Why is it that anti-evolutionists try to use science to bolster their arguments ...?

Question

but if asked the most simple science questions, they have virtually no understanding of actual science?

Am I the only one that's worried these people are now setting the U.S. primary school science agenda?

Answer 1

Science lacks imagination. We need more imaginative writers than we need logical reasoning or a cure for diseases, don't we?

That will give us free reign to teach anything if we don't have to base our reasoning on " Satan's lie's" that are found in math and science.

Answer 2

The only way to destroy what science has discovered is to destroy it from within. The "science" they put forth is not REAL science. Real science only establishes a conclusion after the testing and research are done. Faith based science (if the term can even be used here) will not accept an answer that doesn't work to prove their pre-determined answer...i.e. God exists. Don't get me wrong...on many levels these people are intelligent, and that's what makes them dangerous.

Intelligent design's followers will admit to a theistic view fueling their "scientific research". This alone is enough for the ACLU to sue any school district that is foolish and misguided enough to try teaching anything other than the facts.

To clarify a few of the falacies that have been spewn here, there is no science that disproves evolution. Having creationists who claim to be scientists, and use the jargon in a convincing manner doesn't count. The word theory, when used in a manner consistent here, means a series of items that have been proven, and are accepted as fact. This can also be used to describe gravity, and the earth revolving around the sun...both are theories. It doesn't mean "guess" in this context, but then again, that's exactly what creation science is...science taken out of context.

Answer 3

Perhaps it's because they believe that since evolution is based in the scientific realm - they need to give a scientific answer.

BTW - there's anti-evolutionists in the democratic camp too. There's always people on both sides of the fence. Too bad evolution is technically still a "theory" (that's how I learned it).

Maybe evolutionists are taking the wrong approach - maybe if both "theories" (evolution and creation) were presented - kids would be savvy enough to see what the most logical answer is? After all - don't we want kids to develop CRITICAL thinking - learn to think for themselves instead of telling them WHAT to think?

Answer 4

Because thier scriptures lack credibility. they have run out of valid reasons. because god never supports them. why should god support those who do not work, tax thier grey matter. god changed his plans, went on improving whatever he created. previous occassion he was cheated by the believers. they took his book said that is the only book god wrote. but god had plans to correct his earlier version of his book. he thought this time let me give it to the scientists who are atleast trying to understand how the whole system is. now these anti-evolutionists have to hang on to something to keep thier flock together. so they got some disgruntled man who was working on the project in hope of being recognised for his work who did not get his due. its give & take partnership. helping each other. unscientific facts are put forward to bolster thier claim...
Lets leave this anti-evolutionists alone. over a period of time they will evolve into a different kind of creature. lets enjoy thier evolution, too. and dont forget to involve Discovery & National Geographic channel in recordig this historic evolution.

Answer 5

The claims are made by scientists, some of whom were atheists when they discovered intelligent design and woke up to reality.

Why should I worry about these people setting the U.S. primary school science agenda? I had anti theists, without any scientific proof, cramming their theories down my throat and claiming it as science fact when I was in primary school. What makes their facts any worse than the old evolution theories?

Clearly, anyone with a scientific background and an open mind, once presented with the facts, will concur that the Flagellum couldn't have simply evolved. I keep waiting for ET lovers to latch on to Intilligent design.
:)

Answer 6

Yeah, you're right "anti-evolutionists" are setting the U.S. primary school science agenda. Hmmm...that's news to me. If they are doing this then they're doing an awfully lousy job.

Answer 7

Ther are also many well-recognised scientists that do not agree that evolution has taken place.

If you are a scientific mind then perhaps consider this. Evolution is still a theory, and the only way to change this standing is to perform many experiments and map the results. We cannot experiment with evolution. (Similar to the big bang theory which we would have to re create the universe to definitively prove it.)
We still consider atoms theoretical since we cannot view them or isolate them. It is merely the best explanation of what we have seen and tested. Again we were able to test this using various experiments. Yet with evolution, by its very nature, it cannot be tested at an instant but only measured over vasty periods of time.

The problem many scientists have is that we have only been able to measure evolution since it was first theorised.

A big decider in this debate is the half life of the Carbon 14 atom. Also known as Carbon dating, using the known information of the radioactive decay of this isotope there has been a discovery that we can determine different ages and time periods that things did happen in. But the problem here again is that we have only known about this atom for such a short time by universal standards. What if the radioactive decay of this isotope was different 300 years ago? We cannot truly know. Let alone this isotope 1 million years ago. This is why the theory of evolution is somewhat insuffient.

But in the same breath, it could hold a great deal of truth to it only we could not truly know this until we have measured (what we consider a constant) over a very long period of time. Let alone map the changes in creatures over the same period in time.

I wouldn't be worried about the science agenda since what we should teach is evolution as a thoery, and all other theories as exactly what they are. Understanding is the key to science and as long as they understand that it is a theory along with many famous works such as relativity, then their knowledge will improve and we will ahve the greatest scientists in the world.

Answer 8

speaking as a physicist, I'd have to say because science dissproves the theory of evolution. But hey, no mess it was only a theory. Not the first to be busted, and it wont be the last. Hell, even Isaac Newton was proven wrong, and He invented calculus.

Answer 9

They don't use science for their arguments, they use scientific sounding jargon combined with strawmen and equivocation. Don't worry, as soon as the Republicans are ousted form power, the drive toward scientfic stupidity will halt, and be replaced with a drive toward some other form of stupidity.

Answer 10

It is so unfair that us anti-evolutionists want fairness, isn't it?

Yes, most anti-evolutionists don't have much understanding of science, but most of the followers of Darwin don't either.

Do you have any points to make that aren't hypocritical?

-Aztec276