Creationists Against Science?

[Smidlee]

What economic disadvantage in the world market would students have by not knowing evolution? Or for that matter what economical advantage would there be in knowing evolution?

Just to let everyone know, I’m not against science, I happen to love science (can’t you tell) – it allows us to build better computers, better planes, communication systems, more effective vaccines, etc. etc. So I really have no problems with science – only the GToE.

I assume when you are saying "evolution" you are referring to the claims that hasn't be observed like Dino to birdo.
Darwinism like Big Bang helps bring revenue to the worthless, ego building science. This is why Creation is threat. Our government spends billions of dollars of totally worthless, useless science. (Without Darwinism then what good would paleontology be.) What good is it to know how many rings Saturn has or if there have been life on Mars? All these science are builted upon and around philosophy.
Look at the trip to the moon "One small step for man , one gaint debt for mankind." This was nothing but an expensive ego trip. How many people lives this way, trying to keep up with the Jones; trying to impress people you don't even like?
In the news yesterday some in the government was debating that because of the hurricanes maybe they should wait on spending 44 billion dollars on science project that deals with going back to the moon and to Mars. Duh? don't you think.
As a Christian I'm not ashame to stand againest this kind of science as well as scientific naturalism which hides itself in science. Evolution is the story that helps sells some of these junk science.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

What is the General Theory of Evolution? Is it only biological evolution or are you throwing radiometric dating, speed of light, plate tectonics, big bang, anything that does not agree with YEC in there too?

 

[Critias]

Oh you can be ignorant and still make lots of money. Just look at all those basketball players, footballers etc

Ah man. That gave me a good laugh! Thanks.

 

[shernren]

I assume when you are saying "evolution" you are referring to the claims that hasn't be observed like Dino to birdo.
Darwinism like Big Bang helps bring revenue to the worthless, ego building science. This is why Creation is threat. Our government spends billions of dollars of totally worthless, useless science. (Without Darwinism then what good would paleontology be.) What good is it to know how many rings Saturn has or if there have been life on Mars? All these science are builted upon and around philosophy.
Look at the trip to the moon "One small step for man , one gaint debt for mankind." This was nothing but an expensive ego trip. How many people lives this way, trying to keep up with the Jones; trying to impress people you don't even like?
In the news yesterday some in the government was debating that because of the hurricanes maybe they should wait on spending 44 billion dollars on science project that deals with going back to the moon and to Mars. Duh? don't you think.
As a Christian I'm not ashame to stand againest this kind of science as well as scientific naturalism which hides itself in science. Evolution is the story that helps sells some of these junk science.

It's highly ironic that you're typing this on a computer connected to the Internet. Someone with your kind of mindset a little farther back would say something like, "Why waste money launching communications satellites when the world is going to be destroyed in fire?" and the Internet would never have become global. Maybe Congress should be told not to sponsor archaeology because fossils were actually placed in deep rock by demons to undermine the Blessed Doctrine of the Six-Day Creation!

(I'm probably going overboard, but seeing as I'm studying to become a scientist performing precisely the kind of high-expenditure but high-yield research you're condemning - high energy physics, particle-smasher work, cosmological-quantum physics-Big Bang studies - I feel personally affronted.)

 

[Smidlee]

It's highly ironic that you're typing this on a computer connected to the Internet. Someone with your kind of mindset a little farther back would say something like, "Why waste money launching communications satellites when the world is going to be destroyed in fire?" and the Internet would never have become global.

NO!

 

[shernren]

No to what? And where would you draw the line between practical science and money-wasting splurge? I would say we take all the money from those darn creation science institutions and train a bunch of Christian scientists who will be able to give Christian apologetic for quantum mechanics.

 

[CaptainMercy]

Medicine would suffer because our animal testing can currently assume the closely related animals probably react in the same way. Without evolution, we wouldn't be able to explain why a monkey would be a better test subject for a human treatment than a rabbit.

Computers would also suffer. Our chip designs may soon begin taking advantage of design algorithms modeled after evolution.

Don't think so. Monkeys are chosen because the government would not allow scientist to mutilate a man for study purposes.

Computers may be patterned after algorithyms used by GToE but that doesn't mean those algorithyms could not have been develope without evolution.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Don't think so. Monkeys are chosen because the government would not allow scientist to mutilate a man for study purposes.

Why use a monkey? Without common decent, what reason do you have to suppose monkeys and humans have closely related physiologies.

Computers may be patterned after algorithyms used by GToE but that doesn't mean those algorithyms could not have been develope without evolution.

Someone may have been able to think this up without inspiration from biology, but it would have definitely been delayed. It's a lot easier to design something if you can copy nature.