Teaching the difference?

[athorist]

Many christians seem to believe the earth is only 6000 years old and that the big flood happened and all that fancyful stuff. Often I hear them claiming to have "evidence" for those claims. Some even claim that "evidence" to have the same level of sophistication than real science. They say the theory of evolution is disputed among scientists and would want to teach science and creationism alongside in schools.

What I do not get, is how on earth teaching both theories alongside in schools could do christianity any good? If you really teach both theories and show the evidence for both, then it will just be too obvious for any kid that creationism is the hoax of the century. Why do christians keep asserting that there is doubt among scientists when there in fact is not. I always thought lying was against gods will?

 

[dead2self]

You are mistaken. Whether you like it or not, science is proving that the popular views of how the earth formed as incorrect. The views is shifiting form one of seeing great geological features as being formed over millions of years to one of these features being formed rapidly in a catastrophy. While secular scientists comming to this view still steadfastly deny the Biblical account, the new views does bring science far closer in line to the Bible. There is a very large body of science supporting the Biblical account fo creation. But you sir, without taking the first look at any of it seem to have made up your mind that is inferior of quality to the scinece you back. Unfortunately, the science you back can be shown to have some serious flaws and fallacies in it.

Regarding the flood, this event is really not in question. The body of evidence for it is insurmountable to an honest look and almost every culture we know of has a story of an ancient global flood.

About teaching both sides in school, I'd rather scrap the theories regarind the old age of the earth which have nothing to substantialte them save highly suspect and disproven radiometric dating. However, if boht sides, with their evidences were taught side by side were presented objectively, I think you'd find that the Biblical accont would not be laughed off so easily. To an honest appraisal, there is a terrific amount of evidence. I should know. My conversion came about from the evidence. I could no longer deny that I bought into a lie and that the truth was staring me in the face.

Now, before you continue in claiming I am lying when I say there are disputes in the scientific community regarding the theory of evolution I'd strongly recommend you actaully research your position. That farce of a theory has insurmountable and fatal flaws in it and is by no means universally accepted aong scientists. And some who do accept it do so not because of it's merit, but because they view the alternative as unthinkable.

Also, before you continue to claim creationism is the hoax of the century you should do some research into that subject as well. Fairly impressive for this centuries "hoax" is that it has been around for 6000 years and never disproven. Perhaps you hold the elusive proof that it is all a big hoax perpatrated by Hebrew tribesmen that us wacky Christians keep alive. If so several thousnad years of Biblical detractors will owe you quite a large det of gratitude.

 

[athorist]

You are mistaken. Whether you like it or not, science is proving that the popular views of how the earth formed as incorrect. The views is shifiting form one of seeing great geological features as being formed over millions of years to one of these features being formed rapidly in a catastrophy. While secular scientists comming to this view still steadfastly deny the Biblical account, the new views does bring science far closer in line to the Bible. There is a very large body of science supporting the Biblical account fo creation. But you sir, without taking the first look at any of it seem to have made up your mind that is inferior of quality to the scinece you back. Unfortunately, the science you back can be shown to have some serious flaws and fallacies in it.

How am I mistaken? Science knows the age of the earth pretty precisely: It's 4.54 billion years. We know this beyond any doubt. Evidence includes radiometric dating of meteorites and is consistent with the oldest known terrestrial and lunar samples. How do you explain helioseismic measurements to exactly conform with radiometric results? How do you explain radiometry having it wrong by billions of years? Are the modern physical theories (Quantum Mechanics) that provide the theoretical framework for radioactive decay and thereby for radiometry wrong? Can you cite some actual research papers showing that earth is only 6000 years old? Have they been peer reviewed? At which universities do the scientists that publish them teach? I often hear christians claiming to have evidence. However when it comes to showing it they fail to do so on a galactic scale.

Please name those fallacies that you speak about here. Just asserting them is wishfully thinking at best, or intentional lying at worst.

Regarding the flood, this event is really not in question. The body of evidence for it is insurmountable to an honest look and almost every culture we know of has a story of an ancient global flood.

This is event is not in question? Are you kidding me? Where is that body of evidence? Almost every culture has stories of dragons, too. Ancient stories have no evidential value at all. An honest look will reveal the deceitful way in which the scientific method is distorted by creationist propaganda.

About teaching both sides in school, I'd rather scrap the theories regarind the old age of the earth which have nothing to substantialte them save highly suspect and disproven radiometric dating. However, if boht sides, with their evidences were taught side by side were presented objectively, I think you'd find that the Biblical accont would not be laughed off so easily. To an honest appraisal, there is a terrific amount of evidence. I should know. My conversion came about from the evidence. I could no longer deny that I bought into a lie and that the truth was staring me in the face.

That's what teaching both sides in school will look like:
media.fukung.net/images/418/125609316246357501b6tr.jpg

Show me that research which disproves radiometric dating and I'll shut up. There is none. All ID proponents managed to come up with are badly done pamphlets.

What about the age of the universe? Is the Hubble Deep Field a fake? What about redshift-analysis? Also fake?

Now, before you continue in claiming I am lying when I say there are disputes in the scientific community regarding the theory of evolution I'd strongly recommend you actaully research your position.

Oh really? You recommend me to research my position? Well either you are indeed lying or you obviously do not remotely understand what you are talking about. There is no convincing evidence for your claims. Zero.

That farce of a theory has insurmountable and fatal flaws in it and is by no means universally accepted aong scientists. And some who do accept it do so not because of it's merit, but because they view the alternative as unthinkable.

Name those flaws. Prove they are flaws. You'd win a Nobel price. ID and YE are indeed unthinkable alternatives. They don't even qualify to be called a theory. What do they predict? How can they be falsified? Popper/Hume anyone?

Also, before you continue to claim creationism is the hoax of the century you should do some research into that subject as well. Fairly impressive for this centuries "hoax" is that it has been around for 6000 years and never disproven. Perhaps you hold the elusive proof that it is all a big hoax perpatrated by Hebrew tribesmen that us wacky Christians keep alive. If so several thousnad years of Biblical detractors will owe you quite a large det of gratitude.

It has never been disproven? Dude it has been disproven all over the place. ID against evolution is like a bunch of unwashed tribesman trying to fight a division of M1 tanks with air-support - simply no match.

Please show your cherished and apparantly unsurmountable heap of evidence that will revolutionize ALL of science if it's correct.

 

[Gary51]

I think there is much to be said for the gap theory.

 

[awitch]

What I do not get, is how on earth teaching both theories alongside in schools could do christianity any good?

Look up "The Wedge Document" - it explains everything in detail.

Everyone can read through it here: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/2437/wedge.html but the part that answers your question is:

"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." - from a 1999 document leaked by the Discovery Institute, the leading proponent of Intelligent Design

(note that the DI, does not deny the contents of the document).

 

[athorist]

Yeah, I'm aware of that document. Just proves that DI never had any real science on their agenda - it's all about defending their mythological agenda.

Direct Experimental Tests Of Evolutionary Concepts

Cavefish as a Model System in Evolutionary Developmental Biology by William R. Jeffrey, Developmental Biology, 231:, 1-12 (1 Mar 2001) - contains experimental tests of hypotheses about eye evolution

Crystal Structure Of An Ancient Protein: Evolution By Conformational Epistasis by Eric A. Ortlund, Jamie T. Bridgham, Matthew R. Redinbo and Joseph W. Thornton, Science, 317: 1544-1548 (14 September 2007) - refers to the reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals by back-tracking along the molecular phylogenetic trees and demonstrating that the proteins in question WORK

Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory by J.R. Weinberg V. R. Starczak and P. Jora, Evolution vol 46, pp 1214-1220, 1992 - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Experimentally Created Incipient Species of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230, pp 289 - 292 (02 April 1971) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment by A. Galiana, A. Moya and F. J. Alaya, Evolution vol 47, pp 432-444, 1993 - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Genetics of Natural Populations XII. Experimental Reproduction of Some of the Changes Caused by Natural Selection by Sewall Wright & Theodosius Dobzkansky, Genetics, 31(2): 125-156 (1946) - direct experimental tests of natural selection mechanisms

Hedgehog Signalling Controls Eye Degeneration in Blind Cavefish by Yoshiyuki Yamamoto, David W. Stock and William R. Jeffery, Nature, 431: 844-847 (14 Oct 2004) - direct experimental test of theories about eye evolution and the elucidation of the controlling genes involved

Initial Sequenceing of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome, The Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium (see paper for full list of 68 authors), Nature, Vol 437, pp 69-87, 1 September 2005 - direct sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and direct comparison of this genome with the previously sequenced human genome, whereby the scientists discovered that fully twenty-nine percent of the orthologous proteins of humans and chmpanzees are IDENTICAL

Origin of the Superflock of Cichlid Fishes from Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, vol 300, pp 325-329, 11 April 2003 - direct experimental determination of the molecular phylogeny of the Lake Victoria Superflock, including IDENTIFYING THE COMMON ANCESTOR OF THE 350+ SPECIES IN QUESTION and NAMING THAT ANCESTOR as Haplochromis gracilior

Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity by M.E. Boraas, D.B. Seale and J.E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 153-164. Feb 1998 - direct experimental test of hypotheses about the origins of multicellularity

Resurrecting Ancient Genes: Experimental Analysis Of Extinct Molecules by Joseph W. Thornton, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 366-375 (5 May 2004) - direct experimental reconstruction in the laboratory of ancient proteins from extinct animals

Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 56, pp 484-487, 1966 - direct experimental test of selection mechanisms and their implications for speciation

The Master Control Gene For Morphogenesis And Evolution Of The Eye by Walter J. Gehrig, Genes to Cells, 1: 11-15, 1996 - direct experimental test of hypotheses concerning eye evolution including the elucidation of the connection between the Pax6 gene and eye morphogenesis, and the experimental manipulation of that gene to control eye development

The Past As The Key To The Present: Resurrection Of Ancient Proteins From Eosinophils by Steven A. Benner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(8): 4760-4761 (16 April 2002) - direct experimental reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals

This list is by no means complete, because over eighteen thousand critically robust peer reviewed papers were published in evolutionary biology in 2007 alone. The number of papers published in the subject since Darwin first published The Origin of Species probably exceeds a million or so, if someone were ever to perform the requisite accounting.

 

[dead2self]

athorist,

Ask and ye shall receive. I cannot compile the stuff now as I am heading out, but I'll get it to you.

 

[Markus6]

This thread would probably be better over here:
http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=408

But I just wanted to weigh in as a Christian who agrees with you and assure you that there are many many Christians who accept evolution and mainstream science.

 

[athorist]

Markus,

I know there are many who accept it. I'd be happy to post in that other thread, but from what I understand this section of the foum is the only one that I am allowed to post in because of my low post-count. I'd be much happier to discuss them there than here...

cheers

 

[ebia]

Many christians seem to believe the earth is only 6000 years old and that the big flood happened and all that fancyful stuff. Often I hear them claiming to have "evidence" for those claims. Some even claim that "evidence" to have the same level of sophistication than real science. They say the theory of evolution is disputed among scientists and would want to teach science and creationism alongside in schools.

What I do not get, is how on earth teaching both theories alongside in schools could do christianity any good? If you really teach both theories and show the evidence for both, then it will just be too obvious for any kid that creationism is the hoax of the century. Why do christians keep asserting that there is doubt among scientists when there in fact is not. I always thought lying was against gods will?

Please note that young earth creationism is not the majority Christian position outside of the US. Most Christians are happy that science does a pretty good job of telling us about the internal mechanics of Creation, and that God is the creator of and life giver to that creation.

If you want a full-blown debate on the topic you would be better taking it to an 'origins' forum.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

Many christians seem to believe the earth is only 6000 years old and that the big flood happened and all that fancyful stuff. Often I hear them claiming to have "evidence" for those claims. Some even claim that "evidence" to have the same level of sophistication than real science. They say the theory of evolution is disputed among scientists and would want to teach science and creationism alongside in schools.

What I do not get, is how on earth teaching both theories alongside in schools could do christianity any good? If you really teach both theories and show the evidence for both, then it will just be too obvious for any kid that creationism is the hoax of the century. Why do christians keep asserting that there is doubt among scientists when there in fact is not. I always thought lying was against gods will?

The last paragraph seems to imply that Christians who subscribe to a 6,000 year old earth are involved in a conspiracy to hide the "truth". I think the answer is a bit more complex than that.

If a person concludes that a correct interpretation of the Bible is a literal interpretation, then that person is strongly inclined to accept a 6,000 year old theory of the earth to stay true to that belief. Thus, ideas or research that supports the belief tends to be embraced and ideas or research which run counter to the belief tend to be rejected or downplayed.

Understand, beliefs and rejecting challenges to them is not limited to religion. It is my understanding that many physicists rejected Einstein's Theory of Relativity until various experiments showed the theory was valid. Even after the evidence, some physicists rejected or downplayed the theory in favor of their own.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

 

[athorist]

The last paragraph seems to imply that Christians who subscribe to a 6,000 year old earth are involved in a conspiracy to hide the "truth". I think the answer is a bit more complex than that.

If a person concludes that a correct interpretation of the Bible is a literal interpretation, then that person is strongly inclined to accept a 6,000 year old theory of the earth to stay true to that belief. Thus, ideas or research that supports the belief tends to be embraced and ideas or research which run counter to the belief tend to be rejected or downplayed.

In what logically consistent universe would research indicate a 6000 year old earth? That's just ridiculous. Where is that "research"? Where are the peer-reviewed scientific publications that would suggest so? There sure is a lot of stuff out in the wild that would indeed suggest a (failed) attempt of conspiracy...

Understand, beliefs and rejecting challenges to them is not limited to religion. It is my understanding that many physicists rejected Einstein's Theory of Relativity until various experiments showed the theory was valid. Even after the evidence, some physicists rejected or downplayed the theory in favor of their own.

And? What's the theory of relativity got to do with asserting the earth is 6000 years old, which flatly contradicts virtually every aspect of science. It's a shame that none of you addressed my questions about the Hubble Deep Field and the Redshift. That's evidence beyond any doubt. Virtually ALL of physics would be invalidated if the earth was 6000 years old. So how can a sane person believe that?

Are you suggesting that if people find things through bible studies that contradict reality it means that reality got it wrong?

Btw, the main reason that scientists rejected Einsteins theory was because there had not been observational evidence initially. Once the respective experiments were done and showed the predictions of the theory to be correct it was not doubted any more (except for some very few crackpots). This is in no way comparable to the theory that the earth is 6000 years old which totaly fails to conform with reality.

 

[athorist]

Please note that young earth creationism is not the majority Christian position outside of the US. Most Christians are happy that science does a pretty good job of telling us about the internal mechanics of Creation, and that God is the creator of and life giver to that creation.

Where do you get the idea from that science tells us "God is the creator"? How do you get that idea? Science does not do that. Why do christians always forget to name the relevant research papers when they boldly assert something along the lines "Science tells us...".

Show a peer-reviewed research that tells us "God is the creator".

 

[ebia]

Where do you get the idea from that science tells us "God is the creator"? How do you get that idea? Science does not do that. Why do christians always forget to name the relevant research papers when they boldly assert something along the lines "Science tells us...".

Show a peer-reviewed research that tells us "God is the creator".

Sorry, I phrased that badly in print (it worked verbally). Let me rewrite it more clearly thus:
Most Christians are happy that science does a pretty good job of telling us about the internal mechanics of Creation. They are also happy that God is the creator of and life giver to that creation.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

In what logically consistent universe would research indicate a 6000 year old earth? That's just ridiculous. Where is that "research"? Where are the peer-reviewed scientific publications that would suggest so? There sure is a lot of stuff out in the wild that would indeed suggest a (failed) attempt of conspiracy...


And? What's the theory of relativity got to do with asserting the earth is 6000 years old, which flatly contradicts virtually every aspect of science. It's a shame that none of you addressed my questions about the Hubble Deep Field and the Redshift. That's evidence beyond any doubt. Virtually ALL of physics would be invalidated if the earth was 6000 years old. So how can a sane person believe that?

Are you suggesting that if people find things through bible studies that contradict reality it means that reality got it wrong?

Btw, the main reason that scientists rejected Einsteins theory was because there had not been observational evidence initially. Once the respective experiments were done and showed the predictions of the theory to be correct it was not doubted any more (except for some very few crackpots). This is in no way comparable to the theory that the earth is 6000 years old which totaly fails to conform with reality.

In what logically consistent universe would research indicate a 6000 year old earth? That's just ridiculous. Where is that "research"? Where are the peer-reviewed scientific publications that would suggest so? There sure is a lot of stuff out in the wild that would indeed suggest a (failed) attempt of conspiracy....

I have no idea that there is any credible scientific research to back up the 6,000 year old earth idea. My intent was to explain that people who believe in a 6,000 year old earth do so as a conclusion based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. It is taken as a matter of faith. By being a matter of faith, evidence to the contrary tends to be dismissed, downplayed, scrutinized for any potential flaw, and/or ignored.

The talk about Einstein's theory was to show that people of all stripes tend to hold on to beliefs even in light of new information. This aspect of human nature is not limited to religious dogma. As you clearly pointed out to support my point even after Einstein was vindicated (by studies of an eclipse as I recall regarding the bending of light) there were a few who held on to their beliefs.

My intent is not to defend those who embrace the idea of a 6,000 year old earth. Rather it is to explain why some would embrace the idea.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

 

[athorist]

Well, yeah, I see what your trying to say now. I don't really understand why you insist on calling it "internal mechanics of Creation" though. Science does not know about Creation. It neither says the world was created nor does it say it wasn't. So why not just call it the "internal mechanics of nature"?

And I know you said that not all christians believe in a 6000 year old earth. Would those be happy if someone teaches their kids in school that the earth is 6000 years old? What I really don't get, and it's something that I always wonder about when thinking about the whole ID vs. evolution debate, is why isn't there any real debate among christians. Why aren't the ones that understand how ridiculous the YEC claims are giving their fellow brothers a reality update? But no, they actually seem to take a position of "let's just teach both in schools". That's outraging. And (to bring it back to my actual question) I think it would actually be of harm to the christian cause. Kids aren't stupid. If they are teached both theories alongside it will be fairly obvious to them that the proponents of YEC are willfully ignorant. What's your opinion about the Discovery Institute? Don't you think they are deliberately being deceitful? Isn't what they do "bearing false witness"?

 

[athorist]

I have no idea that there is any credible scientific research to back up the 6,000 year old earth idea. My intent was to explain that people who believe in a 6,000 year old earth do so as a conclusion based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. It is taken as a matter of faith. By being a matter of faith, evidence to the contrary tends to be dismissed, downplayed, scrutinized for any potential flaw, and/or ignored.

I think I undestand the process of how people believe that. What I don't understand is how the rest of you can just be so silent about it. The very mechanism that you just described seems to be quite dangerous to me: basically you are telling me that people reach a conclusion just by studying the bible, even if it is at odds with reality. Isn't that strikingly similar to what the people who justify the worst attrocities through religion do? To me this shows a fundamental flaw in the way religion works. If you accept people teaching such hilarious stuff based only on faith, that means that litterally anything goes. Everything could be justified that way.

The talk about Einstein's theory was to show that people of all stripes tend to hold on to beliefs even in light of new information. This aspect of human nature is not limited to religious dogma. As you clearly pointed out to support my point even after Einstein was vindicated (by studies of an eclipse as I recall regarding the bending of light) there were a few who held on to their beliefs.

Yeah, that is true, there were a few who held on their beliefs. Those are not called scientists, because they don't look at observational evidence. And I may point this out again: it was very very (very) few people. The rest of scientists did no remain silent about it. They kept pointing towards the evidence, they made sure those people do not get a chance to teach their distorted idea of science in schools or universtities. I would have expected the same from reasonable christians with respect to YEC. I will restate my proposition: "Teaching the difference will be desasterous PR for christianity" - heck, it already is bad PR.

As for the experiments: yes, there were light-bending experiments done, but (as far as I remember right) this was in the late 80ies when the theory was already accepted to be mainstream. There were other experiments that have been done earlier on, especially with respect to special relativity which is much easier to confirm experimentally. Today one of the most convincing evidence for both special and general relativity are GPS satelites which really could not work without relativity being correct.

My intent is not to defend those who embrace the idea of a 6,000 year old earth. Rather it is to explain why some would embrace the idea.

I think I understand that. But my proposition (I state again) is not an attack on YEC theory itself, but rather on the way that chistianity handles it.

kind regards
athorist

 

[Markus6]

And I know you said that not all christians believe in a 6000 year old earth. Would those be happy if someone teaches their kids in school that the earth is 6000 years old? What I really don't get, and it's something that I always wonder about when thinking about the whole ID vs. evolution debate, is why isn't there any real debate among christians. Why aren't the ones that understand how ridiculous the YEC claims are giving their fellow brothers a reality update? But no, they actually seem to take a position of "let's just teach both in schools". That's outraging. And (to bring it back to my actual question) I think it would actually be of harm to the christian cause. Kids aren't stupid. If they are teached both theories alongside it will be fairly obvious to them that the proponents of YEC are willfully ignorant. What's your opinion about the Discovery Institute? Don't you think they are deliberately being deceitful? Isn't what they do "bearing false witness"?

You are misinformed. There is plenty of debate amongst Christians and we attempt to give our YEC brothers a reality update regularly. There is a forum on this board just for Christians to debate origins and there are many smart (some scientists) Christian evolutionists who debate there. Of course the issue isn't black and white, there are YEC's, a couple of types of OEC's (old earth creationists - still denying evolution), ID (which can include YEC, OEC or evolution to an extent) and evolutionists.

There are also Christian scientist in the public who are fighting against YEC. The best example would be Ken Miller who authored "Finding Darwin's God". He testified against ID in the Dover trial. Another name to check out would be Francis Collins (author of "The language of God and head of the human genome project. Ex-Pope John Paul II's proclamation that evolution is "more than just a hypothesis" is also interesting.

 

[ebia]

Well, yeah, I see what your trying to say now. I don't really understand why you insist on calling it "internal mechanics of Creation" though. Science does not know about Creation. It neither says the world was created nor does it say it wasn't. So why not just call it the "internal mechanics of nature"?

Because then I can't make the theological sentence work well. Science and theology use different languages and one needs to play a little flexibly with those to draw the statements together in the way I wanted. Where science talks about "the universe" or "nature" (biblical) theology talks about "creation" - but the terms aren't quite interchangeable.

And I know you said that not all christians believe in a 6000 year old earth. Would those be happy if someone teaches their kids in school that the earth is 6000 years old?

I wouldn't - no. It would be both bad science and bad theology.

What I really don't get, and it's something that I always wonder about when thinking about the whole ID vs. evolution debate, is why isn't there any real debate among christians. Why aren't the ones that understand how ridiculous the YEC claims are giving their fellow brothers a reality update?

Um, there is. That may not always be apparent from where you are standing, but...

But no, they actually seem to take a position of "let's just teach both in schools".

I don't think I've come across many Christians who take a theistic evolutionary approach saying that. But then this isn't a major topic of debate for most of us outside the US.

That's outraging. And (to bring it back to my actual question) I think it would actually be of harm to the christian cause. Kids aren't stupid. If they are teached both theories alongside it will be fairly obvious to them that the proponents of YEC are willfully ignorant. What's your opinion about the Discovery Institute? Don't you think they are deliberately being deceitful? Isn't what they do "bearing false witness"?

I'm reluctant to sit in judgement on anyone, and I don't consider my self sufficiently well informed on the behaviour of the Discovery Institute, to pronounce on them. I will say that I have strong reservations about the methods of many YEC institutions, and some are clearly dishonest.

 

[Sarapin]

Often I hear them claiming to have "evidence" for those claims. Some even claim that "evidence" to have the same level of sophistication than real science.

There are many people who, like you, believe that evolution is science while creation is religion ... but is that true? This is at the heart, the underlying, or the core issue of the debate. The purpose of this post is to help shed some light on the issue...

It is valid to make a distinction between the two main types of science: origins science and operational science. As the name suggests, origins science deals with the question about the origins of something or some event in the past, which is by definition unique, unobservable, and unrepeatable. By contrast, operational science involves understanding how something operates in the present, which by definition is repeatable and observable. (Batten, D. 2002)

It should be obvious that microbe-to-man evolution is a unique process that happened in the past. It can't be directly tested or observed, and it most definitely cannot be repeated. The tests and experiments that are done here and now in the present that relate to the past tend to be quite limited and often require a lot of assumptions to be made to fill in the many unknowns (a prime example of this may be the assumptions behind the radiometric dating, such as the initial composition of parent/daughter elements, for example). The further the event is in the past, the more assumptions are involved. The same is true of creation: it is a unique event that occured in the past that can't be directly tested or observed or repeated.

So, both evolution and creation fall into the origins science category. It should be obvious that both sides have the same data (i.e. observations in the present) yet somehow they come up with different interpretations or stories. The question has to be asked, why? Both creation and evolution are influenced by philosophical beliefs. Creation is obviously influenced by the Bible, but evolution is also largely influenced by materialism...

So some of the parts that you call 'real science' are actually outside the realms of science, that is to say that they are not directly observable, testable, or repeatable. The creation vs. evolution debate isn't religion vs. science, it isn't a debate over the data, it's a debate about the right interpretation of the data. To be blunt: at the core of the debate it is one over clashing philosophies.

Anyway, I got distracted and forgot to address the question. It doesn't really worry me whether or not they teach creation in secular schools, but just as long as they teach evolution in its proper context (that is, evolution is an unproven theory that largely deals with origins science) and that they make the nature of the debate clear to students ... then the students can make an informed decision about what they want to believe. That is showing and encouraging critical thinking, which is an important skill for later education at university.

References:
Batten, D. (2002). 'It's Not Science'. Creation Ministries International. Retrieved online 10 August 2008 from: creationontheweb.com/content/view/2480