[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"that is not 'fact' because we cannot directly prove it, it is theory.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
In biology, Cell Theory posits that every living thing is composed of one or more tiny, semi-autonomous units that exhibit the characteristics of life.
To a biologist, Cell Theory is a fact because it works in principle as a model of living systems and because, as yet, no living thing has been found that does not adhere to the Theory. But it is still "just" a theory. I am not aware of any conservative schoolboards that have coerced public school teachers into skipping Cell Theory because it is inconvenient for their fundamentalist world-views. Yet we cannot directly "prove" it because we do not have an inventory of every living thing that has ever existed. Do you see any arguments being leveled at the Theory for that reason? No---because nobody I am aware of in the US has serious religious motivation for opposing it being taught. So, likewise, nobody wants to omit it from school texts because it is
just a theory.
So I raise a question: why are we going over whether or not evolution is a "proven fact", or whether it is a "fact" in the first place? I propose the answer: because the opposing side is
inconsistent in their judgement of science. Namely that evolution should not be treated on equal grounds with the "Law of Gravity" in our textbooks, or perhaps not even mentioned at all because it is "just a theory", a phrase that the less scientifically literate equate with "mere conjecture".
[QUOTE][b]--I have consistantly replied to your missinterperpretations of creation science, and I must say have failed to prove it so, creation science is no more religion than the ToE.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Most of the Creationist organizations I am aware of have statements of faith prominently displayed. They generally go something like this one. I must ask you first, does the author of the following sound like he is genuninely interested in determining, in a fair and completely unbiased manner, whether or not evolution is a valid theory?
[QUOTE]Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith Part F.[b]
F. By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Are you positing that evolution and creationism are equally religious? Have you ever seen something like that posted in a secular university? Or on the inside leaf of a scientific journal?
Unlikely--the belief that no evidence can be allowed to challenge an idea is anathema to science, as is the belief that human beings are unable to find the answer--yet both views are espoused in religious Creationism and I am not aware of their existance in secular science.
So instead of both sides being "equally religious", what I feel we have is secular empiricism vs. supernatural fideism. There is a recurring claim amongst Creationists that evolution must be a religion because it attempts to explain past phenomena that can only be studied indirectly and were not witnessed. Note that if that is one definition of religion, our court rooms are temples to non-Christian gods and forensic pathologists are a priesthood--in which case I think the right wing should be looking for even bigger perceived "threats" than evolution.
No, the only thing Creationism and Evolution have in common is that they try to explain past phenomena. The problem with the two is that Creationism is used to being the only game in town. There was a time when people had no choice but to be religious because a literal belief in church doctrine was the only way they could explain their own being. Any other possibilities were (and are) considered a threat to the religious right because they seem to think that if people don't
have no choice but to believe in a literal Genesis nobody will choose to have any faith. It sounds to me like a totalitarian government censoring anything that might give the peasants ideas of their own. If the religious right were more confident in their religion, perhaps we would not have a Creationist movement in the first place, because evolution would not be perceived as a threat.
[QUOTE][b]--We are not discussing religion here[/QUOTE]
[/b]
But we are discussing religion here, because we are discussing Creationism. The above Statement of Faith excerpt shows quite clearly the train of thought used in Creationism.
As does this excerpt from the same Statement of Faith.
[QUOTE]AiG Statement of Faith, Part E[b]
E. The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into "secular" and "religious" is rejected.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
This seems to imply that nothing can escape religion--science, laws, even government itself must be entirely based upon religion. This reminds me of certain Middle Eastern fundamentalist governments, only with the names changed.
™ Version 4.2