Teaching the Truth in Schools

quote:

---

Here's the other one that I came across, but that isn't quite so blatantly honest and direct--i.e., not so entertaining, but sad--about what nats think (perhaps because of the need to tighten up their story these days, to not admit again the infinite understatement that there's a "step in our story" that "is the most difficult to understand completely"):

​

How could this multi-step biochemical machinery ever have gotten started in the first place? . . . Recent evidence suggests that RNA molecules can grow and duplicate themselves entirely on their own! (406-407)

---

If nats could easily explain it I would be worried because it is such a complicated scenario. You will notice in your quote that it says "Recent evidence suggests (emph mine)". In science, this does not mean that they are saying it did happen this way. I do not see any concrete language being used. It is not an act of tightening up the ship, but rather putting ideas out for further experimentation.The tough part about abiogenesis is this, if we are able to create a self-replicating reaction in a test tube we still don't know if that is how life originated here on earth. All it proves is that those reactions can naturally occur. That's the conundrum.

I'll see if I can get this in before anyone else. It doesn't matter what Darwin said or thought, he just discovered the theory. Would we still have gravity if Newton hadn't discovered the relationship between bodies of mass? If Newton said all of his laws were incorrect and should be shunned, would there still be gravity? I'm thinking we would still be footed firmly. Darwin was not the athiest messiah that you seem to think he is. What he wrote about in the Origin of Species has been judged mostly correct by subsequent experimentation and observation. If all we had was Darwin's insistance that he was right I wouldn't place any credence in the Theory of Evolution myself. However, the evidence overwhelms any type of hero worship.Added in edit: I knew someone would beat me to the punch, even used Newton and gravity. I need to type faster I guess.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 12-11-2003]

This is actually an easy answer. Creationist assume the Bible to be correct with respect to species diversity. If data conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible they throw it out and claim they must have done something wrong. Through this process they have thrown out almost all of their data. Evolutionists believe the data is correct and use it. Creationists use inductive reasoning in that they assume Creation without prior evidence and then look for anything at all to back it up, even if it is easily refuted. In evolution, it was the data that brought about the theory, and still supports it. This is deductive reasoning. Quite simply, creationists use inductive reasoning and evolutionists use deductive reasoning.Perhaps the question to you is what evidence is there to assume creationism as fact?Also, simply saying some scientists use evolution to further political goals does not make the theory incorrect.