Texas Lawmaker wants to make Masters Degree of Science in creationism.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Fallen668**

Wow... just wow... Really... no... Im not even going to start with my editorializing... here are three seperate articles... just so it can sink in.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509719,00.html

Bill Would Allow Texas School to Grant Master's Degree in Science for Creationism
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
By Nora Zimmett

Print ShareThisA Texas legislator is waging a war of biblical proportions against the science and education communities in the Lone Star State as he fights for a bill that would allow a private school that teaches creationism to grant a Master of Science degree in the subject.

State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) proposed House Bill 2800 when he learned that The Institute for Creation Research (ICR), a private institution that specializes in the education and research of biblical creationism, was not able to receive a certificate of authority from Texas' Higher Education Coordinating Board to grant Master of Science degrees.

Berman's bill would allow private, non-profit educational institutions to be exempt from the board’s authority.

“If you don’t take any federal funds, if you don’t take any state funds, you can do a lot more than some business that does take state funding or federal funding,” Berman says. “Why should you be regulated if you don’t take any state or federal funding?”

HB 2800 does not specifically name ICR; it would allow any institution that meets its criteria to be exempt from the board's authority. But Berman says ICR was the inspiration for the bill because he feels creationism is as scientific as evolution and should be granted equal weight in the educational community.

“I don’t believe I came from a salamander that crawled out of a swamp millions of years ago,” Berman told FOXNews.com. "I do believe in creationism. I do believe there are gaps in evolution.

"But when you ask someone who believes in evolution, if you ask one of the elitists who believes in evolution about the gaps, they’ll tell you that the debate is over, that there is no debate, evolution is the thing, it’s the only way to go.”

But critics say that Berman’s bill will be disastrous if it passes.

“This would open the door to other fly-by-night organizations that come in and want to award degrees in our state, because the bill is highly generalized,” said Steven Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science.

“Right now, we don’t have this problem in Texas. Texas is not a center for degree mills, because our laws allow only the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to approve the granting of graduate degrees.”

“It would certainly open the door to all kinds of chicanery,” says Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. “I mean, all you have to do, it looks to me from the bill, is start a non-profit organization, don’t take any federal or state money, and then offer degrees in any fool subject you want.”

Schafersman fears that amending state law to accommodate institutions such as ICR would devalue Texas graduate degrees.

“The degrees would substandard, worthless, but they would be certified by Texas,” he said.

All colleges and universities granting degrees in Texas currently must be issued a certificate of authority by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB). The certificate allows that institution to grant a higher education degree that is recognized by the state – a degree a graduate would need to apply for a teaching position in a Texas public school.

ICR was denied a certificate of authority in 2007.

HB 2800 would pave the way for institutions like ICR to grant science degrees equal to those of other Texas universities. And that possibility has critics fuming.

“Their science education degrees are greatly inferior to those at, say, the University of Texas or Baylor University or even a good community college, frankly,” says Scott. “Teaching that the Earth is only 10,000 years old is a little irregular in modern science.”

The ICR issued a statement affirming that it is a legitimate educational institute that employs credentialed Ph.D. scientists from around the country. It insisted that the “THECB has acted discriminatorily against the ICR’s application both in process and in the substance of fact,” and it said “THECB allowed influence of evolution-biased lobbying efforts to influence process and outcome.”

The coordinating board denies any wrongdoing and says Berman’s bill is a slippery slope for higher education in Texas.

“HB 2800 appears to open the doors of Texas to predatory institutions,” says De Juana Lozada, assistant director of communications for THECB. “Were the bill to become law, it could have the effect of leaving students defenseless against exploitation by diploma mills and other substandard institutions.

"The Coordinating Board just last year eased restrictions on legitimate institutions of higher education desiring to operate in Texas. For legitimate institutions, the legislation is completely unnecessary.”

Berman sees the board's decision to deny ICR certification as a double standard.

“If a school’s teaching all evolution, would that be a balanced education?” he asked. “So it’s the same thing on both ends of the stick.”

But advocates of more conventional science education say the THECB was right to deny ICR certification and that Berman’s motives in introducing the bill were simply to reward an institution loyal to him.

“You just can’t play fast and loose with the rules that everyone has to follow just to favor a constituent,” says Scott. “I think the people of Texas should be very concerned about this issue.”

While HB 2800 makes its way through the legislature, ICR and the THECB will continue their mediation before a Texas state judge. Insiders say that if the mediation does not go their way, ICR will sue the board.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/20/creationist-heh-master-of-science-haha-degree-hahahahaha/

Creationist (heh) Master of Science (haha) degree (HAHAHAHAHA!)
Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist, just wrote about a Texas state Representative who — you might want to sit down, or maybe even lie on the floor as you read this — wants the Institute for Creation Research to be able to grant Master of Science degrees.

OK, I’ll let you comically rub your eyes with your fists for a second, then check that yes, you did indeed read that correctly. The ICR — a wretched hive of scum and villainy — thinks that it’s doing science research (and boy is it not), and it’s not fair that they can’t grant science degrees! Now, this is not really surprising, seeing that the ICR can’t grasp reality with both hands, a vice, and a lifetime supply of crazy glue, but still. It’s funny.

So this poor sap in the State legislature is trying to get a bill passed to exempt the ICR from the ruling that they can’t grant advanced degrees. I’ll add that the bill is more general than that; the original news item claims it’s driven by the ICR, but the bill itself would actually allow any private institution to grant advanced degrees in science, which would bring down even more chaos on the Lone Star State. Unless you think a Masters of Astrology or a PhD in Flat Earth Studies is a good idea.

Given the level of insanity infecting Texas politics right now, I have no idea if this bill will pass or not. The ICR tried to get permission to grant degrees in science in 2008, and was roundly thumped by the state commissioner who told them bluntly that religion isn’t science.

You should have little doubt — just look at their name, for Pete’s sake — that the ICR is not doing science. It’s doing dogma. Nothing will ever convince them the Earth isn’t 6000 years old, and that the Bible isn’t the literal truth. Go ahead and check for yourself by searching their site, if you don’t mind having your irony gland exploding into a thin oily vapor.

I suspect a bill like this doesn’t have much a chance, but then the guy running the State Board of Education is an avowed creationist and thinks abstinence-only education is a grand idea, so there is literally no way of knowing this bill’s fate. Let’s all cross our fingers, throw salt over our shoulders, and rub our lucky rabbit’s feet that it fails. And these methods should work — I have a PhD in Superstionism.

http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/03/19/getting-a-masters-of-science-degree-in-creationism/ " target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/03/19/getting-a-masters-of-science-degree-in-creationism/

Getting a Masters of Science Degree in Creationism
Posted by Hemant Mehta in General on March 19th, 2009 |

Texas has enough problems of its own when it comes to Science standards. This doesn’t make it any better:

A Texas legislator is waging a war of biblical proportions against the science and education communities in the Lone Star State as he fights for a bill that would allow a private school that teaches creationism to grant a Master of Science degree in the subject.

State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) proposed House Bill 2800 when he learned that The Institute for Creation Research (ICR), a private institution that specializes in the education and research of biblical creationism, was not able to receive a certificate of authority from Texas’ Higher Education Coordinating Board to grant Master of Science degrees.

Berman’s bill would allow private, non-profit educational institutions to be exempt from the board’s authority.

HB 2800 brings to mind a few thoughts:

There’s nothing Scientific or “Masterful” about Creationism.

Get ready for three word Masters Theses: “God did it.”

You thought your Bachelors degree in Communications was useless…?

At least the textbook cost would be low. You’d only need one book the whole time you’re working on your degree.
The bill is not likely to pass, so there’s that. But the fact that an elected official is trying to get this through in the first place says a lot about the people voting for him. What is wrong with you people…?

Oh Feth it.... IT IS A +/-2000 YEAR OLD STORYBOOK PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!

**LunaHound**

I think its great.

Atleast they are opened about the things they believe in even though others find it ridiculous.

**sexiest_hero**

I'd never bash one's beliefs, But there is already a a degree in biblical studies. A degree demands facts, creation demands faith. You can't pass out degress based on faith. Thats what a church is for. If one need a $50,000 to validate their beliefs then go for it. I belive the big guy got the evolution ball rolling, does that mean I auto-fail?

**LuciusAR**

If they really want to offer these and if students wish to study for them then I really don't see an issue.

I just hope they realise that if they intend to pursue a career based in science after graduation then they are going to face a very hard time doing so. I can't see any credible scientific institution giving a degree from this place much time.

**Kilkrazy**

You can certainly get degrees in Theology.

An MSc in Creationism would simply be laughed at by any reputable university or serious company, though.

The key point in this bill is the idea that an institution not taking federal funding should be free from federal oversight. That is an entirely false idea which completely denies the concept of basic national standards.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

So, essentially, they want a degree in Religious Indoctrination?

A Degree in Theology is less about a specific interpretation, and more about studying the differences etc in Religious practice.

But hey, if someone wants a worthless degree and it's not State Funded, then fair enough.

Reminds me of Tupenny Hapenny 'Doctor' Gillian McKeith. Well, I say 'Doctor' she's had to drop that bit as it turns out her Degree is just a load of quackery and nonsense. Not that most intelligent people hadn't worked that out. I mean, she studies peoples poo and judges their internal wellbeing through that. I ask you.

**Da Boss**

Don't care about degrees in Creationism one jot- more power to 'em!
But calling it a MSc is pretty misleading and incorrect. It's the false veneer of implied authority one gains from claiming to be a science that pisses me off, but it crops up in a lot of places, not just Creationism debates.

Do Creationists insist on being treated with the old drugs if they get MRSA though?

**Da Boss**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I mean, she studies peoples poo and judges their internal wellbeing through that. I ask you.

Whoops. missed this the first time. Yer one might be a quack, but not because she studies poo. Poo can be very informative, medically.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

But she just sort of prods and slices it, and then reckons some Mung Beans will cure your Cancer 100%.

The Woman is a menace! And frankly, if eating healthily means looking like that shrivelled old bint, you can find me in McDonalds!

**Lordhat**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

But hey, if someone wants a worthless degree and it's not State Funded, then fair enough.

And this is the core of the hangup..... if the bill passes, the degree will carry the same weight as a 'similar' science degree from another institution, say like Texas State University, and opens the door for ANY other nutjob degrees to be officially recognized as well. Not to mention that ICR, (who obviously have no concept of the definition of the word science), shouldn't be handing out science degrees....

**Greebynog**

Creationism is not science. That should be the end of it really.

And Lordhat, that lyric thing in your sig is broken, it's covering some of the links on the page and the button to PM you, so I thought I'd mention it here.

Edited because Lordaht's thingy was covering my post now...

**warpcrafter**

And I thought I'd seen enough of that crap up here in Kansas! Let e'm waste their time and money on a degree that does them no good.

**LuciusAR**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

The Woman is a menace! And frankly, if eating healthily means looking like that shrivelled old bint, you can find me in McDonalds!

Indeed, I remember Dara O'brien doing a routine on her and summed it up nicely:

"If you really are what you eat then this woman has eaten a shrew!"

**Kilkrazy**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:So, essentially, they want a degree in Religious Indoctrination?

A Degree in Theology is less about a specific interpretation, and more about studying the differences etc in Religious practice.

Yes exactly. It's a perfectly legitimate and valid degree though it is studying matters of belief rather than matters of bare fact.

**lambadomy**

To me, the worst part about this is this quote:

"“Why should you be regulated if you don’t take any state or federal funding?”"

Reasoning like that could be applied to almost any private business. How is it reasonable to expect the state to only be involved in regulating things it directly funds?

Second is the fact that this guy, a legislator, actually believes that creationism is "science". If you don't want to believe in science, that is fine. I personally don't believe in gravity, and it hasn't hurt me too badly. But don't pretend that you have a scientific reason for doing so when you don't.

**generalgrog**

To say that creationism is not based on science and is based on faith only, is making a presupositional statement. I personally believe that it takes just as much or more faith to believe in the psuedoscience called "macro" evolution. I.E. the part of evolutionistic theory that states that man evolved over millions and millions of years from species to species starting from some astronomically "lucky" event.

Fact is there is not one bit of evidence in the fossil record to substantiate "Macro" evolution. Not one transistional form. If evolution were true we would see billions of transitional forms in the fossil record.

The so called monkey men haven't been proven to be anything more than extinct apes, or diseased men (or fakes manufactured by overzealous archeologists). The closest thing to a transitional form they have found is the archeopterix, the supposed "bird lizard".

It takes faith to believe in evolution, period. Welcome to the modern replacement religion. This is not abnormal as the prevalent view for a long time wa that the world was flat and to suggest ortherwise was considered "rediculous"

An MS in creationism has as much merit as an MS in evolutionary biology. I do agree that it won't help someone advance in most current acedamia though, as the current prevalent view is so pro evolution that it would be hard or impossible for any one with this degree beyond teaching in a Religious school to make a career out of it.

GG

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

But would we see all that fossil evidence?

Fossils require specific conditions for that level of preservation. Plant and Meat all rots, bones crumble. Oil and Coal are the fate of most living things on this planet.

Plus, give Science a chance. It never claimed to have all the answer, just that it would endeavour to provide as many answers as possible. It all starts with a theory, which the scientist through various processes, will either prove or refute in so far as it's possible.

Evolution itself is still a theory, but one I find it easy to subscribe to as it makes a great deal of sense.

And this is the main difference between Religion and Science. Religion pretends to have answers, and tends to struggle to back up some of it, instead depending on Faith in the person as to whether it's believed or not. Though that is not to say Scientists don't go on faith for some of it. A theory tends to be an educated guess, and it's the scientists faith in said theory that eventually see's it proven right or wrong.

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

Science ceased to be what is was supposed to a while ago. Lead scientists contradict each other on a day to day basis and people pick whatever works for them the most at that moment (egg whites are bad for you, no egg whites are the best part, nuh-uh! they cause cancer or global warming, I mean global cooling, I mean climate change). At least everyone deserves a fair chance to push their agenda and claim that they're the authority.

**generalgrog**

Mad Dog,

I appreciate your point, but respectfully, from what I have seen from most people that suscribe to the "macro" evolutionary philosophy, are so offended by creationist ideas that they immediately throw the baby out with the bath water.

I mean all you have to do is look at some of the posts above, and some of the responses in those artticles to see the bias (faith) I am referring to.

I watch the science channel a lot, (I'm an engineer) and I find it very interesting to hear the commentators and scientists they interview, refer to the "Miracle" of evolution or the "amazing design" of mother nature. If you want to see examples of one faith system being replaced with another all you have to do is watch the science, history, or national geographic channels.

I watched a movie called "Expelled, no intelligence allowed" by Ben Stein. In that movie he interviewed Richard Dawkins, the world famous book writer and athiest, explain how easy it was for him to stop believing in God when he accepted evolution as gospel. (My words.. not dawkins) The point being that he replaced one faith system with another.

GG

**youbedead**

sexiest_hero wrote:I'd never bash one's beliefs, But there is already a a degree in biblical studies. A degree demands facts, creation demands faith. You can't pass out degress based on faith. Thats what a church is for. If one need a $50,000 to validate their beliefs then go for it. I belive the big guy got the evolution ball rolling, does that mean I auto-fail?

I think the same way. Imagine a slot machine with 1,055 wheels with 20 symbols on each. How many times would you Have to pull the lever for all of them to mach up. Well that's what happened with the protein collagen. Or imagine a slot machine with 200 wheels, a more typical number of amino acids found in proteins, that's still a chance of 1 in 1x10^260 (that's 1 with 260 zero's behind it) that in itself is a larger number then there atoms in the universe.

It's miraculous that amino acids could come together in exactly that order in order to form proteins to make life.

(It's fun to be smarter then your teacher.)

**lambadomy**

@generalgrog:

You don't know what you're talking about. There are piles of "transitional" forms.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

The main problem is every time a transitional form is found, creationists say "well, wait...where is the transition between THOSE?!". Which is a ridiculous position - just because the fossil record is incomplete doesn't mean there isn't enough information in it and new information being found as evidence for macroevolution.

As a science, creationism has ZERO merit.

Intelligent design - It is not testable, it is not falsifiable.

Young earth creationism - this is testable and falsifiable, unfortunately no one working in the field has any intellectual honesty, so any evidence they find against their belief is then folded into the theory. For example, when radiocarbon dating would provide evidence that things are more than 6,000 year old, the argument becomes the earth was created with "the appearance of age", which removes testability and falsifiability.

The fact of the matter is that Evolution is very, very sound science. Most scientists don't pay any attention to any "debate" between creationism and evolutionists because they're too busy doing actual productive science with their knowledge. There is no actual debate.

This attitude is taken as "elitism" or intellectual dishonesty, ohnoes the evolutionists won't listen to our arguments, because their belief is just faith as well and they have no evidence! This is patently false. Creationists need to do something like pull a monkey fossil out of the Precambrian, or come up with a reasonable alternative testable, falsifiable explanation of the piles of evidence for macroevolution, before they're going to be taken seriously as scientists or by scientists.

It is not that hard to educate yourself about evolution. And sure, feel free to not believe it after reading through the information or taking a few serious classes. But even if you don't buy any of the explanations for the information we have (evidence) such as the fossil record nested hierarchy of species, you have to come up with an alternative testable, falsifiable explanation, and creationism will never ever be that.

**Frazzled**

Thats nonsensicial. They already have theology degrees. Yes our politicians are just as stupid as politicians in every other region of the world. At least ours don't say border patrol agents are unAmerican (cough Pelosi cough).

Edit: Evolution and creationism can work just fine in tandem. You see the work of God in the miracles of evolution. "Nuff said.
Anyone who's see a platypus knows there's a god, and that he likes to make practical jokes. I guess the politician would be another example of that

**Bran Dawri**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But would we see all that fossil evidence?

No, we wouldn't. The fossil record is incomplete. Only a tiny, tiny, minority of once-living beings are turned into fossils. In any case, a bunch of transitionary species (though evolved) survive to even this day. The Coelacanth. Amphibians. That reptile that's almost a snake except that it has tiny, useless, legs. Seals.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Plus, give Science a chance. It never claimed to have all the answer, just that it would endeavour to provide as many answers as possible. It all starts with a theory, which the scientist through various processes, will either prove or refute in so far as it's possible.

Close. It starts with a hypothesis about why an observed event occurred. Then it performs tests to see of the hypothesis holds up. If it does, you now have a theory. Until new evidence (and tests) disproves your theory. Then you're back to square one.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Evolution itself is still a theory, but one I find it easy to subscribe to as it makes a great deal of sense.

This. Though I remain weary of accepting things because they appear to make sense on face value.

@ generalgrog: Those documentaries (and to some extent, the people interviewed in it) are much given to rather flowery speech to impress the viewers. Said flowery speech is not scientific, even though it deals with scientific topics. The best ones try to use this mode of speech to convey a point, an essence of meaning. They are rarely anywhere near how the process in question actually occurs, or how (good) scientists think things happen.
If you want to get a good idea of what science isn't, watch the science, history, or NG channels. I recommend reading (and trying to understand - and that's not meant to be condescending) the Science of Discworld books. They, in many respects, are fictionary tales about science/history as much as those channels. But they're much cleverer in that they're aware of this, and give a much clearer image of what science (and the theory of evolution) are about.

**lambadomy**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:A theory tends to be an educated guess, and it's the scientists faith in said theory that eventually see's it proven right or wrong.

This is a huge misconception and to me causes a lot of problems when it comes to people understanding just how much evidence there is for evolution.

A theory is in not just an educated guess. That is a lot closer to a hypothesis. As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

It is something that is predictive. It is something that helps explain our observations. It's not just some guess that may or may not be true and kinda fits with a few observations.

Gravity is a Scientific Theory

Special Relativity is a Scientific Theory

Evolution is a Scientific Theory

Scientists right now are actually using the predictions of these theories to invent new things, solve problems, and check the time on their LED watch. No one is using the predictions of creation theory to do anything except rant on message boards and blogs.

Evolution is also a fact. Most of the Theory of evolution is trying to sort out the mechanisms of evolution - how exactly does natural selection work, do species descend in a tree/branch structure or is there hybridization, what other mechanisms are involved in evolution, how important is each, etc. One big fact of evolution is we have a big, accurately dated fossil record with tons of transitional species. We can either explain this with an unfalsifiable "god (aliens) put them there to trick us" or we can come up with a theory. So far, evolution is the best one.

To quote R.C Lewontin:

:It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit."

One big part of Expelled was a section where Ben Stein asks Richard Dawkins to say how he thought intelligent design might have happened if it were true. Dawkins, not knowing what the movie was to be at this point (it was originally titled crossroads and the producers mislead Dawkins and PZ Meyers to get them into the movie) gives a long fantasy scenario about aliens seeding the oceans to start unicellular life here, blah blah. Of course, the response is "Dawkins believes in aliens!" or some other nonsense, when really he's just going along with what he thinks is an earnest question from a somewhat dumb person. In the end, he wants to make it clear that even if the aliens seeded that life...the aliens, or whoever created the aliens, evolved. There is no reason to believe in some big bugaboo in the sky that started it all. But even if you want to believe in said bugaboo...that doesn't make it science, and you shouldn't be getting a scientific degree in it.

**OverbossGhurzubMoga**

If this is allowed, then I want a Masters of Science in Painting and Modeling Overpriced Plastic/Pewter Models.

**generalgrog**

Lambadamy.

No Transitional forms = I have faith in "macro" evolution.

You say there are lots of transitional forms, but where is your proof of socalled transitional forms?

You mentioned the celocanth(spelling?). That fish was thought to be extint, and used by pro "Macro evolutionists" to "prove" macro evolution exists. They said "See here is a transitional form yee haww!!"Then it was very inconveniant for them, because celocanths were found alive and thriving off of madagascar. These were supposed to be extinct, yet they survived?

You have more faith in your Scientific religion than you know.

GG

**Kilkrazy**

generalgrog wrote:To say that creationism is not based on science and is based on faith only, is making a presupositional statement. I personally believe that it takes just as much or more faith to believe in the psuedoscience called "macro" evolution. I.E. the part of evolutionistic theory that states that man evolved over millions and millions of years from species to species starting from some astronomically "lucky" event.

Fact is there is not one bit of evidence in the fossil record to substantiate "Macro" evolution. Not one transistional form. If evolution were true we would see billions of transitional forms in the fossil record.

What about the transitional whale-like fossils discovered in Pakistan?

You don't have to believe in evolution through faith, because we have recent experimental evidence that shows it happening as predicted by theory.

**ungulateman**

Scientists know but aren't sure.

Creationists are sure but don't know

ungulateman

**lambadomy**

@generalgrog

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I had posted a link describing piles of transitional forms...

oh wait I DID do that. And you obviously didn't click the link or read a word of it. It shouldn't be my job to write it all out here. If you can't be bothered to follow a link then what is the point here?

Transitional forms are a non-issue for real scientists. There are piles of them. Next you'll be babbling about the evolution of the eye or flagella, because you don't care about the actual science, since you already KNOW the answer. If you did the research you'd understand you don't have a leg to stand on. The main issue is this: There is evidence in the form of fossils, existing species, the way DNA works, observations of change over time in species, observations of differences between geographically separated groups, etc, etc. This evidence needs an explanation. Macro Evolution is a pretty good explanation, and is falsifiable - just find some fossils that are obviously modern in the Precambrian or something. Or come up with an actual testable theory of your own. Scientists would LOVE IT if someone came up with new evidence that invalidated something - they'd get to come up with a new theory, or figure out how their old theory was broken and adjust it.

Right now, that new evidence is exceedingly unlikely to be found, but it could happen. On the other hand, new things are found all the time that reinforce macro evolution as a theory and as a fact. Occasionally they put a new faked human footprint in the creation museum, but strangely that doesn't change anything.

Just calling someone else's repeatedly tested, falsifiable belief "Faith" doesn't make it so. it just makes you ignorant.

**generalgrog**

Kilkrazy wrote:
generalgrog wrote:To say that creationism is not based on science and is based on faith only, is making a presupositional statement. I personally believe that it takes just as much or more faith to believe in the psuedoscience called "macro" evolution. I.E. the part of evolutionistic theory that states that man evolved over millions and millions of years from species to species starting from some astronomically "lucky" event.

Fact is there is not one bit of evidence in the fossil record to substantiate "Macro" evolution. Not one transistional form. If evolution were true we would see billions of transitional forms in the fossil record.

What about the transitional whale-like fossils discovered in Pakistan?

You don't have to believe in evolution through faith, because we have recent experimental evidence that shows it happening as predicted by theory.

Prove to me that those "whale like" fossils in Pakistan are true transitional forms and not an extint unique species. You can't.

If you can't do that then you would be acting off of faith that it is, in fact, a true transitional form. I.E. try not to follow this line of reasoning.. "Look I found a transitonal form because it looks like a transitional form, therefore just because it looks like a transitional form, it must be a transitional form. Now I have proven evolution"

You have to presuppose that that fossil is a transitional form, and therefore you are using faith.

GG