I think it's healthy to have a good mix of folks around you, whether it be political, religious viewpoints or whatever.
I doubt people here would argue with this statement.
However, having these people around is one thing, having their religion forced on school kids is something quite different.
There is no harm in Creationists having their belief. But, when they insist that it's science and want it to be treated on the same level as geology or biology, that's when we sit up and say, "hold on a sec."
Just because one group of people lacks a certain level of education doesn't mean we need to lower the nations stardard to their level. Giving an inch here means that we should cave in and teach only Biblical history, since nothing that happened after the Bible was published is within it's pages.
Brian, If I had a dollar for every unsourced claim evolutionists have made over the years that I have read on this topic, I'd be a rich man. But you guys still believe it...so I really don't think that has anything to do with why you take your position. I've read some Technical Journals in the past, and they were well footnoted. You may not agree with their views, but they had footnotes aplenty. 'Academically poor', no doubt means 'not evolutionist', huh? Do you have any pro-creationist websites that you CAN recommend, just out of curiousity? If you are an admin. of this site, I would expect you to be able to name at least one! Re. your question re. the Ark, you say 'why the Ark scenario is possible'? Do you mean, why do I believe it, in other words, why do I think it is important...or do you mean HOW it could be possible?
Wow, haven't you noticed, evolutionists hawk their books everywhere...bilboards, TV shows, you name it!!! What are you talking about??? I don't see anything wrong with any that either. Not going to get your message out by hiding it under a bushel! And last I heard, if organisations aren't going to fund them, how else are they going to function...on thin air?? Of course, that's not their fault either! So I don't know why you're complaining about them, your friends 'my way or the highway' made it all possible. Sorry you are not happy with the result. Well, the fact is no theory about origins can be 100% scientific, being as it's focused on unrepeatable history...we can assume, we can speculate, we can say what might be possible...but it's always going to require faith to believe, no matter what position you hold to...that's why I feel the evolutionists' cry of 'we're only doing science'is, at best, fudging the issue, at worst, outright deceiving people. Anyone who thinks that evolution does not have religious elements to it, would have to be pretty mislead. Many forms of pantheism are quite compatible with the theory of evolution, why do you think the New Age movement has become so popular?? 'New Age' is just some old pantheistic ideas from various Eastern religions with some pop psychology added on for good measure. I can't help feeling that if more scientists knew about origins from other perspectives apart from Christianity, I think they would be horrified how closely some of their evolutionary ideas support these other religious beliefs...but they don't, and so it goes on, and on, and on...
Charles, No, I would not say it should apply to everyone! You didn't understand my post, obviously...But...if they cannot do creationist science in their own organisation, where else can they do it, who else is going to do it??? If all organisations had an open policy in this regard, if creationist science could be done in any organisation alongside evolutionists, I would say this wasn't a good idea...but it's not done that way, is it?? So if they only way they can have serious study on creationism is by making it the focus, they have no choice, do they, so why not?? The evolutionists do it that way (they may not have something you sign, but you'll still get kicked out anyway if you don't toe the party line, which I think is worse because it affords a pretence of free, scientific inquiry that isn't actually there).
Here's one article, to give you some idea what the climate is like out there for creationists -
According to ‘The Amateur Scientist’ section of Scientific American, May 1997:
Haze is a vital indicator of our atmosphere’s health … but little is known about how the amount of haze is changing globally because no-one is coordinating haze observations from widely dispersed areas. That may change with the latest design from Forrest M. Mims III … . He has invented an atmospheric haze sensor that costs less than $20 and is so simple that even the most hardened technophobe can put it together in under an hour. Mims’s instrument could revolutionize this important area of study by opening the field to all-comers, that is, to amateur scientists.1
The article mentioned that Mims had written some Amateur Scientist columns in Scientific American in 1990. But it failed to mention that Scientific American refused to hire him when they found out that he was a creationist, although they admitted that his work was ‘fabulous’, ‘great’ and ‘first rate’,and ‘should be published somewhere’.2 Mims’ invention is further confirmation of his ability. But no matter what one’s scientific ability, denying the modern-day religion of evolution is heretical enough to justify discrimination. Even the journal Science, itself known to refuse to publish creationist views,3 wrote:
Even today, some members of the scientific establishment have seemed nearly as illiberal toward religion as the church once was to science. In 1990, for instance, Scientific American declined to hire a columnist, Forrest Mims, after learning that he had religious doubts about evolution.4
Small wonder that many creationists write under pseudonyms or otherwise hide their beliefs from the establishment.
In fact, modern science was founded on a creationist foundation, who would probably not be hired by Scientific American if they were alive today.
1. Shawn Carlson, ‘The Amateur Scientist’, Scientific American, May 1997, pp. 80-81. 2. ‘Science’s Litmus Test’ (telephone transcript of conversation between F. Mims and Jonathan Piel, the Editor of Scientific American), Harper’s Magazine March 1991. The transcript makes it clear that an outstanding writer was not hired solely for disbelieving in the sacred cow of evolution. 3. David Buckna writes in Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?
In the summer of 1985, Dr Russell Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had ‘a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.’ Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, ‘It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.’ This admission is particularly significant since Science’s official letters policy is that they represent ‘the range of opinions received,’ i.e. letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.
4. G. Easterbrook, ‘Science and God: A Warming Trend?’ Science, 277(5328):890–893, 1997 — see p. 891.
All I can say is, no wonder you evolutionists think creationists don't do experiments to prove their points!!! Your friends never publish anything creationists do because it's against their policy!!!
You seem to be raising the question of whether there is discrimination against creation science.
Firstly, let me point out that you are way off topic for a Bible Study forum.
If you can suggest a new (or existing) thread topic, perhaps in Forum Is It Science?, then I would be happy to discuss it with you there. I don't want to perpetuate the off-topic posts here.
The article mentioned that Mims had written some Amateur Scientist columns in Scientific American in 1990. But it failed to mention that Scientific American refused to hire him when they found out that he was a creationist, although they admitted that his work was ‘fabulous’, ‘great’ and ‘first rate’,and ‘should be published somewhere’.2 Mims’ invention is further confirmation of his ability.
I thought that Scientific American was wrong about that. In fact, I discontinued my subscription shortly after that, although their treatment of Mims was not the sole reason for not renewing. Whether Mims was a creationist was irrelevant to the type of article he was authoring in SA. He should have been judged by the quality of his work, not by his beliefs.
OK, 1) In answer to your question, 2 of every animal PLUS 5 more of every 'clean' animal to make a total of 7 clean animals. 2) + 3) Let's just cut to the chase here, we could go on forever about this but let's stick to the basics...bottom line is...whatever was naturally possible re. interbreeding wre the animals on board... We could speculate till the cows come home about specific animals but the fact is, science in general isn't totally decided on the issue of kinds it seems to me anyway, so it would be a futile discussion at this point. Yes, dinosaurs lived after the Flood, I think the some of the old stories (not just religious ones either) in various cultures about dragons may refer to them. Certainly there are a couple of animals in Job that sound like dinosaurs, certainly nothing living today. 4) Yes, that is true. 5), 6), 7) & 8) are technical questions re. the Flood, I wonder if it was already brought up on the Flood thread...if not, it'll be alot of typing methinks lol. I will look it up, if necessary, my day is getting late here though...let me know, also whether this is the appropriate thread for it. 9) Interesting you should bring up the Chinese, their language seems to indicate they too were aware of the contents of the book of Genesis, and had a monotheistic culture up until....somewhere between 200BC and 200AD I think...I'm not familiar with this site, found it on the fly thru Google just now but they have the same quotes from the same book I remember reading about this stuff re. the Chinese language and Genesis about a decade ago so at least you have the source material for my comments for 9). Here is the link - http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/chinese.html Re, genealogies, I think most creationists are willing to allow up to 10,000 years of human history, not just the 6,000 often quoted, just in case there are some gaps in them, which I think there is little doubt that there are. I don't recall the Chinese having a genealogical or emperor list going back beyond 8,000BC, though.
Thank you for the advice re. the topic, I think you are quite right, come to think of it! My apologies, I have been posting on two or three different threads (big mistake, lol, if I'd known how fast the replies came I would never have done that!) and the topics have been bleeding thru a bit, sorry. I would definitely like to suggest a new thread on that in future, but right now, I want to put my current threads to bed first lol. Thanks again for your guidance.
So basically the problem is that there are people who know that creationists frequently spread misinformation in support of their religious views. Of course anti-scentific religious zealots are going to have problems getting their views into scientiifc publications - but not out of any policy or prejudice on the part of the publishers.
Scientific American didn't ban Rorrest Mims or refuse to ever publish anything he wrote. They just didn't hire hme to write a column because they knew he couldn't be trusted on some subjects.
The editor of Scicne knows that creationist letters are usually not worthy of publication in that journal. Is that a surprise to anyone ?
ANd the last tiem I encountered Humphreys claim I checked the letter policy of Science and the phrase about representing all opinions was NOT present. (Of course if it were, a letter-writing campaign by any group could get any view into the letters column so there seems to be good reason not to make it an overriding rule as Humphreys claims).n
The best place would be a new thread. Pick one of the assertions from AIG. Then start a Proposed New Topic. In the Opening Post state in your own words what you think is the subject and what your position is. Include a link to the specific AIG topic to be discussed.
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.