Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism

Are you sure that that last sentence isn't just part of your faith?I know that this topic is about the best approaches to fundamentalism, so let's try one out.In your experience, Kelly, would you agree that the events of the past can leave their mark on the present? Because if so, your suggestion that our view that macroevolution has happened relies on faith could well be wrong, couldn't it?So, could Archaeologists digging in a field find out that a battle had taken place in that field many centuries before? If they found a lot of weapons and battered shields, and some bones which clearly bore scars inflicted by those weapons, and the remains of chariots etc., would they require faith to come to the conclusion that a battle had taken place? Surely, they're reading the evidence very well.So, if we dig around, and find evidence in the ground that could only be explained by macroevolution (and we do), and we look at molecular evidence from the bodies of living creatures, and see evidence that can only be explained by macroevolution (and we do), then we can hardly be described as requiring faith in order to know that macroevolution has happened on this plant, and happened big time, can we?But now there's a problem. The evidence conflicts with some of the worlds religious faiths, but not others. All these faiths are heartfelt, and the followers of the many religions believe firmly in them. Yet we know that many of the beliefs contradict each other, so that some of these religions must logically be false.Don't you think, Kelly, as there must be false religions in the world, that those which conflict with the scientific evidence we have are the most likely candidates?

So, if creation science has a theory in relation to the origin of species, what is/are the mechanisms of that theory?An example to help you:Some naturalistic mechanisms involved the theory of evolution are mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and gene transfer. All of these can be observed to exist in the laboratory and the wild.So, what mechanisms does creation science propose, considering your statement above that no God is involved, and how can we observe them?In relation to the topic, what do you think are the best approaches to deal with fundamentalism, as a matter of interest?

Can't we consider Kelly to be automatically and naturally on topic, in a sense, as she can help others provide practical demonstrations in relation to the O.P. title?

What?! All the transitional forms observed are our enemy? You've just agreed further up the thread that creation science accepts macroevolution, but you did so without realising it. I'll explain.You must have noticed in your observations of the world that lots of small changes add up to large change. Think of your life. You've changed a little every year since babyhood, and this is "micro-change". But if we look at you now compared to a baby photo, we can see that all this micro-change has added up to "macro-change".You can apply this to anything. Small changes occur in cities every year as some buildings come down and others go up, and add up to macro-change over the centuries. Small changes adding up to large changes are an obvious observable law of our world which everyone takes for granted.So, there is no such thing as accepting micro-evolution and not macroevolution, because the former automatically adds up to the latter. In fact, the only people I know of in the world who ever try to break the obvious "lots of small change = large change" law are creationists when they are talking about biology.So, it's either no evolution, or macro-evolution, micro-evolution just being bits of macro-evolution.A technical point. In a post further up the thread you said something about us not having observed evolution producing new species. But we have observed this, so I thought I'd put you right on that.Now, about those mechanisms of the creation theory I asked you for earlier. We still don't know what they are, do we?Edited by bluegenes, : typo