Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution?

Do we even have any Creationists left on A2K?

You guys have probably driven them all away. Serious evolutionists would have no need to mock and ridicule those who disagree with them. They would have enough scientific "evidence" to stand on it's own merit. Unless, of course, evolultionists have not evolved sufficiently to act civil to people.

Wht twaddle,Obviously you have no understanding of how the Creationists of the world have been attempting to infiltrate their worldview into classrooms by trying to demand an equal standing with scientific evidence and theory.(Actually you do, but you dont wish us to mock your baseless "scientific" assertions, you merely want to sneak your load of horseshit into the classroom, unchallenged)

The Creationists want to occupy several fronts at once/


1. Theywant us to dispense with logic and accept their wordlview as scientifically testable

2. They want religious doctrine to act as a cenytral point of their science

3. They want science to "relax" and not spend any effort in squashing Creationism.

4. They claim that theirs is a valid "point of view" and should be afforded equal protection from state education boards.

If Creationism stops trying to become a substitute for biological evolution in our schools, then Many of us would let it lie there as a doctrinal support thats critical to but a a few sects. Unfortunately its the Creationists who are doing all the pushing, and science is merely trying to remind the school boards and state ed boards of their responsibility under Federal Law and the Constitution.

Creationists are busy trying to deny all the mountains of evidence that support biological evolution and natural selection. THey are trying to trivialize all the basic laws of science and the robust basis of the theory behind evolution. The way they do it is with lies, half truths, quote mining, twisted logic, and mythology. I dont think we can just let weak brained doctrine like that just quietly occupy equal space and demand equal time in our public schools. If you wish to teach dangerous crap like that to your own larvae, please do it in the space afforded you by the First Amendment wherein you are able to establish your own schools (think Amish).
I may not agree with your worldview, but I cant deny your rights to teach it to your own. Just dont keep trying to teach it to my own.

The use of the term "evolutionists" and your inferential division of this mythical order of devotees into "serious" and, what? . . . fanatical evolutionists? . . . shows that you consider people who accept a theory of evolution and those who wish to stipulate their personal superstition of choice as being polar opposite but equivalent sets of believers.

But that ain't so. Certainly there are fanatics among any group of people, and that includes those who accept a theory of evolution. But accepting that theory as the best, most plausible explanation for the wide variety of species on the planet today, as well as accepting the supporting geological and archaeological evidence is not a political stance. Creationism is exactly that. In the days before Darwin and Wallace, when what is now called creationism was unknown because scriptural inerrancy went unchallenged, a term such as creationists would have been silly, because it would have implied a distinction could be made between those who stipulated scripture as inerrant truth and those who would challenge it. At that time, no challengers rose above the horizon of the public consciousness.

Furthermore, it is a polemical tactic of religious "strict constructionists" to cast what they (but no one with an ounce of sense and a reasonable appreciation of the science involved) consider a controversy into the light of a political debate, with truth on their side and propaganda on the other.

The great majority of people who accept a scientific explanation for species diversity do so because the alternative is too embarrassingly silly to contemplate. What i am saying is that most people are insufficiently well-informed of the scientific issues to use science as a basis for judging the merits of the case--but they reject a creationist point of view because the basis for it is an absurdity.

Get over it, it's not a political debate, although it's a political stalking horse for the bear leaders of the "god did it" crowd.

If any of the creationism/ID posters could produce the origins of aggressively politicizing the debate of accepting evolution science belonging in the the scientist camp instead of the Christian religion camp, especially in the US, it would at least provide a basis for Intrepid's complaint. But, no, the "debate" has been trapped in their circular straw-man argument, trying to shoehorn a pseudo-science of creationism or intelligent design, a not-so-clever disguise of creationism, into a state of credibility. Hasn't been done and can't be done without resorting to the Big Lie of there being any scientifically testable evidence existing in this world. Instead, they quote from Websites, usually blogs, the same grade school illustrated book crap that's inevitably pulled from "Of Pandas and People" and other such fantasy tomes. It does provide a giggle, here and there, for any sane and rational person. Otherwise, it's a scary window into the childish minds of adults who refuse to grow up.