A Common Misconception among Evolutionists Re: Creation Science
Kevin B. Jones
kbjones at awod.com
Sun Oct 25 10:53:00 EST 1998
I was once required to write a paper in a graduate class titled "Is
Verifiable Scientific Evidence Relevant to Religious Thought?" My answer
(not taken by the rest of the group as they wanted to get a good grade
from the professor) was NO. It does not matter. Science speaks to the
evidence that is present. Religion disregards evidence in favor of
"faith". Any evidence offered by science that does not support the
tenants of religion are disregarded. By its very nature religion does not
lend itself to a scientific analysis. In fact, much of the very
vocabulary used by the religious and those scientifically minded is
different. Yes, the words look the same, and are spelled the same, but
when a scientist says the word 'theory' it is a very different word from
the word 'theory' used by a nonscientist. though the words look alike,
they do not translate into the language of the "other side'.
In my science class, we discuss science. Theories are supported by a
preponderance of verifiable evidence. Creation and science are two
different ideas, founded in two different disciplines. What the student
"believes" is entirely up to the student. I only insist that the student
understand the principles of the science involved in evolution. I do, on
a personal note, think it is a better way of doing business to allow
someone to make up their own mind as to what they will or will not
"believe'. You know, the idea of free will. Tell someone both sides of
the story and let them make up their own mind.
I have found, in my experience, this idea to be anathema to religion.
Kevin B. Jones
That which does not kill me only makes me stronger.
More information about the Bioforum