Why is it Evolution versus Creation?

Sorry, laddie, you've got it turned around. It is "creationism" (more specifically, "creation science") that is on the offensive against science and that is opposing science. All most of the "evolutionists" (just what does that term mean, anyway? Most creation-science proponents I've asked absolutely refuse to offer any substantive definition, just as they refuse to define "evolutionISM" substantively) are doing is to defend science from creationists' false claims, ie to defend the truth.I first encountered "creation science" circa 1970, very shortly after its own creation in the wake of Epperson vs Arkansas, 1968, in which four decades of anti-evolution "monkey laws" were struck down as unconstitutional. Specifically, from fundamentalist friends I heard: 1) there's scientific evidence supporting Noah's Flood, 2) radiodating is false since a living clam had been dated as thousands of years old, and 3) a NASA computer predicting the moon's orbit was run back through time and discovered Isaiah's Lost Day (ie, from when he command the sun to stand still). Fresh from high school and full of hubris, I dismissed the whole idea out of hand as ridiculous, especially that NASA computer claim (which, even back in those pre-Microsoft Dark Ages, I knew to be absolutely false because no computer could do what the claims said ... and I was absolutely right). Also at that time, my fundamentalist friend would get Chick Pubs tracts which I would read for fun, so I read the original, non-Hovind "Big Daddy?", which I gave no more credance than that other Chick-Pubs nonsense.Then a decade later, in 1981, I heard of creation science for the second time when I saw flyers at the local university advertising a presentation to be given by some professional creationists from the ICR (Gish, I think it was). I was older now and more interested in open inquiry, so my reaction this time was, "Wow, they're still around. That must mean that there must be something to their claims after all." So I decided to read up on their claims and to check it out.What I discovered was that the claims of creation science are false. Not only did they make unsupported claims, but they also regularly misquoted and misrepresented scientific sources, completely ignored any evidence that contradicted their claims (their claims of lack of fossil evidence being a classic example), and even fabricated evidence (bullfrog proteins, anyone?).What really nailed it for me and revealed precisely what kind of people these professional creationists are was a televised debate on CBN. The creationist had stated that hominid fossils were "100% ape, nothing human about them." So the scientist displayed photographs of human, ape, and hominid fossils, all of which showed definite human and ape characteristics so that you could tell immediately which you were looking at, and then the hominid fossils whose characteristics were either obviously intermediate between ape and human or else had both human and ape characteristics. The example of the latter case was the pelvis, which was viewed from two angles (all three pelvises were so viewed, BTW): from the one angle the hominid pelvis had the distinctly human characteristic and from the other angle the distinctly ape characteristic. The creationist's rebuttal was to focus only on the ape characteristic and completely ignore the human characteristic and loudly proclaim the hominid pelvis to be "100% ape, nothing human about at at all!" That was when I realized what "creation science" is all about. And everything I've seen come out of "creation science" since then only confirms what I had observed.So what do I argue for? That if someone really believes that they must oppose evolution, then they need to do so honestly and truthfully. That the use of lies and deception to defend and support Christianity is morally wrong, counter-productive, and destructive. And in response to my arguing for truthfulness and honesty, creationists absolutely oppose me and villify me unmercilessly. And, I believe, that also demonstrates clearly what "creation science" is all about.

The problem is that those "creationalists" are lying. They misrepresent what science says. They misquote their sources. They use deceptive arguments (eg, semantic shifting, false dichotomies) to deceive their audiences. And despite their errors and falsehoods having been exposed and explained literally for decades (ie, most of the common false claims that are still popular with creation science's new suckers (eg, the earth's slowing rotation, moon dust, the "shrinking sun", protein comparisons, transitional fossils, Niagara Falls) date back to around 1980 and were refuted back then), they continue to circulate claims that they know to be false. What "evolutionists" (do define that term, please) are doing is responding to those lies, showing them to be false.To demonstrate that it's not a case of "evolutionists attack[ing] those that look for holes in their theory", I'll refer you to an article by Drs. Thwaites and Awbrey, leading debate opponents to creation science. From my page at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/new_index.html: So instead of attacking those who point to "problems with evolution", what's really been happening has been defenders of science and truth responding to the false and deceptive claims being made by those "creationalists".I would assume that you're familiar with the leap-second claim, which says that the earth's rotational rate is slowing down at such a large rate (they say by about 1 second every 18 months, which is roughly how often a leap second needs to be added to the day) that it would have been rotating impossibly rapidly in the past if the earth were really millions and billions years old. Hovind says that 70 million years ago the dinosaurs would have been flung off the earth's surface. Billions of years ago, the earth would have flattened out like a gigantic pizza. What do you have to say about that claim?Hovind claims that at the rate that the sun is "burning its fuel", it's losing five million tons of its mass every second. He ties this in as a mechanism to support the "shrinking sun" claim, expanding upon it by claiming that if the sun were really 5 billion years old, it would have sucked the earth in with its immensely greater gravity. What do you have to say about that claim? Do the math; it's simple. What would the sun's mass have been five billion years ago if it's losing 5 million tons of its mass every second?A corollary question would be what effect that five million tons of solar mass lost each second would have on the "shrinking sun" claim. In particular, the part that says that the sun derives a sizeable portion of its energy from gravitational collapse. HINT: to answer this question, find out what the significance of that 5 million tons per second rate is and how it was arrived at.Also, something that really puzzles me. Why do you keep talking to yourself?Edited by dwise1, : Added corollary question.

No, not at all. iceage posed a very pertinent question, one that drives at the very heart of your statement and, it appears, of your position. One that you very much need to answer.Just what do questions about any particular religion's historicity have to do with science? You appear to be fixated on the idea that it has everything to do with science, whereas nobody else can see that it has anything to do with science. Just exactly how do you propose that scientists are supposed to incorporate Jesus is doing their lab work?I suspect that you are proceeding from the same false premise that the false theology of the God of the Gaps is based on: that scientific evidence for something is evidence against God. That science can disprove God or at least is antithetical to the idea of God. Which leads naturally to the paranoia that science is attacking God or at least rejecting Him. Which I keep seeing in your posts.So then, do please answer iceage's question.