Carebian Knight wrote:
If I wanted to use up hours of my time again, I would point out the lies/distortions in your post. But since I no longer have the time for that, I will point out only one. Noah's sons were married before the great flood, again, please know where we are coming from. I'm not a science major or anything, but I still have the general understanding of the subject and quite a few people, not including you Player I don't know you well enough, don't know even the most well known stories in the bible which means their views are narrowed to only what they were taught by science, they haven't had the chance to see the other side of the argument.
And therein lies the basic crux. It is pretty easy to read the creation story in the Bible ...and the truth is that most folks, even those who don't even believe the Bible, DO know at least that much. To detail the evidence for evolution or its components, however requires volumes of texts .. and even then, most assume you have some basic knowledge, such as just what constitutes real scientific proof, etc.
Take Carbon 14. The classic tactic is to talk about its "imperfection" or even to point out some cases where it was plain misused, and then claim that the whole idea that one could actually get any real information from Carbon 14 is false. IN reality, any credible scientist will be the first to point out that Carbon 14 isn't exact. HOWEVER, it does give information. AND, when possible, it has been verified by comparisons with written historical records, tree rings, and other quite verifiable, factual data.
The REAL truth is that this battle was largely fought and won shortly after the Stoke's trial. The REAL truth is that you would find only very, very few educated individuals who believed in anything EXCEPT evolution even 40 years ago. And the REAL truth is that it only began to change with the home-schooling movement. Strange, that ... the only way Creationists could get their ideas across was to keep their kids from learning the alternatives.
Oh, and this "new" idea of "intelligent design" .... that is pretty much what the REST of us, folks of faith who also happen to believe in science ... have always considered to be EVOLUTION.
Why insist it is a different and incompatible theory? For that answer, you have to do some digging. But start by following the money. Who gains by having large groups of young people completely disgard entire realms of science? Who gains by claims that extinctions "don't really happen" or that nothing we do really and truly impacts the world around us .. that we don't have any personal responsibility. Who gains by claims that the greenhouse effect is not real or highly, highly distorted. ... counter that with the consequences if you happen to be wrong.
What frightens me so much is that this is NOT truly a religious movement. And DO understand, I am old enough to have seen its evolution (no pun intended). I speak not of what I have been simply told, but what I have seen and experienced.
And if you want to claim that "all we ask is that it be given equal treatment" The problem is it is NOT an "equal" theory. The real truth is that Creationism, in many, many forms, has and keeps being disproven.
50 years ago, creationism meant you believed the earth was no more than 4000 years old .. DISPROVEN!
30-40 years ago, creationism meant there were no such thing as dinosaurs. WRONG ... exactly what dinosaurs are, how they looked, etc. is debateable, but that they existed is admitted now by most creationists
20-30 years ago, Dinosaurs were eradicated by Noah's flood. Still believed in a few Chreationist circles, but evidence strongly suggests that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist at all.
NOW -- intelligent design. Ironically, actually takes much of what used to be called "evolution", but says God dictated it all and therefore it is a creationist theory -- along with heavy criticism for various details.
Not a full summary, by any means. Nor was this a smooth, even progression. Some folks persist along the entire spectrum.
Widow did a decent job of explaining the position of many modern anti-evolutionists, but did little to actually PROOVE the truth of that position. However, understanding that takes understanding science ... and therein lies the conundrum.