The Los Angeles Times editorial board decided recently to join the debate raging between creationists and evolutionists, siding squarely with Darwin and the gang. But the Times did not merely position itself along a spectrum of the controversy. Instead it stood on one end and launched a criticism of creationists that was the most contentious, condescending, and contemptible I have ever read.
The LA Times editorial titled "Yabba-dabba Science" was a response to the opening of a new $27 million 60,000 square-foot “Creation Museum” in Petersburg, Kentucky — but given the venom spewed from the pages of the Times one might be persuaded to believe those Christians had erected a gallows for hanging witches.
The Times began its denouncing of all who believe in the literal translation of Genesis by stating the Creation Museum promotes “earth science theories that were popular when Columbus set sail.” Other highlights from the Times’ furious name-calling fit include:“animatronic balderdash” and “‘The Flintstones’ is a cartoon, not a documentary.”
The editors launched into this tirade only to evolve their argument into one that targets three Republican candidates for president, closeting them all with folks the Times calls, “a lunatic fringe.” The editors then examined the beliefs of the three by stating none of them believe in evolution. This appears to be the straw that broke the back of the Times’ editorial board’s patience.
It lambasts them all in one sentence: “Three men seeking to lead the last superpower on Earth reject the scientific consensus on cosmology, thermonuclear dynamics, geology and biology, believing instead that Bamm-Bamm and Dino played together.”
Taking a deep breath after the expenditure of an awful lot of hot air, the Times’ editors decided to educate their dwindling readership on a particular “fact” of earth science. Fact: The LA Times editorial team takes exception with those who believe the earth is “about 6,000 years old, as opposed to the 4.5 billion years estimated by the world’s credible scientific community."
It is interesting to note that creationists admit they have placed their faith in the scriptural texts contained in the Bible — a book that has taught more about philosophy, love, hate, joy, charity, emotions, and various relationships than all of the sciences put together in all of the years scientists have studied human behavior. Creationists also have solid footing rooted in texts that have withstood several thousands of years of scrutiny, and that also offer mankind a deeper understanding of what lies both within this world and beyond it that no scientist can explain.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - handyguy
Other than the snarky Flintstones jokes, which some of us may think are funny and well deserved, the L.A. Times editorial is much more reasonable than Mr. Green's description of it would lead you to believe. And Mr. Green indulges in some unfortunate overstatements and generalizations of his own.
It might be noted that:
The Bible is not a science book. Creationism is not science, it is a religious belief.
The Kentucky creationist theme park has plenty of elements that many people would find laughable, and not nearly all of those people are anti-Christian bigots. There's certainly nothing in the Bible about dinosaurs and humans coexisting.
Many Christians believe in evolution and accept the explanations of science, not finding them threatening to their faith. Many scientists are religious. The Big Bang is not incompatible with belief in a creator.
But insisting that the earth is 6000 years old is not a scientific theory, and shouldn't be misrepresented as such. People who tie their minds in knots trying to rationalize why it's ok for Christians to eat shrimp cocktail or ham sandwiches despite Biblical admonitions, or why they don't endorse the Biblical commands to stone adulterers to death - well, people who do that are free to try to add up all the time periods mentioned in the Bible to come up with an exact age for our planet.
But wouldn't they be better off feeding the hungry?
2 - SteveS
You seem unsettled that science changes. Science is not absolute, we learned that in 4th grade.
There might be debate as to whether the earth is 3.8 or 4.3 billion years old, but clearly there is evidence that it is not less than 100,000 years old. There's a huge 'leap of faith' going on here, clearly and solely to fit an agenda.
What do you expect, scientists to say that the earth was created on a Tuesday 4.113 billion years ago? Come on.
It is sad that when science disproves religion, that religion must reject science.
I, for one, believe in a Supreme Being but am smart enough to understand that we humans know so little about our universe. Clearly science is much better able to figure it out, than a book written by a bunch of humans 2,000 years ago who assumed that volcanic eruptions or earthquakes were caused by dieties and not pressure under the earth's mantle.
A Creationist is not fit to lead a nation filled with diverse people of all faiths and of no faith. Period.
And it's odd that someone would expect others to respect their view that disregards hundreds of years of scientific data, gathered by people around the globe. This is like me being surprised that people would laugh at me, a 42 year old man, for saying I believe in Santa Claus. There should be no surprise there at all.
I was raised a Christian, but fortunately God gave me common sense too.
3 - SteveS
Let me put it this way, now that I've had a minute to calm down from your rhetoric.
Should a Creationist want respect for their 'literal' interpretation of the Bible, then they need to not pick and choose which parts of the Bible to literally interpret.
When you burn oxen in your backyard and smear doves blood all over your walls, THEN you are someone who literally interprets the Bible.
Until then, a Creationist is nothing more than a hypocrite who picks and chooses which parts of the Bible to believe in and who dangerously disregards the scientific community for the sole purpose of turning this country into a theocratic regime.
And that is just one reason why a Creationist is unfit to be President.
4 - MCH
Boom!!!
Where ya been??
5 - SteveS
There's an election in a year and a half. It's gettin time for this bee to get back in the hornet's nest and stir things up again.
6 - sr
Thanks Mike. Excellent blog and you speak the truth. Old sr belives and thinks like Mr Green. Unlike Mr Green I have a dirty mouth. So if I say up your ass to the rest of you Im sure you will understand.
7 - SteveS
Spoken like a true Creationist, sr.
8 - Mike
Lets forget evolution or creationism for just a moment. Maybe the answer to this issue lies in the following question:
Are we the highest order of being or are we not capable of even recognizing a more evolved animal?
Is it not plausible for us to think for just a moment that our planets are analogous to ant houses surrounded by a larger being or order.
What we don't know shouldn't lead us to irrational answers.
Just like the earth is not flat nor the center of the universe.
Religion is not morality. Morality exists without self-identifying segregating traits. For then we are all human, not separated by make believe.
9 - SteveS
Lets forget evolution or creationism for just a moment.
But creationism is the topic of this whole thread.
Are we the highest order of being or are we not capable of even recognizing a more evolved animal?
We are capable of recoginizing a more evolved animal. Evolution does not teach that man is the pinnacle if that is your fear.
Is it not plausible for us to think for just a moment that our planets are analogous to ant houses surrounded by a larger being or order.
We may think that. We should not build a society based on that premise without proof. The Bible (which I read, I have accepted Jesus) is NOT proof on which to found a society.
What we don't know shouldn't lead us to irrational answers.
I don't understand this double negative. Can you rephrase?
Religion is not morality. Morality exists without self-identifying segregating traits. For then we are all human, not separated by make believe.
Again, this is rhetoric, too. What does this have to do with respecting someone who believes something disproven? And before you go on about proof again, consider that Genesis leads people to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs. At least that is what the Creationists tell us, see the new museum in redneck country for proof.
Personally, Mike, I believe that evolution and the Bible coexist and walk hand in hand. I think it is foolhardy to dismiss one on the premise of the other. And I will call it out. I have yet to be given proof otherwise.
10 - MCH
"And that is just one reason why a Creationist is unfit to be President."
While a Creationist who's also a Deserter is doubly unfit...
11 - Mike Green
Please forgive me if I am misunderstanding those of you who seem to accuse me of dismissing science in my article. I do not believe I have done anything of the sort. In fact, I state unequivocally that Christians study not only God's Word, but also His Creation. In all fields of study there are Christians advancing the knowledge of mankind, understanding that it is with God's help and with God's grace that we are able to do the marvelous things we do and create the wonders we create.
Nevertheless, man's wonders can't compare to those of God. We study the simplicity of the seed, that in its death it gives way to new life that provides nutrition for animals and mankind alike. Can Science create a seed from nothing and have it grow into a tree that bears forth specific fruit? I think not. Science is limited in both knowledge and capability.
God is not.
Science is in the business of discovering what God has already created ... and seeking to know better how such things operate. Can the created come to know more than the Creator?
So to be clear, belief in God does not preclude and understanding of science. But Christians understand science within a set of contextual boundaries " realizing that the best guesses of scientists do not equal fact, as history shows us with clarity.
I do not discount the advances in science, but when it seeks to diminish the Word of God or ridicule God as it exalts itself above the Creator, then it is time for science to be told it has gotten too big for its britches.
Science doesn't know a lot of things it purports to know. Imagine how silly you would think a person is if they told you their age was between 4 million and 4.5 BILLION years old! Not only is that unscientific, it is downright idiotic. A better answer would be to simply state, I have no idea.
But there are those who will argue on behalf of science that the earth is far older than 6,000 years. Well, I have to say I don't know how old the earth is. I don't think the creationists know, and I am quite certain the wild guesses proffered by laymen scientists that rely on such data as "all scientists agree" actually have no earthly clue either. They just want to appear to know something by fostering a silly notion that has changed several times with each generation of evolutionists.
Today, science isn't under assault, as the LA Times would have one believe. It is religion that has come under direct attack by the evolutionists. If one were to do even a modicum of research it would be revealed that evolutionists did not write the Constitution of Massachusetts (oldest legal document in our nation). Christians did. Evolutionists did not create public schools in America (Christians did). Evolutionists challenged the status quo over the past several generations. Evolutionists are the new kids on the block attacking Christianity and any other religious beliefs in order to find some elbow room for their own beliefs.
The problem evolutionists run into is not that they can't co-exist with other religions, but that they refuse to admit that evolution IS a religion based upon faith in things unseen but yet believed.
All religions rely upon some source that provides some proof of the rationale behind their belief. And yet, the source does not contain all answers and thus requires some measure of belief. Christians don't deny their faith. Jews don't deny their faith. Muslims don't deny their faith. Neither do Buddhists, Hindus, etc.
The only religious folks who count themselves as above everyone else in intellect, yet deny their own faith are evolutionists.
My point is not that Christians don't believe in science. We do. But we recognize where the power to interpret and understand and explore and discover and advance our knowledge stems from. Evolutionists do not know of any power outside of themselves and therefore launch attacks at creationists and others who have faith in God.
The LA Times did not laugh and mock creationists alone. It mocked God. It lauched at the very notion that a God exists.
I find that insulting.
I do not believe all that creationists offer. But I respect their belief. I am not a Muslim, but I respect their belief. The same goes for all other religions. I even respect the beliefs of evolutionists. And I have done a healthy bit of study on my own about Mr. Darwin (who often recited form the bible that he carried around for years).
I take offense at the editors at the LA Times who tossed the first stone despite living in a glass house.
Evolutionists laugh and ridicule those who hold the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old or less. My point is that the LA Times editors and other such folk have no clue how old the earth is. They simply have FAITH in the evolving pronouncements of scientists.
And when the old textbooks are tossed out and the new revisions are brought in, how do you go back and update the information imparted to the generation that has already received a diploma/degree under the old knowledge system?
Science is an ever-changing animal. And scientists themselves rely on data from methods that are uncertain. That is why they approximate, hypothesize and outright guess, albeit an educated guess.
And in every generation we can look back and find that in some way in some field of science, the data was wrong or the conclusion was wrong.
Science is in the business of forever proving itself wrong.
Thankfully, God is not. The teachings of Christ have not changed since He walked this earth. That's quite a track record. And by the way ... Jesus was a Creationist who believed in the scriptures of the Old Testament, which He stated foretold of Him.
So let's all just have a civil discussion of our faiths. If you have faith in evolutionary theories, so be it. I personally have faith in Jesus Christ. And I'd match Him against any scientist any time.
12 - methuselah
What a silly article. Just a rehash of old-fashioned religious notions.
13 - SteveS
We are free to believe what we want to believe, however someone who takes a literal interpretation of the Bible is unfit to be President.
And when the old textbooks are tossed out and the new revisions are brought in, how do you go back and update the information imparted to the generation that has already received a diploma/degree under the old knowledge system?
I'm not sure if there is a degree in evolution, so let's take chemistry for example...a chemist who got a degree, reads scientific journals and so gets the new knowledge that way.
When something is discovered to be erroneous, it is usually found to be slightly different, not completely different. Thinking the earth is 4 billion years old, then finding something 4.5 billion years old and then modifying your previous notions is not only done in science, this type of modification is done in everything from business to parenting.
Thinking, based on the evidence before us, that the earth is 4 billion years old, and then modifying it to say "no, wait, it's only 6,000 years old", just doesn't happen.
Evolutionists laugh and ridicule those who hold the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old or less. My point is that the LA Times editors and other such folk have no clue how old the earth is.
We don't know how old the earth is, but we have ample evidence THAT IS UNDISPUTABLE, that shows it is at least millions of years old.
The teachings of Christ have not changed since He walked this earth.
No, but his followers sure have (specifically talking about those who use religion in their politics). They don't follow his teachings AT ALL. Or else their issues at election time would be poverty, hunger, and the sin of the hoarding of wealth. Instead, they attack people who love each other (gay marriage), support war, want government to control women's bodies and other things that have nothing to do with the teachings of Christ. And that is why they cannot be trusted. Beware the believer who says one thing while doing another. Far more evil than a scientists who modifies his findings.
14 - Lee Richards
1.) You have given no factual justification for preferring the Christian God and religion over all the others past and present. This entire article is just a statement of your faith--that there is only one, absolute truth.
You make a number of claims, but ignore your burden of proof to demonstate that those claims are true. For instance, justify your claim that your particular Christian God exists, using some other source than the Bible which you take to be true just because it says it is. That is, after all, exactly what is in question.
2.) You appeal to the like beliefs of "many" others as if that were evidence, although numbers of believers prove nothing;remember the prevailing opinion used to be that the sun revolved around the earth.
3.) If your logic demands that everything requires a designer, then who or what designed your God? Creationism is a thinly-disguised attempt to get the Christian religion into mainstream education. Science uses evidence to identify a process;creationism ignores or distorts evidence so it can claim a lack of a process. It is the death of free, critical thought.
4.) Your facts are missing, your reasoning is unsound, your arguments are unconvincing. The evidence for evolution is there;you just refuse to be persuaded, choosing fiction over fact. Again, the burden of proof is on you to factually and rationally justify your claims.
May The Force be with you.
15 - bliffle
The bible is so full of error and contradiction and mistranslation that to state that one believes it to be literally true is to risk being thought childish.
16 - Dave Nalle
Anyone who takes creationism seriously is a yabba-dabba-dumbass.
Dave
17 - Classical
Credible scientists include scientists whose work is subject to peer review. A consensus is what happens when scientists review the work of other scientists and form a general agreement over what their experiments and observations mean. If there are any other simple English terms you'd like explained to you, please let us know.
18 - duane
Mike (#11) says:
Science is limited in both knowledge and capability.
Well, you might have walked out of your hut one fine evening 30,000 years ago, looked up at the sky, and scratched your head, wondering why the black dome had little holes in it, and guessed that above the dome there must be a source of illumination whose light leaked through the holes. You might have mentioned this to your hunting buddy Og, who would have scoffed at you, and said, "Mike, don't think such foolish thoughts. Our science is limited in both knowledge and capability. We will never be able to discover a mountain high enough that we might look above the dome."
You might have given Og an appraising stare ---matted hair, nearly toothless, with swaths of ragged fur covering scarred flesh --- then said, "Yes, Og, perhaps you are right. The Sky God must be loathe to provide his servants with the means by which His inscrutable creations might be revealed. At first sight of the yellow fire, let us sacrifice Ung's daughter Beatrice that we might be worthy of the Sky God's ever merciful grace. For is it not He who has provided us with the black dome that we might more easily surround our foes, that which gives us respite from the yellow fire, that which brings on the sleep after a tiresome day of stalking our prey, that which permits concealment as we steal upon the hut of the maiden for the sexy time? Speaking of which, do you have Beatrice's address? I must prepare her for tomorrow's ceremony"
Og looks at you skeptically, then grins his toothless grin.
19 - duane
Here's a bit of cherry picking:
Mike (#11) says:
Science is in the business of forever proving itself wrong
This clever aphorism is undeniably true. But, from the context of your
article and followup posts, the negative connotations you wish to impart are misleading at best, and simple minded at worst.
Would you have it any other way? Would you prefer a more dogmatic approach? Aristotle, anyone?
Please forgive me if I am misunderstanding those of you who seem to accuse me of dismissing science in my article.
So, would I be wrong to state that your assessments here are dripping with derision?
And when the old textbooks are tossed out and the new revisions are brought in, how do you go back and update the information imparted to the generation that has already received a diploma/degree under the old knowledge system?
Working scientists don't read textbooks. They read journals (as SteveS has pointed out). That's part of the job. Getting a doctorate in science is only the beginning of a scientist's continuing education. What's your point? Back to Aristotle?
The problem evolutionists run into is not that they can't co-exist with other religions, but that they refuse to admit that evolution IS a religion based upon faith in things unseen but yet believed.
Again with this old canard. Unseen things? Like bones? Rocks? A supernova? Blips from a particle detector that records the decay of radioactive nuclei?
The only religious folks who count themselves as above everyone else in intellect ... are evolutionists.
Evolutionists are scientists, so, by extension, I assume you think that all scientists "count themselves as above everyone else in intellect." Of course they do, but only in matters of science related to their specialty. Would you dispute the validity of such an opinion?
Evolutionists do not know of any power outside of themselves and therefore launch attacks at creationists and others who have faith in God.
Again, I assume that your comment applies to all scientific subfields. By contrast, faithists disavow the power of the human intellect, concluding that the Universe is permanently unknowable, and, therefore, launch attacks at scientists and others who rely on the tools and methods that they have developed to look behind the comforting shroud of superstitious dogma that has impeded the scientific advancement of civilization.
20 - Deano
Interesting isn't it that the science and scientific thinking you so readily disparage provides you with clean potable water, ready access to medial care, fixed that cavity in your tooth, gave you a well-balanced food supply, provided the ability to transport yourself vast distances very rapidly, and allowed the tools with which to shape your life - including incidently the computer and the network upon which you have just shared your thoughts.
The fruits of scientific inquiry are all around you - you are wearing them, eating them and living among and with them. Yet you are perfectly willing to effectively and selectively jettison it in favour of a narrow interpretation of creationism and religion vs. science and reason?
21 - MD
"Science doesn't know a lot of things it purports to know. Imagine how silly you would think a person is if they told you their age was between 4 million and 4.5 BILLION years old! Not only is that unscientific, it is downright idiotic."
Um. It would be idiotic to say "I'm 6000 years old" too?
Your writing is beautiful, but I don't think you understand WHY people are upset about this museum. I have no problem with someone who believes in God. That is the strength of your belief: Faith. The problem with faith in something is that your assumption can never change. Your assumption is: There is a God and he's never wrong. No matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, you are bound to that belief. And that's why religious beliefs have no place in the scientific realm. Science's function is to DISPROVE, not "prove." Science will always be wrong at times, but it has the capacity, and desire, to correct its mistakes. It's willing to change.
Christians don't have the ability to change their beliefs based on evidence and logic because the fact is BIBLICAL EVIDENCE DEFIES LOGIC. IT IS PROVEN FALSE EVEN BY ITS OWN "EVIDENCE." God is all-loving. God is angry. God commands you to stone your children to death if they misbehave. God commands you to love your children no matter what.
Since Christians are bound to their original assumption "I believe in God and everything in the bible is true," they can't change their fundamental assumption without rejecting their faith entirely. And that's why I don't want science classes full of "Because the bible told me so" lessons.
Your article is more proof than ever why Christian "Science" needs to stay out of the classroom. Faith is not science. Religion belongs in church and science belongs trying to figure out what is true or untrue. You can't get anywhere if the bible says the world is flat, all evidence to the contrary says it isn't, but Christians refuse to let everyone in on the round world gag because it would mean their religion is no longer true.
22 - MD
Another added note here: I believe in God, but I don't believe the bible is meant to be taken literally. If you took the bible literally, it would be a frightening world. Parents would stone children to death, people would live to be 800 years old (Do they?), and men would often decide that having a dozen wives and prostitutes nearby is better than having only one.
There might be some evidence for creationism. Great. Let's hear it. But pretending that the consensus in the scientific community is that the earth is about 6,000 years old is a lie. There may be SOME scientists who accept that, but the overall consensus is that the earth is billions of years old, and while science may one day discover that to be false (Thank God for people who are willing to investigate and change their mind), for now, that's the general belief and we accept it in schools because there is the most evidence for that viewpoint.
To be argued scientifically, creationists would have to accept that there is a possibility they are wrong- and that can never co-exist with Christian faith.
I want to learn about the world from someone who can admit when they are wrong, and creationists are incapable of being those people.
23 - MD
One more annoying thing I would like creationists to understand before I leave this place and stop babbling.
I respect your faith in God completely. I admire you for it. I don't think you should ever give up what you believe in, because honestly, I myself would rather think of heaven than align myself with the view that I am a complicated animal.
However...
Science is science because it looks at ALL evidence. Evolutionists, geologists, astronomers, etc., begin with the assumption that they don't know the answers, but that the evidence will lead them to make the best conclusions. I trust these conclusions because they begin with the notion that they can be wrong, and that is the beginning of all knowledge: Admitting that what you believe might not be true, and trying to discover that truth by looking at ALL angles.
Creationists are bound to their faith and therefore cannot look at ALL evidence and make an objective conclusion. They begin with the concrete belief that they are CORRECT, and all evidence to the contrary is ignored. I don't want to live in a world where "science" ignores half of the evidence because it contradicts what a creationist already believes in true. Why investigate anything if you're going to ignore 50% of truth??
24 - Mike Green
Thank you all for your eloquent " and not so eloquent " responses.
I find the criticisms of Christianity peculiar. The notion that Christians would even think of stoning their children to death and a number of other egregious examples expressed by science supporters on this blog convinces me that a number of commenters here do not have a thorough understanding of the bible.
I cannot take the time, nor would I be successful in a single blog entry, to explain the difference between the Old Testament's historical annotations and revelations of how people lived and co-existed in expectation of a Messiah and the New Testament's description of man's encounter with the Messiah.
Christians believe in Christ. Christ believed in the "creation" of the world, since He was part of creating it. That is what we believe. How long ago that process occurred is up to interpretation and likely would be wrong by any guess. In the end, it is a moot point. It is irrelevant.
Christ did not come to earth to help us figure out how the principles of physics work or to explain how God created all things.
He does, however, explain the things science does not. And these things pertaining to life on earth and death that is inevitable, affect us all. He does explain the hereafter, along with the pros and cons of life on earth (the things we choose to believe or not believe) impacting life (or death) of the soul.
Some science defenders on this blog are nasty, mean and condescending to the degree of being offensive. Since science doesn't teach its students how to treat others, it is understandable that no such protocol is exemplified by the science supporters, beginning with the LA Times.
But by the admission of every science supporter, science cannot prove the age of the earth. And its approximations are so wildly varied (from a few million to a few billion years) that it is not to be taken into account as a credible argument against those who purport the earth is 6,000 years old.
As a science supporter why would you accept the argument that the earth isn't 6,000 years old because it just isn't? That's what science supporters are saying. They have no source of belief outside of the propaganda promoted consistently by other science supporters. Not one has pointed to a single accepted data derived from a scientific process (i.e. the earth was determined to be 4.5 billion years old in 1996 in an updated revision of the previous accepted data due to a technological advancement in the age data process which involves carbon testing, etc, etc).
Instead, science supporters have acted in the exact same manner as they accuse creationists of acting. They have steadfastly stood on the premise that the earth is certainly NOT 6,000 years old. It is AT LEAST millions of years old, if not billions.
Again, how is it that such an unscientific argument is accepted by science supporters, yet the very SAME argument is rejected when proffered by creationists who claim the earth is no more than 6,000 years old. Neither side can definitively prove their point.
I find it peculiar also that science supporters place their faith in things unseen and unproven to the point that they cast derogatory remarks and look down their noses at those who do not accept their faith, which as every science supporters knows, changes.
If, therefore, science does change, then each generation of science supporters who seek to cast aspersions on faithful creationists, they should use the scientific method of recognizing patterns to see that the sand they are standing on today will shift tomorrow. Thus, the hardcore rheotric spewed by the LA Times and others will be deemed a passionate defense of science overall, rather than a specific defense of a single piece of data.
I am not casting doubt on the value of science. I am specifically reacting to the notion that science supporters have the audacity to paint religious faithful into a corner and not recognize they are standing in the same place!
In regard to earth science, no scietist can determine definitively how old the earth is nor its origin. Therefore, to claim that the evidence that is promoted by creationists ought not be taught side by side with science while simultaneously stating that science ought to consider ALL information is an oxymoron. How can it take all info into consideration while discounting some of it?
In the end, neither side can claim to know the facts or the truth. Both sides are merely promoting one process of BELIEF over another.
So while each side seeks to influence, my point is that both sides ought to be considerate and respectful. Science supporters seem not to have learned this simple lesson, as demonstrated by the LA Times and those responding on this blog.
25 - Guest
Christ did not come to earth to help us figure out how the principles of physics work or to explain how God created all things.
He does, however, explain the things science does not.
What amazes me, is how Creationists cannot grasp the simple concept that you cannot teach in school the words of Christ as fact. Should a child of Buddhists (Muslim, Hindu) raise his hand and ask a question, do we want the teacher to respond, "well, Christ tells us...."
No. We don't. Creationists do.
So while each side seeks to influence, my point is that both sides ought to be considerate and respectful.
That is what Creationists would like of course, they would like science and non-Creationists to be respectful of a theory/premise that has no foundation in fact or reality.
It's one thing for you to believe it and keep your faith to yourself, but Creationists are working VERY hard to instill their theories into the public square. This SHOULD open their theories up to scrutiny and a tearing down. After all, that is exactly what they do to theories that do not coincide with their religious dogma.
Imagine you had kids in school and I came very close to instilling in the school system a structure that would teach the kids that ritual animal sacrifice was necessary in order to gain further knowledge. Would you respect that? Would Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, Pat Robertson?
Hardly.