How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

That elephant/turtle/dragon story, the creation myth for most hindu and buddhist sects, (such as i ascribe to) is just that, a myth, for instance a great battle among the stars between the dragons and the gods is a metaphorical representation of the great monsoons that ravage the indian subcontinent, no one seriously thought that the himalayas were the bones of great dragons, nor yet that the animals actually came from those dragons, however there is a deep-rooted belief in the gods, but it has been long thought that gods came to earth long after the world was populated with animals, not that we question our scriptures

American Indians also have cool creation stories too. I have some books I got from the reserve - I think they have some of the stories in them. I'll have to look them up or see if I can remember them - particularly the Mohawk story.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i admire the shamanistic religions of northen asia and the americas greatly
there are some interesting paralleles between these and the religions of central and southern asia, taoism, shinto, hinduism and buddhism

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

How in the world can you have creationism without any belief in god exactly?

Instead of trying to unravel this, which was probably due to sloppiness in my post, I'll just repeat that I think creationism fits the actual, available data better than evolution, and this belief is entirely independent of my belief in Christianity, and that if I thought evolution was better supported by the actual data, then I would believe that evolution happened.

I get tired of the false accusations that I believe in creationism because I believe in Christianity.

This thread is primarily about scientific aspects of creationism and evolutionism, altho philosophical aspects about BOTH are relevant and will also come up.

Originally Posted by LCOU

So, is this thread limited to only christian views on evolution/creation?

This thread is primarily for discussing the classic view of creationism, based on the idea that the God described in the Bible created things as described in Genesis. It also naturally discusses the most popular current counter-theory, neo-Darwinistic evolution, based on the idea that there is no direction or intent or goal behind how we get what we have today - the only "chooser" is chance beneficial mutations and survival of the fittest. If you can bring up something to discuss scientifically, then fine

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

This thread is primarily for discussing the classic view of creationism, based on the idea that the God described in the Bible created things as described in Genesis.

That's the classic view to you - not to everyone though. To others - the classic creation story is different.

It also naturally discusses the most popular current counter-theory, neo-Darwinistic evolution, based on the idea that there is no direction or intent or goal behind how we get what we have today - the only "chooser" is chance beneficial mutations and survival of the fittest. If you can bring up something to discuss scientifically, then fine

The counter theory was only created to try to get the creation story taught in the classroom.


Here are some American Indian creation stories...

Creation of the World (Blackfoot)

"In the beginning, all the world was water. One day the Old Man, also called Napi, was curious to find out what might be beneath the water. So he sent animals to dive beneath the surface. First duck then otter, then Badger dived in vain. The Old Man then sent Muskrat diving to the depths. After a long time muskrat rode to the surface holding between his paws, a little ball of mud, and then blew upon it. The mud began to swell, growing larger, and larger, until it became the whole earth. Then the Old Man made the people."

The Creation (Mohawk)

Tharonhiawakon ( He Who Holds Up The Sky ) uplifted the Tree of the Standing Light, he placed his pregnant wife at the edge of the hole, and he pushed her through into the space below. Aientsik fell. Below her, all of the universe was water. The animals of the water saw her falling, but because the sky was blue, as well as the water, they did not know if she was falling from the sky, or coming up from the bottom of the lake. All of the water animals had an argument about this. The otter said that she was coming up from the bottom of the lake. The beaver agreed, as did the Muskrat. The geese and the ducks, however, said that she was falling from the sky. They flew up, and breaking the fall of Aientsik, let her rest upon their backs, and brought her gently down to the surface of the water.

In the meanwhile, a great turtle came up out of the water and volunteered to be a resting place for Aientsik, or Fertile Earth. The beaver, otter and Muskrat each dove to the bottom of the lake to try to bring up a mouthful of earth to place on the back of the turtle. The beaver failed and died. The otter failed and also died. But the Muskrat was successful. He placed the mud on the back of the turtle and Aientsik was laid down to rest.

When she woke, there was a fire next to her and a pot of corn soup. The back of the turtle had grown in size and it was visibly continuing to grow with every passing minute. Aientsik stood up on the earth, and walked about it, helping in the process of its creation. Every day when she returned to her resting place, there was a fire and a supply of corn, or some beans or squash for her to eat. Corn, beans and squash have been known ever since as the three sister-providers of the Mohawk people.

Creation (Potawatomi)

In the beginning, the Old People taught, there was no land, only water. Floating on this Great Sea was a birch bark canoe. In it, weeping, sat a man, Our Grandfather. He wept because he had no idea of his fate.

After a time Chief Muskrat appeared and climbed into the canoe. "Grandfather," he asked, "Why are you crying so?"

"I weep because I have been here a long, long while, and there is no land," the man replied.

"But there is Earth down deep under the Great Sea," responded Muskrat. "If you wish, I can swim down and bring some back to you." Our Grandfather nodded, "Yes."

Muskrat disappeared beneath the Great Sea and then bobbed up again, a gob of Earth in his mouth. "Are you alone like me?" asked Our Grandfather.

"No," replied Chief Muskrat, and he called to his fellows, the other chiefs of the animals who dwelled in the waters. They appeared, one by one. First came Beaver, then Snapping Turtle, then Otter. Each in turn dove deep into the Great Sea and then reappeared, bearing a ball of Earth clenched in his mouth.

From these gobs of Earth, explained the Old People, Our Grandfather fashioned This Island. Day after day he added to it as his Grandchildren brought more Earth, until it was large enough and solidly anchored in the Great Sea. Then he planted the Great Tree and other growing things. Using a stick, he marked out the rivers and had the Muskrats dig out their channels.

[jerseydevil]

This is the story that I was reminded of - because LCoU mentioned the turtle.

The Creation Story – Turtle Island (Ojibway/Anishinabe)

Long ago, after the Great Mystery, or Kitchi-Manitou, first peopled the earth, the Anishinabe, or Original People, strayed from their harmonious ways and began to argue and fight with one another. Brother turned against brother and soon the Anishinabe were killing one another over hunting grounds and others disagreements. Seeing that harmony, brotherhood, sisterhood, and respect for all living things no longer prevailed on Earth, Kitchi-Manitou decided to purify the Earth. He did this with water.

The water came in the form of a great flood, or mush-ko'-be-wun', upon the Earth destroying the Anishinabe people and most of the animals as well. Only Nanaboozhoo, the central figure in many of the Anishinabe oral traditions, was able to survive the flood, along with a few animals and birds who managed to swim and fly. Nanaboozhoo floated on a huge log searching for land, but none was to be found as the Earth was now covered by the great flood. Nanaboozhoo allowed the remaining animals and birds to take turns resting on the log as well. Finally, Nanaboozhoo spoke.

"I am going to do something," he said. "I am going to swim to the bottom of this water and grab a handful of earth. With this small bit of Earth, I believe we can create a new land for us to live on with the help of the Four Winds and Kitchi-Manitou."

So Nanaboozhoo dived into the water and was gone for a long time. Finally he surfaced, and short of breath told the animals that the water is too deep for him to swim to the bottom. All were silent. Finally, Mahng, the Loon spoke up. "I can dive under the water for a long way, that is how I catch my food. I will try to make it to the bottom and return with some Earth in my beak."

The Loon disappeared and was gone for a very long time. Surely, thought the others, the Loon must have drowned. Then they saw him float to the surface, weak and nearly unconscious. "I couldn't make it, there must be no bottom to this water," he gasped. Then Zhing-gi-biss, the helldiver came forward and said "I will try next, everyone knows I can dive great distances." So the helldiver went under. Again, a very long time passed and the others thought he was surely drowned. At last he too floated to the surface. He was unconscious, and not till he came to could he relate to the others that he too was unable to fetch the Earth from the bottom.

Many more animals tried but failed, including Zhon-gwayzh', the mink, and even Mi-zhee-kay", the turtle. All failed and it seemed as though there was no way to get the much needed Earth from the bottom. Then a soft muffled voice was heard. "I can do it," it spoke softly. At first no one could see who it was that spoke up. Then, the little Wa-zhushk", muskrat stepped forward. "I'll try," he repeated. Some of the other, bigger, more powerful animals laughed at muskrat. Nanaboozhoo spoke up. "Only Kitchi-Manitou can place judgment on others. If muskrat wants to try, he should be allowed to."

So, muskrat dove into the water. He was gone much longer than any of the others who tried to reach the bottom. After a while Nanaboozhoo and the other animals were certain that muskrat had given his life trying to reach the bottom. Far below the water's surface, Muskrat, had in fact reached the bottom. Very weak from lack of air, he grabbed some Earth in his paw and with all the energy he could muster began to swim for the surface. One of the animals spotted Muskrat as he floated to the surface. Nanaboozhoo pulled him up onto the log. "Brothers and sisters," Nanaboozhoo said, "Muskrat went too long without air, he is dead." A song of mourning and praise was heard across the water as Muskrat's spirit passed on to the spirit world. Suddenly Nanaboozhoo exclaimed, "Look, there is something in his paw!" Nanaboozhoo carefully opened the tiny paw. All the animals gathered close to see what was held so tightly there. Muskrat's paw opened and revealed a small ball of Earth. The animals all shouted with joy. Muskrat sacrificed his life so that life on Earth could begin anew.

Nanaboozhoo took the piece of Earth from Muskrat's paw. Just then, the turtle swam forward and said, "Use my back to bear the weight of this piece of Earth. With the help of Kitchi-Manitou, we can make a new Earth." Nanaboozhoo put the piece of Earth on the turtle's back. Suddenly, the wind blew from each of the Four Directions, The tiny piece of Earth on the turtle's back began to grow. It grew and grew and grew until it formed a mi-ni-si', or island in the water. The island grew larger and larger, but still the turtle bore the weight of the Earth on his back. Nanaboozhoo and the animals all sang and danced in a widening circle on the growing island. After a while, the Four Winds ceased to blow and the waters became still. A huge island sat in the middle of the water, and today that island is known as North America.

Traditional Indian people, including the Ojibway, hold special reverence for the turtle who sacrificed his life and made life possible for the Earth's second people. To this day, the Muskrat has been given a good life. No matter that marshes have been drained and their homes destroyed in the name of progress, the Muskrat continues to survive and multiply. The Muskrats do their part today in remembering the great flood; they build their homes in the shape of the little ball of Earth and the island that was formed from it.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

That's the classic view to you - not to everyone though. To others - the classic creation story is different.

And I am the thread-starter This thread was created to take an off-topic discussion of creationism (based on Genesis) off from the evolution thread, where it was taking over, because lots of people wanted to discuss it.

The counter theory was only created to try to get the creation story taught in the classroom.

No, by "counter-theory", I meant evolution as currently taught; i.e., neo-Darwinistic evolution. All I mean by that is that when discussing something, it's natural to discuss ideas in opposition to it.

Here's a creation story that I sometimes hear, usually discussed in tones of reverence and awe, and often fiercely defended beyond any rational reason, as some (not all) believers will defend their faith : Somehow simple life started on earth. This life, thru an amazing, non-directed sequence of beneficial mutations and survival of the fittest, underwent amazing changes and yielded all the life we see on our planet today!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

By the way - I don't call you a liar - I just thin you are blinded by your beliefs but you want to think you are open. That's what I think. Lying would involve a dilberate action. So no - I don't think you lie.

I'm very glad you said that - thanks! I'd rather be thought stupid than a liar!

I just think you have this strong sense to believe in the bible and god and creationism is part of that.

Fine - I deny that. Let's move on. I won't say why I really think YOU believe in evolution so strongly I'll just give you the courtesy of believing what you say about yourself and disagreeing with you in my mind. (the point is, I could say why I think you are blinded about evolution, and you would disagree, and I would disagree with your disagreement, and we wouldn't get anywhere. The same thing is going on here - you've now stated that you think I'm blinded and what I said is NOT true - I disagree, and you disagree with my disagreement, etc. etc. Let's move on.)

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Here's a creation story that I sometimes hear, usually discussed in tones of reverence and awe, and often fiercely defended beyond any rational reason, as some (not all) believers will defend their faith : Somehow simple life started on earth. This life, thru an amazing, non-directed sequence of beneficial mutations and survival of the fittest, underwent amazing changes and yielded all the life we see on our planet today!

It's not discussed in reverence and awe - at least I have never heard this "story" discussed in that way. However- the so-called story you claim - is backed up by scientific evidence, while creationism REQUIRES the belief in god. As I have said numerous times - you can not seperate your belief in god to back up creationism - therefore it can not have any basis in scietific study. The evidence does not show that we just miraculously appeared on earth. I truly do feel you are completely blinded by your faith Rian.

[Rían]

To finish up the last few little points -

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

...I don't think you have seriouosly ever looked at evolution because it doesn't fit into your biblical beliefs.

I studied evolution for years in school, and thought it was true for years, even when I was a Christian. Will you change your statement now? ("I don't think you have seriouosly ever looked at evolution because it doesn't fit into your biblical beliefs.")

And finally - if you're interested, re-read my summary posts that are linked to on the first page. When discussing evidence for creationism, you will NOT find any belief-based statements. You will find scientific discussion of evidence. That's all.

NOW - moving on to the comment on the simulation ...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I truly do feel you are completely blinded by your faith Rian.

And I believe the same about you, btw. But thank you for wording it so nicely - I don't know if I'm right, but I sense a concern for me, which I appreciate

And please see my post immediately following yours where I describe my studies of evolution and how I thought evolution was true even when I was a Christian.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Finally I'd like to mention the typing monkey analogy. That is, a monkey randomly poking a typewriter could, if enough time was given, for instance write a line from Shakespeare's Hamlet. This would take an awful lot of time - unless the monkey when he hit a correct key were actually told it was correct and the monkey could remember that. Suddenly it would take very little time compared to before. Check this site out.

Originally Posted by from the site

Figure 3.58. Typing Monkey Analogy. A monkey randomly poking a typewriter could write a line from Shakespeare's Hamlet, provided that correct keystrokes were retained. In the two computer simulations shown, the cumulative number of keystrokes is given at the left of each line.

As I mentioned before, I have a uni degree in computer science with an emphasis in math (such fun! I adored ordinary differential equations) and simulation. In my simulation studies, I studied all sorts of things, from queues (LIFO, FIFO, FILO, LIFO, where i=in, o-out, L=last, F=first - IOW, a FIFO queue would be like a candy dispenser where the first candy dropped in is the first out, and a LIFO queue would be like those push-down napkin dispensers, where the last napkin in is the first out, etc.) to servers (my personal favorite - SQMS - single queue multiple server - the ideal type of server line!) to discrete simulations to stochastic simulations, etc, etc, ad nauseum. I know how to program simulations.

The problem with the monkey simulation (and the eye simulation you'll see in sites like talkorigins) is this : There is a goal.

Let me repeat - there is a goal. I can absolutely guarantee, and I would bet my very life on it, that somewhere in the program there is that Shakespeare line that the SIMULATED monkeys eventually come up with.

Guaranteed.

And the thing about the theory of evolution, as it is currently taught in mainstream education, is that there are no goals. There are NO goals! There is only chance and survival of the fittest.

Mutations, beneficial or otherwise, do not mutate with a goal in mind (IOW, they don't think "If I make this mutation go this certain way, then we're one step further along towards eventually making a human!"). Natural selection, or survival of the fittest, does NOT operate with a goal in mind (IOW, there is no being directing animals towards a predator because they won't further the goal of making a human - the predator will just catch whoever it can catch!)

And I guarantee you that this computer simulation had a goal - the sentence of Shakespeare that was eventually "typed".


See, the simulation had to work like this :

1. Generate a random sequence of keystrokes (and btw, IIRC, it was exactly the same length as the Shakespeare sentence - another instance of a goal being in place!)

2. If a new keystroke MATCHES THE GOAL of the letter in the Shakespeare sentence in the right place, then KEEP IT! If it does NOT match THE GOAL, then make it subject to change the next round.

3. Repeat step 2 UNTIL THE GOAL is met.


ALL this simulation does is prove that if you have a GOAL, and allow changes to letters that do not meet the GOAL, then eventually, given enough time and the letters in the GOAL available, you will meet the GOAL. No news here!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Fine - I deny that. Let's move on. I won't say why I really think YOU believe in evolution so strongly I'll just give you the courtesy of believing what you say about yourself and disagreeing with you in my mind.

And you want to call ME arrogant. This is fine example of your arrogance right here. Enough said.

(the point is, I could say why I think you are blinded about evolution, and you would disagree, and I would disagree with your disagreement, and we wouldn't get anywhere. The same thing is going on here - you've now stated that you think I'm blinded and what I said is NOT true - I disagree, and you disagree with my disagreement, etc. etc. Let's move on.)

Your problem is that you HAVE to fit your belief in with your belief with god. You have NOT demonstrated this at all not to be the case. You can not scientifically defend creationism. However - every day there are more discoveries which support evolution. I really wouldn't expect you to understand though. Catholism tried to silence Galileo too - but we see today who was correct. Science over religion I say. Science will evolve and will change, theories come and go out of favor - evidence is examined and reexamined and tested and compared. Religion is purely on blind faith and belief. You can believe what you want - I will trust science to find the answer - not some ancient book that no one knows who really wrote.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And I believe the same about you, btw. But thank you for wording it so nicely - I don't know if I'm right, but I sense a concern for me, which I appreciate

I don't know why you would feel a sense of concern from me. I don't care if you belief the world is flat. I'm just discussing the issue of creationism and how I don't see you bringing forth any scientific evidence to support it.

And please see my post immediately following yours where I describe my studies of evolution and how I thought evolution was true even when I was a Christian.

So what does that have to do with anything? At one time I believed in creationism - when I was like in second grade and I thought it was a cool story. It doesn't mean you didn't become more religious - or go through a "reborn" experience or something that made you feel you HAD to believe in creaiontism in order to fully accept god.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I studied evolution for years in school, and thought it was true for years, even when I was a Christian. Will you change your statement now? ("I don't think you have seriouosly ever looked at evolution because it doesn't fit into your biblical beliefs.")

No I won't change my statement. You may not have been as religious as you are now - or you might now feel that in order to fully accept god - you must accept creationism. There are any number of explanations as to why you seem so bent on creationism - even though you still have not been able to give any evidence of it - other than by trying to put down evolution or by bringing god into it.

And finally - if you're interested, re-read my summary posts that are linked to on the first page. When discussing evidence for creationism, you will NOT find any belief-based statements. You will find scientific discussion of evidence. That's all.

So - there are many times when you have used your belief to try to defend creationism. You want to say it was all part of a phylosophical discussion - but as IR pointed out - you can't sperate the belief of god in creationism.

[Rían]

[Edited by azalea -- off-topic]

Your problem is that you HAVE to fit your belief in with your belief with god.

[edited by azalea for tone]NO I DON'T. I am fully willing to believe evolution is true if I see enough supporting evidence. [edited by azalea -- off topic]

You can not scientifically defend creationism.

Sure I can - [edited by azalea for personal comment] where I discuss data, I do NOT discuss God or beliefs. [edited by azalea for personal comment] I repeat - where I discuss data, I do NOT mention beliefs.

[Rían]

[edited by azalea -- off topic/ personal]

I'm just discussing the issue of creationism and how I don't see you bringing forth any scientific evidence to support it.

I think I'll take you at your word and grant that you think you don't see any scientific evidence to support creationism. [edited by a. -- personal]

So what does that have to do with anything? At one time I believed in creationism - when I was like in second grade and I thought it was a cool story. It doesn't mean you didn't become more religious - or go through a "reborn" experience or something that made you feel you HAD to believe in creaiontism in order to fully accept god.

For the gazillionth and third time, I do NOT believe that I HAVE to accept creationism in order to fully accept God. [edited by a. - personal]

I have such a high regard for truth. I don't care if I come across questions or ideas that might conflict with my faith. If they are valid questions, then I seriously and carefully think about them. I'm not in this thread, where I quite often get ridiculed and misrepresented, to win a debate. I'm in this thread because, as I said, it just galls my integrity and my regard for the truth to think that some people think that certain aspects of evolution are PROVEN, instead of merely EXTRAPOLATED. And any person with a fair amount of exposure to math can explain the dangers of extrapolation, let alone interpolation! And the degree of extrapolation is SO immense that it's even scarier to think about! I mean, we're talking - what? - several thousand years of data, and BILLIONS of years of extrapolation?!?!

Considering the lack of evidence and the degree of extrapolation, I just can't swallow evolution (the macroevolution part) with any degree of integrity, when IMO the ACTUAL data points the other way.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I believe in fairness. Why should YOU get to claim that I'm blinded, but object when I claim that YOU are blinded? As I said, I think it would be better if we both just took each other at our word. Shall we do that?

Sorry - see I don't go by word - I go by evidence laid out. The evidence you give is always based on evolution being incomplete and god entering the picture. If science comes up with somethign better - then fine. But right now - scientific evidence points to evolution - not creationism.
[quote]
[quote]Your problem is that you HAVE to fit your belief in with your belief with god.

For the gazillionth and second, time, NO I DON'T. I am fully willing to believe evolution is true if I see enough supporting evidence.

That's funny - since there is far more supporting evidence for evolution than for creationism - but you have NO problem accepting creationism.

Sure I can - you just ignore it As I said, you can re-read my posts and see that where I discuss data, I do NOT discuss God or beliefs. But I say this over and over and you refuse to see it. That's your option, I suppose. But I don't think it's fair. I repeat - where I discuss data, I do NOT mention beliefs.

I have not said you only discuss creationism in terms of belief - I said you support creationism by EITHER knocking at evolution or by bringing god into it. So as you always ask me - if you're going to say I say something - please give the WHOLE picture here.

Rian Rian Rian - we've gone over this for 2 years. I've seen your many posts. I see where you bring pieces of data and quote various "scientific" sites which end up actually being religious in origin and all while ignoring the evidence that contradicts it. Two years ago - I kept asking you to provide sites that weren't religious in nature to defend creationism - and your answer was basically that evolution is basically an atheist science and why shouldn't you be able to use religious scientists to back up your claims. And as I answered then - because a scientist should leave their religion at the door when they walk into a lab. You didn't like that answer then - adn I know you won't like it now. Evolution isn't about athiesm - it's about looking for the SCIENTIFIC proof of where we came from.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

No I won't change my statement. You may not have been as religious as you are now - or you might now feel that in order to fully accept god - you must accept creationism. There are any number of explanations as to why you seem so bent on creationism - even though you still have not been able to give any evidence of it - other than by trying to put down evolution or by bringing god into it.

So you continue to disregard my statement that I do NOT believe in creationism for any other reason than the data.

I'd just like to officially note that down here. You refuse to believe what I say, even tho I say it over and over. Why, then, should I believe what YOU say? I think that I must decline to believe what YOU say at this point, until you agree to believe what I say. That's really the only thing I can see to do at this point . Do you have any other suggestions (that are fair! )

You want to say it was all part of a phylosophical discussion - but as IR pointed out - you can't sperate the belief of god in creationism.

Again, look at the data part of the discussion. You completely and unfairly ignore this part.
And you can't separate out the non-directedness from evolutionISM.

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You want to say it was all part of a phylosophical discussion - but as IR pointed out - you can't sperate the belief of god in creationism.

Not correct. You can't separate the belief of God to the belief that He created World (I assume we all are speaking of the christian God), but the belief in the Creation is not the same as creationism, as you surely know.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Sorry - see I don't go by word - I go by evidence laid out. The evidence you give is always based on evolution being incomplete and god entering the picture.

Nope. See data sections.

... but you have NO problem accepting creationism.

[edited by azalea- personal comment] I've stated areas where I think the data supports EVOLUTION more than creationism. After all, I'm openminded, and truth is very important to me. [edited by azalea - persoanl comment]

I have not said you only discuss creationism in terms of belief - I said you support creationism by EITHER knocking at evolution or by bringing god into it.

Nope - see data sections.

So as you always ask me - if you're going to say I say something - please give the WHOLE picture here.

Yes! See data sections.

Rian Rian Rian - we've gone over this for 2 years. I've seen your many posts. I see where you bring pieces of data and quote various "scientific" sites which end up actually being religious in origin and all while ignoring the evidence that contradicts it. Two years ago - I kept asking you to provide sites that weren't religious in nature to defend creationism - and your answer was basically that evolution is basically an atheist science and why shouldn't you be able to use religious scientists to back up your claims. And as I answered then - because a scientist should leave their religion at the door when they walk into a lab. You didn't like that answer then - adn I know you won't like it now. Evolution isn't about athiesm - it's about looking for the SCIENTIFIC proof of where we came from.

Scientists should be impartial when they look at data.

Evolution involves an unproven and unproveable belief that macro-evolutionary changes happened. We don't KNOW this, yet evolutionists cling to this belief.