News-Record.com

here, you have education.
in creationist Texas, "education" has you.

"the Institute for Creation Research to start offering online master's degrees in science education."

This would be funny if it wasn't so serious. Creation Research in the same sentence with science education. Talk about your oxymorons.

"the Institute for Creation Research to start offering online master's degrees in science education."

Since when does creation research have anything to do with actual bonafide science?

Who ever heard of earning an advanced degree in ANY sort of education field ONLINE??

Fact is, folks, science (evolutionary or otherwise) is hardly the monolithic and error-less setting forth of incontrovertible facts you guys and other secularists make it out to be. Behind the propaganda glitz of the media they are constantly changing, and arguing, and speculating all over the place.

Of course I recongnize that there is lots of good scholarship and factual analysis going on in scientific circles, but there are also interesting observations, based on proposed facts, in the Creationist camp as well. I will certainly admit that they are Johnny-come-latelies to the intense gathering of fossil and geological data already done by secular science. But it needs to be given fair hearing as well. If evolutionist views are as solid and incontrovertible as secularists think, what’s the harm in letting the opposing voice be heard - especially in a free-speech America?

Personally I'm an old-earth creationist, who accepts great antiquity for the earth and life in general; but I reject macro-evolution as an adequate scientific theory as to origins and developmental adaptation - and that God is the sovereign, "hands"-on Creator of all; and that Genesis one gives us true and accurate information about origins, but in a mode intended to be neither detailed nor necessarily chronological, being theological in literary style. It does tell us categorically that all that exists is the work of a Divine Intelligence (person) who procedes to reveal His will for a fallen and sinful humanity in His infallible Word.

Fact is, folks, science (evolutionary or otherwise) is hardly the monolithic and error-less setting forth of incontrovertible facts you guys and other secularists make it out to be. Behind the propaganda glitz of the media they are constantly changing, and arguing, and speculating all over the place.

Of course I recongnize that there is lots of good scholarship and factual analysis going on in scientific circles, but there are also interesting observations, based on proposed facts, in the Creationist camp as well. I will certainly admit that they are Johnny-come-latelies to the intense gathering of fossil and geological data already done by secular science. But it needs to be given fair hearing as well. If evolutionist views are as solid and incontrovertible as secularists think, what’s the harm in letting the opposing voice be heard - especially in a free-speech America?

Personally I'm an old-earth creationist, who accepts great antiquity for the earth and life in general; but I reject macro-evolution as an adequate scientific theory as to origins and developmental adaptation - and that God is the sovereign, "hands"-on Creator of all; and that Genesis one gives us true and accurate information about origins, but in a mode intended to be neither detailed nor necessarily chronological, being theological in literary style. It does tell us categorically that all that exists is the work of a Divine Intelligence (person) who procedes to reveal His will for a fallen and sinful humanity in His infallible Word.

Science, Evolution, and Creationism

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876

Authors:
Committee on Revising Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies

The NAS booklet argues that evolutionary biology "has been and continues to be a cornerstone of modern science." It has made "major contributions" to public health and medicine, agriculture, and industrial development.

"However, polls show that many people continue to have questions," the booklet says. Many believe the science is incomplete or in doubt, or can't explain the complexity and diversity of life.

"There is no controversy in the scientific community over whether evolution has occurred," the booklet states. Although there is continuing scientific debate about the details and mechanisms of evolution, there is now an "immense body of evidence" to support it, making it "one of the most securely established of scientific facts."

It ain't necessarily so! Now certainly modern science and bilogical research have contributed widely to human well being - but has also created many things that are harmful, even deadly for the human population. It is far from being the pristine, almost holy, answer to all human need.

Fissils and diversity of life fomrs are most certainly a fact, but, as was pointed out, there is by no means unanimity as to how dinosaurs turned into birds (supposedly), or amphibious organisms into cats and dogs. The transitional forms are slim to none, or at least highly questionable and speculative. And the question of irreducible complexity nags evolutionists all the way - not to mention the negative effects of most all genetic mutations.

Evolutionists know that an organism produces after its kind - EVEN if one particular example produces a mutation. So they must posit extremely long time periods in which a wide array of mutations can (hopefully) have positive transitional effects. But most mutations are negative, crippling, even deadly.

So even though fossils, long time periods and limited adaptive changes accomplished through inherant genetic material may indeed be relatively well established. Evolution as an explanation for the origin of life, and ubiquitous speciation and change, is neither proven nor truly viable.