BU is throwing around words like stupid and dense regarding Creationist thoughts on scientists. I’ve never said or thought that scientists are stupid or dense, just that they are influenced by their worldview when it comes to interpreting evidence concerning the past. Scientists are brilliant people. When it comes to science in the present, testing and development of new products, plastics, genetics, medicine, etc., science has made tremendous strides in improving the quality of our lives, and advancing technology. When working in a lab and getting the same results over and over, or when building a machine to perform a function, there is a lot less room for bias to affect the results. When dealing with the past, unobservable, unrepeatable events, assumptions and bias play a much larger role in interpreting data.
We are not suggesting that Creationism should necessarily supplant evolution, but that evolution should not be presented to the public as a fact and that it is the only way to explain how life arose. Maybe the textbooks should say, this is our best guess as to how life came to be, however some people believe an Intelligent designer is the answer and the evidence can just as easily be interpreted to support that view. Creation should be presented alongside evolution. As has been shown here, the same evidence can be used to support an Intelligent Designer, a biblical viewpoint. Not only that, but key evidence to support the evolutionary theory is missing – how amphibians became warm-blooded, where are all the missing links Darwin thought would be found, how lungs developed from gills, how reproductive systems changed from egg-bearing to live birthing, etc. Actually the only real, repeatable, testable evidence you have is evidence of adaptation within a family, no reptiles turning into birds or monkeys turning into humans.
Here are a couple of quotes I ran across from evolutionists that support my assertion that evolution (not science) is a religion.
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."
John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist, Jan.-Feb. 1983, p. 26
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion  a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint  and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it  the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’
Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.
We are not suggesting that Creationism should necessarily supplant evolution, but that evolution should not be presented to the public as a fact and that it is the only way to explain how life arose. Maybe the textbooks should say, this is our best guess as to how life came to be, however some people believe an Intelligent designer is the answer and the evidence can just as easily be interpreted to support that view. Creation should be presented alongside evolution. As has been shown here, the same evidence can be used to support an Intelligent Designer, a biblical viewpoint. Not only that, but key evidence to support the evolutionary theory is missing – how amphibians became warm-blooded, where are all the missing links Darwin thought would be found, how lungs developed from gills, how reproductive systems changed from egg-bearing to live birthing, etc. Actually the only real, repeatable, testable evidence you have is evidence of adaptation within a family, no reptiles turning into birds or monkeys turning into humans.
Here are a couple of quotes I ran across from evolutionists that support my assertion that evolution (not science) is a religion.
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."
John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist, Jan.-Feb. 1983, p. 26
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion  a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint  and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it  the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’
Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.
