How are IDers or creationists anti-science? Are you sure it is not evolutionists that are trying to make scientists follow their rules? It is easy to toss out labels at people without confronting their claims. Just as easy as it is to dismiss pro-lifers and Christians who speak out against homosexuality as being bigots and homophobes.
Much in the same way there are those who refusing to consider the claims of creationists label them to be anti-science, and not real scientists. Who decided that? As I explained belief in macro evolution isn’t scientific, it has just as much a religious position as creationists. As that NABT Statement says,* “Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke metaphysical,
non-naturalistic or supernatural mechanisms, whether called “creation science,” “scientific creationism,” “intelligent design theory,” "young earth theory,” or similar designations, are outside the scope of science and therefore are not part of a valid science curriculum.** "***
Belief in macro evolution fits those credentials and therefore too should also not be taught dogmatically because there is no proof and the things they suggest are beyond the scope of science and could be classified as supernatural itself! In fact by supporting this statement you are showing acceptance of strict naturalism which is what atheists thrive on although even their naturalistic beliefs are knee deep in miraculous unscientific beliefs because naturalistic explanations fail to explain everything.
The ultimate irony here is that the Church isn’t discussing science anyway… they’re discussing how to mix evolution in with Christianity. Even if we assumed evolution to be actual science, the fact that they are trying to tie it in with the Christian religion already makes their proceedings unscientific. You think anything they conclude here will be adopted by the scientific community? They’ll just be congratulated for being open minded just to show that evolutionists can be tolerant and people can support them and still practice whatever’s left of their religion if they want… and then the Church’s conclusions will be torn apart and they’ll be labeled as closet creationists anyway… some have already leveled that name as an insult to Pope Benedict XVI. If the Church wants to hold discussions on evolution and invite only evolutionist Catholics to one event, then fine, alright… but they then should also hold a separate event to take a look at creationism too. I’m sure there will be Catholics who would attend that are Creationists, some of whom could turn out to be scientists and even priests and cardinals themselves. Of course discussing the validity of returning to creationism would also entail discussing evolution anyway… so they might as well have a debate and council about it. Why not? They ought to… and as more scientists and people dissent from and reject evolution as it coninues to expose itself for what it is, the Church will have no choice but to get involved anyway at some point. They might as well take some initiative.
Galileo? He was so impressed with his theory, he started running around and calling it a fact without enough information to do so. Even the scientists of his day were skeptical. He caused the conflict with the Church.
It was sarcasm on my part to show how the so called popular wisdom that the masses believe with concern to Galileo and the Church is believed undoubtedly to be true when we know the real story is vastly different. It is the same today with belief in macro evolution except we can already demonstrate how it is not scientific and lacks any evidence. Macro-Evolutionists and those that support it are better off believing in astrology and alchemy. Yet in hypocritical ignorance they label creationists as being unscientific. Recently evolutionists have been going around complaining that humanity has… believe it or not…
stopped evolving! I’d say since we couldn’t observe it in the past and we can’t observe it now, it’s because there is no evidence that we ever did evolve in the first place! None what-so-ever. There is no known working mechanism for organisms gaining complexity. Yet they continue to believe in it like a dogma and their vague ideas on possibilities for it happening can be surmised as ‘by magic.’
Yet we are supposed to bend over for them? At least Galileo was justified years later. People would be reasonable to not believe Galileo during those days as there were still things he couldn’t account for. We call them reasonable for doing so. Yet with concern to evolution, those of us who do not believe because there is no evidence are often chastized for doing so. Until macro evolution can be observed scientifically tested and proven or even provide something useful to scientific advancement that belief in creationism can not, then there is no obligation to take it seriously. Unlike heliocentrism, I expect the opposite fate for macro-evolution in due time, but then again macro evolution was never a scientific hypothesis, it is a religion like any other and so it’ll continue to exist as a false one followed by naturalists an Christians who choose to compromise their faith with a false one.
