One Question for Evo-Bashers

Beacuse the "science" hasnt made any standard breakthrus. I am however to continually "cook" up ideas in biology that are not even on the radar screen by using creationist influence to NOT think like an evolutionist and some day one of my many suggestions is bound to be the standard since now I am back at the high school level. Creationist "science" does indeed exist but it is like the specialization one has never heard of remaining the the objective subjectivity of its "credible" practioners. This was the word used to distinguish different kinds of taxonomists and it applies as well to creationism as whole for those who wish not a denominational affilation.

WJ- this is a very fine hair to split being essentail spirtual. While I can "perceive" the way around you attempt I can not 'conceive' the same. Similarly not, the evidence, by which I take it you meant it in a LEGAL and not Academic maNNer, being in part scientific IS NOT (iN mY Opinion). You may "see" it his way and even be willing to tesitfy in a cour of law that this is how you have seen it and believe you will continue to 'saw' it etc but I THINK ( this is not belief"")in the next 100yrsetc this will not be so different to you as you think. \
And that seems to be your "point" or 'position'? For me the "evidentairy nature" in creationISM of any eval asseses a difference that even when two or three are gathered togehether in agreement does not seem to come out expressed the same. You may assert that my creationism is at fault and you are entitled to you own opnion. It would repay to read Galelio's LINE in Cantor's point-set. There is still SPITRUAL room for reconciliation but if the elastic is confused with the electirc in this nature even the science without being sensitve to this religious point WILL NOT be able to think God's thoughts after him. I could as well be in Nepal for this matter.

M, you may "say" this is *not* science especially since Wolfram kind has achieved print but the scientists behind such an instutition as this are not 'selling' the hydrodynamical details short as Wolfram could be or have done. They insist on a more historically tight view on the pedagogy of entropy and in this balance the future of biology hangs. No mere snake systemitist will turn the dillma's tide even if one beat up Bill Clinton aka ACLU in court. It was wrong how sex got taught in shools and now with vedio violence the same per education dollars should not be misspent. Biology has a burden that physics never had ethically until the nukes. There is however no albatross.I undetstand the difference between Scientific Creationism and Creation Science but Ruse, maybe like you, thought this was something akin to a philosophers real word play. Problem is that philosophy of biology as philosophy of science has not done its job but remains attached largerly to the idea post-Russel that Kant had been chained out of all but asthetic interest. This was and is not true. The point here is that "tacking" or 'Brad nailing' the word "science" in here in fact inheres when one Spritually considers a difference between this as SCIENCE and so-called "Biblical Creationism" but if you refuse to consider where the faith is expressed or do not follow the 'spritual nature of it' then the elastic seems to yield and you model may only have ONE electron in it. NOw that can not really be the correct perspective on it no matter which side you look at it on.