What do Creationists think of these two lists?

Question

http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm

::sigh::

Link 1:
NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution". Project Steve mocks this practice with a bit of humor, by only accepting signatures from scientists named Steve -- an estimated 1% of the scientific community.

Link 2:
A list of more than 10 000 signatures from men of the cloth who support the theory of evolution.

Answer 1

The first list is Project Steve, a list of scientists named Steve who support Evolution

The second list is a list of clergy who support creationism

Answer 2

Not much! Thanks

http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/art...

NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism." (For examples of such lists, see the FAQs.)

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/reli...

An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science
We've reached our goal of gathering 10,000 clergy signatures. The next step in our campaign is outlined here.
See below to endorse the following letter
Click here to learn more about the "Clergy Letter Project"

Answer 3

First off, both links are subject to the internet. How do we know all the people on the lists are real or qualify? Might be hackers doing it. Next, you are wanting to take man's fallible word and place it above God. Has not man made enough mistakes that you should see he can't prove everything? All scientific proof for evolution is simply man's best guess.
The first part that is wrong is ASSUMING the earth is 4.5 billion years old and humans are 2-250,000. That is taking man's belief...not fact...and there wasn't anyone here to prove it! Every single dating method man uses to show how old something is disagrees with others. They just use one that comes up with the answer they want.
I believe in 6 LITERAL days and God rested on the 7th. Any other interpretation, gap theory, millions of years, evolution etc is solely man's OPINION and NOT scripture. Evolution doesn't hold water. Evolution is solely dependent on the big bang theory. The big bang and evolution together can not answer...
where the two pieces of matter that collided came from;
what the ACTUAL probability of two of these correct pieces of matter meeting at the right time, at the right place, at the right speed, at the right angle, with the right atmospheric or lack thereof to produce things as we know it;
how a cell in the ocean morphed itself into a fishlike creature;
how this fishlike creature began to breathe air and why it would want to do so;
how and why it decided to go on land;
how it morphed itself into all the different species;
how out of this it was able to morph into a human being which is the only creature on earth with the ability to speak logically, reason, and feel emotion;
how plants survived before they "learned" photosenthesis;
why the holy grail of evolution (Berkley) says on its site that this is what they BELIEVE to be true but is not fact;

All scientific answers are man's best GUESS. There is NO absolute fact, try as he might and as smart as he thinks he is. People think since we get in a car and it takes us where we are going (sometimes) and you can turn on a computer and do most anything (sometimes) man can put a date on things billions of years ago based on things they "think" happened. Problem is, man makes mistakes and evolution is just one of the many.
I have a choice. I can fold in to your way of thinking so I don't get made fun of and then have to answer to God, OR I can allow you to scoff at me and then let YOU answer to Him. I choose the latter. Atleast I can say you have been told, you will have no excuse.
There is only ONE True God.

http://planttel.net/~meharris1/mikescorner.html

Answer 4

So apparently none of these fundies can read either. I think the lists are great, and well deserved on the creationists side. They have been spreading idiocy via the internet for 15 years now. The only way to fight this ignorance is with education.

Answer 5

For people who think they know everything about Intelligent Design, Creationism and the Darwinism, you don't, you really just don't.

Reading an article or two or even perusing a couple of books doesn't equate to having full knowledge of the subject matter.

Judge not, lest you be judged.

Answer 6

The collapsing case for Darwinism
and the mounting case for Intelligent Design


Though Darwin is often credited with citing "overwhelming evidence" for his theory of natural selection, all he actually provided was "one or two imaginary illustrations" of how the process might work


Despite centuries of artificial breeding and decades of experiments, no one has ever observed one species turn into another ("speciation")


Darwin vs. Darwin: He conceded that his theory was contradicted by known evidence (or lack thereof), though he hoped later findings would vindicate him -- which still hasn't happened after 150 years


Darwin's "strongest single class of facts" -- the early vertebrate embryos -- shows the opposite of what he thought it showed


The Cambrian Explosion -- a/k/a biology's "Big Bang": It contradicts Darwin's branching "Tree of Life"


Word games Darwinists play (example: exploiting the diverse meanings of "evolution" to distract critics)


Science textbooks continue to feature "evidence" for Darwinism that has long since been proven fraudulent


The clinical practice of medicine has no use for Darwinism, despite claims that it is impossible to practice medicine without applying its principles


Says an evolutionary biologist: "Perhaps it would be easier, and in the long run more productive, to abandon the attempt to force the data . . . into the mold provided by Darwin"


A modern microbiologist adds: "Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another"


The most common definition of Intelligent Design in the news media is completely incorrect


Design can be inferred not only from living things but also from various features of the cosmos, such as gravity


Darwinism is widely used in public education to discredit traditional Christianity and promote atheism

Answer 7

I am a christian and I agree with the second one. Evolution in terms of people coming from fish would contradict the Bible, but evolution that can be observed surely does not.

Answer 8

Went to the lists. Saw nonsense, just like Darwin's Theory. Dismissed this sorry attempt to stir up trouble out-of-hand.

Answer 9

i think the first one suggests that "project steve" worries the scientific community enough to release this kind of statement.

the second, since i haven't heard much about it, apparently does not worry the creationist community.

Answer 10

I don't see two lists. Just two links to unknown sites. So I guess I don't think much of them.