science. YECs want to throw out anything that disagrees with their silly, narrow interpretation of the Bible. But they will have to throw out Einstein and Newton's theories of gravity, quantum physics, 95% of biology, geology, geophysics, astronomy, cosmology, physics, etc. All of the sciences disagree with a literal interpretation of the Bible.
This topic re-examined 4/19/08 and it was determined that the topic theme was abandoned. Thus I am closing the topic. - Adminnemooseus