So after the Derevi and Oloro spoils are you sure you don’t want to reconsider bans?

hey, I believe in evuootiln, but people like Dawkins and [some other guy] are hurting the science because they’re turning it into a religion. Their wrong to do so, and it has no place in science. I agree that there are people who try to pervert evuootiln for their own ideals- be it atheism or whatever, but that doesn’t change the facts. You could start a cult that thinks Rainbows are the coolest thing ever, that doesn’t mean light refraction is bunk. IDist, some of the ones I have read/heard, state they arene2€™t disputing the science behind evuootiln (at least the science that is correct), but the underlying philosophy and belief that has become so apparent as a result of Darwinism. See, that’s funny because the impression they like to give off is we didn’t come from any damn dirty monkeys (as my 6th grade science teacher put it). Pretty much saying God made everything exactly like it is- from saying the to to saying it just I don’t even know how to end this sentence. According to creationists, we can throw out the following sciences because they’re obviously wrong: Evolutionary biology (obvious in this context), genetics (common genes between like species mean nothing), radiocarbon dating ( car odometer sucks at measuring inches logic), geochronology (earth layers don’t really represent timeline), plate tectonics (), study of glaciers (only one ice age so all evidence of multiple ice ages must be wrong), erosion (mountains would erode too fast, see theory about grand canyon), astronomy (supernova remnants couldn’t be millions of years old- note, this is why Jon gets so pissed off), Lunar Science (dust on the moon is too fine), stellar formation (no one has directly witnessed a million year process hence it doesn’t happen), Anatomy (eyeballs are irreducibly complex so god made them), study of the coral reefs (they can’t be that old!) and anthropology (Neolithic age couldn’t have happened 7000 years ago because the earth is only 6000 years old). Note that I did not make any of this up- these are all arguments that creationists have made. They say that creationism isn’t about damaging science, but it is- it really is. There’s a common phrase called the God of the Gaps- the idea that God exists between the gaps in our knowledge. I think that’s the fear of leading creationists- the more we explain, the more science diminishes their God. That’s what Darwin meant when he said he killed God – he simply filled in a large gap. There will always be gaps, and there will always be a need for a God (for some people). I have no problem with that. (I find it somewhat ironic that God gave us freewill to blindly follow the bible seems almost subverted. But that’s another discusssion entirely). I have a problem with people trying to destroy science to open those gaps back up. And that is exactly what we see happening on so many of the bullet points above. At the point of their hypothesis are they crazy? It got crazy when the church deemed heliocentrism heresy, leading Coppernicus not to publish until the year he died, or the grief Galileo had to deal with- but that’s neither here nor there. My point was we’ve since learned that these ideas were wrong and fixed them, and now it’s almost as if we’re going backwards. We’ve successfully used the theory of evuootiln for decades to fight evolving viruses and diseases, as well as learn more about genetic sicknesses and genetic engineering. Saying evuootiln is bunk is ignoring the many advances across the board that we’ve made in the last 40 years.As for hope Hope has no place in science. Hypothesis does, but hope does not. Yes, I do hope I can feed my family tomorrow, but that doesn’t mean that I WILL be able to. It just means I hope I can. You have to follow the data, despite what your emotions may want you to believe. The data says I have a fairly steady job, am able to pay my bills mostly on time, and have multiple options of something horrible was to happen (family, foodstamps, soupkitchens, etc).The real thing- the REAL thing that bothers me is that the line has become so blurred on A) what a scientific hypothesis is, something we all learned in junior high/middle school and B) that people are so quick to throw out both a true scientific theory and an idea’ because they aren’t able to recognize the difference.When you throw out both, you lose something much more important. You lose the foundation of science.It’s important to be able to recognize WHY evuootiln is an actual scientific theory. I’m not talking about Dawkin’s bullshit psuedo-religious christian bashing. I’m not talking about life being created from nothing, or where the universe came from- hell, I’m not even going to argue that plants and animals evolved from the same single cell critters (if it were autobiogenesis that kicked things off, it’d be silly to presume that it only happened in one instance, unless there’s some strong genetic evidence stating otherwise).I care what’s taught in our schools because it’s important that in a science class, the people teaching and the people being taught can differentiate between a scientific theory and a philosophical idea. If they can’t differentiate, those gaps are gonna grow.