Because creationism and ID are (very) thinly veiled attempts to get Genesis into science classes, and there's only one designer in Genesis. ------------------------------------ No sir, you are wrong. Most creationist, such as I, do not ask that creation be taught in public schools. School is not the place for faith-based ideology such as creation and evolution. We simply want the teachers and textbooks to stop lying to our kids.
We want the inaccuracies and outright frauds supporting evolution removed.
We want the kids to be taught the truth: that evolution is just a theory, and a poor one at that, of explaining the origin and vast diversity of life.
How could any well-meaning, and honest individual object to this?
We want the fraudulent Haeckel drawings of embryos removed. The drawings have been known as frauds for decades; yet, evolutionists, in desperate search for support of their theory, because they have so little to go on, still cling to the lies. We ask that honorable evolutionists insist that all reference to Haeckel's drawings be removed immediately, and retractions inserted.
We ask that the imaginary "evolutionary tree of life" be removed. It is known that all the major animal groups all appear together in the fossil record fully formed by the Cambrian Period--what an inconvenient truth for evolutionists. Print retraction.
Creationists want all faked pictures of Peppered Moths removed because biologists have known for thirty-odd-years that moths don't normally rest on tree trunks. Also, the black and white moths used in the photos were dead when they were glued to the trees. In any event, the color of the moths tell us nothing about how a moth could have evolved from a non-moth. Print retraction.
Please, remove all references to mutant fruit flies. We have learned from decades of irradiated fruit fly experiments that these mutations always lead to disability and death. Mutations never increase information or viability within the DNA. Print retraction.
Some underhanded textbooks still print that "Piltdown Man" is an ancestor of man. It has been known for years that Piltdown was an outright fraud perpetuated by dishonest evolutionists. The skull belonged to a man and the jaw belonged to an orangutan. What makes this so sinister is that the jaw was chemically treated to make it look like a fossil. And the teeth had been filed to make them look human. The hoax remained covered up for so long because evolutionists (desperate for fossils to support their misguided theory) refused to admit the fraud.
Homology in vertebrate limbs (which clearly show a common Designer) has been used by evolutionists to prove common ancestry and descent--It is impossible to prove that this is correct. It must be accepted on faith, which makes it a religion. It doesn't deserve to ever be in any textbooks. It is voodoo science? Print retraction.
Creationists want the series of images of stooped apes morphing into man removed from textbooks. This has never been observed. And, it has nothing to do will empirical science. It takes faith to believe this crap, and it doesn't belong in textbooks. Honest evolutionists should demand removal.
Also, we do not care if one wants to believe that he or she evolved alongside apes. But, keep you stupid beliefs to yourselves. Feel free to hang ancestral pictures of apes, monkeys, and amoebas on your own walls but not in textbooks.
I guess I need to close this but I still haven't mentioned Archaeopteryx; Archaeopteryx (fraud 1999); descent of the horse; Miller-Urey experiment; lungfish; coelacanth; Lucy; Neanderthal; Mungo man; vestigial organs; and, much, much, much more.
How does this random assortment of creationist lies relate to the topic?
Once again: pick your favorite piece of dishonest creationist bullshit. Put it here. See if you can defend it. Then it will be on topic, 'cos you get to pick the topic.
Rather than continuing to post rambling shotgun snipes on a second thread (that all are full of inaccuracies that would take many posts to correct and completely derail this thread in the process), why don't you take the challenge posted in Rocky.C versus evolution science: what is his best argument? to make your *best* argument ... and see how it holds up to scrutiny.
Give it a shot Rocky.C -- you get to define the topic.