Quetzal

Albion's link appears quite illustrative of the willingness to compromise and reasonableness of creationist demands for "equal time".

KC

So a mixture of oil and water doesn't spontaneously separate? Where do these people get this crap?

KC

Bluenose

That should have been nine zeros not six.

$15 American billion....

[No, I never was an Enron CPA] :banghead:

Albion

Well, how about this quote from the site on biblical teaching of science:

"Note every occasion when an evolutionary/old-earth paradigm (millions or billions of years) is explicitly mentioned or implied by a text-book, examination question or visitor and courteously point out the fallibility of the statement. Wherever possible, we must give the alternative (always better) Biblical explanation of the same data."

as well as the incredible statement near the beginning:

"Let us state then right from the start that we reject the notion popularised, perhaps inadvertently, by Francis Bacon in the 17th century that there are "Two Books" (i.e. the Book of nature & the Scriptures) which may be mined independently for truth. Rather, we stand firm upon the bare proposition that God has spoken authoritatively and inerrantly in the pages of holy Scripture."

In other words, the description of nature in the Bible supersedes anything we might observe in nature itself. I'm having a very hard time seeing how this could remotely qualify as science, but I suppose that's because I'm too far in the grip of Satan. And if the "equal time" they demand is spent in showing how the Bible is true and scientific observations are false, then we're in deep trouble. They reject the standard definition of science as opposed to the general definition of science as knowledge (followed, in Websters, by the comment that "The science of God must be perfect.") because the standard definition doesn't mention God. And they say "It is apparent then that Theology and not Physics or Mathematics that is properly 'Queen of the Sciences'." The Bible-based curriculum demands that all of reality be viewed through the framework of the creation, fall and redemption (their Bible-based art and literature classes must be a real bundle of fun). The whole article is shot through with the message that if something doesn't agree with the Bible (obviously with the fundamentalist interpretation thereof), it isn't true - and that the falling away from Bible-based science is somehow connected to all the scientific fraud that goes on (can't trust those atheists!).

Oh, yes, and here's what they're really after:

"A true knowledge about real nature of everything (i.e. the goal of true Science) will inevitably lead those who possess such knowledge to a realisation that they have been supernaturally and specially created by Jesus Christ. This same God therefore has a rightful claim upon their life - indeed, by virtue of His historical creative act, He actually owns them (Col 1:17). Ownership logically implies accountability and accountability anticipates judgement.

True Science then should confirm pupils' realisation that they are rational, spiritual beings of infinite worth with immortal souls whose eternal destiny, because of their sin, is placed in the balance. True science is no enemy of true religion. Indeed, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and of wisdom (Proverbs 1:7 and 9:10). As the 17th century astronomer Johannes Kepler remarked, his work consisted of 'thinking God's thoughts after Him'.

May it please God to raise up a new generation of Scientists who are duly respectful of their Maker and who, recognising the limitations of human scientific enquiry, give full weight of respect to the statements of propositional truth of Holy Scripture - being the authoritative Word of God."

No wonder these people have infuriated Richard Dawkins so much!

Skydancer

Theistic evolution is a good idea on a strategic level. As long as we're trying to rout the Creationist cretins, the idea is not to make the fence-sitters ally with them. Once creationism is relegated to the same status as the Greek and Roman mythologies, THEN we worry about dealing with the more liberal religionists.

One battle at a time, please.

Albion

I'm not worried about dealing with them. Liberal religionists are wecome to their liberal religionism as far as I'm concerned. Religion seems to be deeply ingrained in the human psyche, for whatever reason, and opposition is only going to bring out the extremists. I think we've all seen how desperately unhappy some ex-theists are after losing their faith, and I don't see the point of wishing that on anybody. As long as their religion remains personal and they don't try to institutionalise it, I don't care.