David Paszkiewicz Letter to Editor

[Guest Guest]

OY!  Are you really that dense?  The issue it not to remove all religion from government.  The issue is government shall not endorse any religion.

When a jerk like Paskeweicz preaches Christianity in the classroom, that's an endorsement.

Are Christians really that stupid that they don't understand this?

And as to why things aren't totally clear in the Constitution - we have a Supreme Court of the United States whose job it is to draw the fine lines that weren't explicitly written in the constitution.

And these fine lines take arguments from both sides.

You think that's a problem?  Why do you have so many Christian denominations?  It's all the same Bible, right?  Show me where it says that eating a wafer and drinking wine at communion will actually turn into the Body and Blood of Christ.  That isn't in your precious Bible either is it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If Paskeweicz was preaching or not is open to interpretation. It sounds like more of a back and forth discussion to me. Maybe your pee brain can't comprehend this. In this case it's a technique often employed by students to keep their teachers from teaching them by getting them off topic.

It is not the job of the Supreme Court to re-write The Constitution. In the case that is often cited in these threads, the school was forcing the students to pray. Even though the prayer was non-denominational the court found it in violation of the religion clause.

You can believe what you want but I think in the Bible Jesus says This "is" my body...This "is" my blood...giving rise to the transformation that Christians believe

occurs at communion.

How many times do you think General Washington called on "Divine Intervention" to help him keep his army from being destroyed by the British?

[God Save Us From Christians]

Baptists do not dictate orthodoxy.  The Southern Baptists (the largest Baptist denomination in the U.S. and the world), in particular, historically do not even have an explicit doctrinal statement to which member churches are bound.

"Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches."

http://www.sbc.net/bfm/default.asp

That means, in essence, that they are reluctant as a denomination to try to pin down orthodoxy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that actually means that Baptists like to make it up as they go along. they have no guiding authority to keep them sane.

they can pick and choose any part of the Bible they like and ignore the rest.

Baptists are the worst group of Christians, and generally when I refer to "save us from Christians" I'm referring to Baptists and Pentacostals.

You know, good, honest people like Ted Haggard and Pat Robertson and Tom DeLay and Mark Foley.

[Strife767]

Once again you can't point to any "explicit" reference "in The Constitution".

Yeah, yeah...nothing short of "Thou shalt not preach thine religion in public schools" appearing in the Constitution would satisfy you, I'm sure. But the rest of us can see pretty clearly what the founders intended.

And there are just as many instances of Jefferson and the other founders looking for "Divine Guidance" to inspire them,

The founders' personal beliefs are wholly irrelevant.

as there are concerns over religion in government.  To only put a one line clause in The Constitution tells me they weren't as concerned with it as you want us to beleive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Once is all you need--what difference would it make if it was repeated randomly all over the Constitution? That may be how things are structured in the Bible, but that doesn't mean much of anything.

You know...freedom of speech is only mentioned once too. So I'd like to see you explain how Mr. P.'s yammering about how his freedom of speech was violated makes any sense, by your logic. I mean, to only put a one line clause in the Constitution tells me they weren't as concerned with freedom of speech as you want us to believe.

See how stupid this argument is yet?

[Strife767]

If Paskeweicz was preaching or not is open to interpretation.

Only if you have a big problem with seeing the obvious.

It sounds like more of a back and forth discussion to me.

Talking about who does and doesn't belong in hell is preaching. Declaring that the Bible has made prophecies that came true is preaching. You can pretend it isn't all day, but it is. These are statements of conviction about religious dogma--pretty much religious preaching defined.

Maybe your pee brain can't comprehend this.  In this case it's a technique often employed by students to keep their teachers from teaching them by getting them off topic.

Actually listen to the recordings. Mr. P. mentions religion first, before any student does.

It is not the job of the Supreme Court to re-write The Constitution.

But it is their job to uphold it.

In the case that is often cited in these threads, the school was forcing the students to pray.  Even though the prayer was non-denominational the court found it in violation of the religion clause.

The Supreme Court has ruled that state insitutions are to be religiously neutral. Mr. P. violated that--end of story.

You can believe what you want but I think in the Bible Jesus says This "is" my body...This "is" my blood...giving rise to the transformation that Christians believe

occurs at communion.

Point being?

How many times do you think General Washington called on "Divine Intervention" to help him keep his army from being destroyed by the British?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh, I'm guessing not many, since Washington was a deist and deists don't believe in miracles.

[Guest DingoDave]

Dear Bryan,

You wrote:

"Baptists do not dictate orthodoxy. The Southern Baptists (the largest Baptist denomination in the U.S. and the world), in particular, historically do not even have an explicit doctrinal statement to which member churches are bound."Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches.

"http://www.sbc.net/bfm/default.asp

That means, in essence, that they are reluctant as a denomination to try to pin down orthodoxy."

Sorry to burst your bubble Bryan, but the Baptist website you referred me to does indeed include an outline of their beliefs under the ‘faith and facts’ heading. In fact they have an incredibly detailed list of their beliefs and doctrines. Here is the page. From this page you can access other pages that outline their doctrines in even greater detail.

http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/basicbeliefs.asp

Here is an excerpt from that page.

Basic Beliefs

Southern Baptists have prepared a statement of generally held convictions called The Baptist Faith and Message. It serves as a guide to understanding who they are. Copies are available at Southern Baptist churches. The topics here provide only a brief, partial summary. The full text on the issue discussed is also available on this website.

The Scriptures

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.

God

There is one and only one living and true God. …The eternal God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being.

God the Father

God as Father reigns with providential care over His universe, His creatures, and the flow of the stream of human history according to the purposes of His grace. …God is Father in truth to those who become children of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

God the Son

Christ is the eternal Son of God. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ, He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. …He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His death on the cross, He made provision for the redemption of men from sin.

God the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. …He exalts Christ. He convicts of sin, of righteousness and of judgment. …He enlightens and empowers the believer and the church in worship, evangelism, and service.

Man

Man was created by the special act of God, in His own image, and is the crowning work of His creation. …By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. … The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore every man possesses dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.

Salvation

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, sanctification, and glorification."

Well how about that? It seems that they do in fact believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, and the divinity of the Biblical Jesus just the same as ALL other mainstream Christian denominations do.

[Guest Guest]

Dear Bryan,

You wrote:

"Can you specify how the theory of evolution was dismissed (your term rather than Paszkiewicz's, I'm sure) by Paszkiewicz?

If you were to do that, it would solve your problem of arguing minus evidence."

HOW ABOUT THIS?

"Now, I would also say that evolutionis based on faith, too. Because - what's the hypothesis, what's the assumption of evolution? You look at the world - or let's take biological life - you look at biological life. There's small life, and there's big life. Or there's simple life, and intelligent life and somehow we all evolved from simple life forms into complex life forms, ok, that's the assumption, that may be your hypothesis. Uh, anyone ever observe it? No? You can collect some data, right, like a fossil record? Anybody ever produce it? No? They say that life can

spontaneously generate, but as often as scientists have tried, they've never done it. Ok, so can the experiment be reported or repeated? So can it be a scientific fact? No....How can you say that evolution is a scientific fact, you just can't; it's a theory...."

There is more along the same lines, but I think that this is enough, don't you?

These are the incoherant ramblings of a full blown creationist nutjob who clearly doesn't understand how science works or even what the term 'scientific theory' means.

With these words he has just casually dismissed the findings of legions of scientists from all over the world whose work solidly confirms evolutionary theory as one of the best established concepts in modern science.

A famous biologist once said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".

Obviously Mr. P disagrees.

Bryan, if you don't agree that this sort of rhetoric clearly undermines the School's science curriculum then I don't think that you are looking at the situation very objectively.

[Guest DingoDave]

Sorry guys, I've done it again.

That last post to Bryan about evolution was mine.

[Bryan]

Dear Bryan,

David Paszkiewicz is a Baptist minister, therefore it would seem reasonable for me to conclude that he agrees with Baptist theological doctrines.

Sure, but you were talking about orthodoxy, not Baptist doctrine.

You can always change what you want to talk about, but I would advise any pretense that you're not changing your argument.

The last time I looked, Baptists considered themselves to be mainstream Christians. Are you trying to suggest that Baptists do not fairly represent the general Christian community or that Mr. P. is unfairly representing Baptist Christianity?

lol

Nice red herring question. Baptists (save for some splinter groups who use the name) do regard themselves as orthodox, but not because their denomination defines orthodoxy.

Here is a summary of what the ‘Baptist Union of Australia’ emphasises as part of their core beliefs. Considering that the Australian Baptists inherited all of their core beliefs and doctrines from the American Baptists, I think that I have a pretty fair idea about what David Paszkiewicz claims to believe in.

These are the official doctrines of the 'Australian Baptist' churches.

Read and weep.

<sniffle>

It is somewhat upsetting that you posted so much so far off topic.

Take some time out and think over whether you can stay on the topic of what Paszkiewicz said and whether or not you can justify your statements such as the one intimating that Paszkiewicz communicated to his students that they would go to hell if they did not accept the inspiration of the Bible.

Once you are able to regain your focus we can have a conversation.

[Bryan]

So I'd like to see you explain how Mr. P.'s yammering about how his freedom of speech was violated makes any sense, by your logic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paszkiewicz made a statement where he claimed his freedom of speech was violated?

Citation?

[Bryan]

Dear Bryan,

You wrote:

"Baptists do not dictate orthodoxy.  The Southern Baptists (the largest Baptist denomination in the U.S. and the world), in particular, historically do not even have an explicit doctrinal statement to which member churches are bound."Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches.

"http://www.sbc.net/bfm/default.asp

That means, in essence, that they are reluctant as a denomination to try to pin down orthodoxy."

Sorry to burst your bubble Bryan, but the Baptist website you referred me to does indeed include an outline of their beliefs under the ‘faith and facts’ heading.

lol

How is that supposed to burst my bubble?

Do you think that they contradicted themselves or something?

Tip: A statement of basic Baptist beliefs is not a statement of Christian orthodoxy as such. Moreover, individual SBC churches are not bound to accept the list of doctrines at the site.

"The general theological perspective of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention is represented in the Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M). The BF&M was first drafted in 1925, then revised significantly in 1963 and again in 2000, with the latter revision being the subject of much controversy.

The BF&M is not considered to be a creed along the lines of historic Christian creeds such as the Nicene Creed; members are not required to adhere to it nor are churches required to use it as their "Statement of Faith" or "Statement of Doctrine" (though many do in lieu of creating their own Statement). Despite the fact that the BF&M is not a "creed," missionaries who apply to serve through the various SBC missionary agencies must "affirm" that their practices, doctrine, and preaching are consistent with the BF&M; this affirmation has also been the subject of controversy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Bapt...fs_and_practice

Well how about that?

It's not like I didn't see it when I visited the site the first time, DD. I just happen to know enough about the denomination to be able to make proper sense out of it.

You've still got a ways to go as to that.

It seems that they do in fact believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, and the divinity of the Biblical Jesus just the same as ALL other mainstream Christian denominations do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apparently your Baptist upbringing never confronted you with a proper understanding of Christian "orthodoxy."

[Bryan]

Dear Bryan,

You wrote:

"Can you specify how the theory of evolution was dismissed (your term rather than Paszkiewicz's, I'm sure) by Paszkiewicz?

If you were to do that, it would solve your problem of arguing minus evidence."

HOW ABOUT THIS?

"Now, I would also say that evolutionis based on faith, too. Because - what's the hypothesis, what's the assumption of evolution? You look at the world - or let's take biological life - you look at biological life. There's small life, and there's big life. Or there's simple life, and intelligent life and somehow we all evolved from simple life forms into complex life forms, ok, that's the assumption, that may be your hypothesis. Uh, anyone ever observe it? No? You can collect some data, right, like a fossil record? Anybody ever produce it? No? They say that life can

spontaneously generate, but as often as scientists have tried, they've never done it. Ok, so can the experiment be reported or repeated? So can it be a scientific fact? No....How can you say that evolution is a scientific fact, you just can't; it's a theory...."

By the same logic, he dismissed Christianity since he admitted that it had a basis in faith.

It is too vigorous a massage to the truth to claim that identifying the faith basis of scientific claims is tantamount to dismissing scientific claims.

There is more along the same lines, but I think that this is enough, don't you?

No, not remotely.

Your position on this is easily reduced to absurdity by pointing out that it would cause Paszkiewicz to dismiss his own faith.

These are the incoherant ramblings of a full blown creationist nutjob who clearly doesn't understand how science works or even what the term 'scientific theory' means.

Can you identify Paszkiewicz's alleged misunderstanding of science?

[Guest DingoDave]

Dear Bryan,

It would be interesting to do a little experiment.

How about you speak to one of the Baptist ministers you know, and suggest to him that he tries preaching that the Bible is a purely manmade document, and that it contains errores of fact and doctrine. Also suggest that he try preaching that Jesus was just an ordinary man, who was mistaken about certain things just like any other ordinary person is likely to be, or that he didn't really rise from the dead.

Just see how long it takes before this minister gets hauled onto the carpet before his religious overlords, and is driven from the ministry.

I guarantee that it wouldn't take long for this to happen.

I have a close family friend who was driven from the ministry because the Baptist church leaders here in Australia thought that he was too Calvinist in his outlook. It broke his heart, but did that affect the Baptist union's decision concerning his fate? Not at all.

If you believe for one moment that the Baptist church authorities would put up with a maverick preacher (such as you have intimated) you are sorely mistaken.

[Guest Guest]

Paszkiewicz made a statement where he claimed his freedom of speech was violated?

Citation?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And when you find this citation please let us all know about it. (A hint: he never did)

[Guest DingoDave]

Dear Bryan,

you wrote:

'By the same logic, he dismissed Christianity since he admitted that it had a basis in faith.

It is too vigorous a massage to the truth to claim that identifying the faith basis of scientific claims is tantamount to dismissing scientific claims.'

Yes! Scientific theories aren't based of faith, they are based on testable, verifiable evidence. There is a world of difference between a well established scientific theory and religious 'faith'.

You wrote:

'Can you identify Paszkiewicz's alleged misunderstanding of science?'

He doesn't even understand the meaning of the term 'scientific theory' for goodness sake.

He referred to the word 'theory' as if it was some sort of halfassed guess, when in reality, a scientific theory is nothing like the caracature that David implied in his classroom speech.

Here is a useful and concise definition of the term 'scientific theory'.

"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. "

In scientific terms the 'theory of evolution by natural selection' is both a fact and a theory.

Your arguments really have started to go from the sublime to the ridiculous.

[Strife767]

Paszkiewicz made a statement where he claimed his freedom of speech was violated?

Citation?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The first post in this thread. I'm actually giving him the benefit of the doubt--if he DOESN'T think his freedom of speech was violated, he'd have no reason to complain at all. He would just accept that he crossed the 'wall of separation' and then proceed to sit down and shut up, as the saying goes.

I mean, it's pretty obvious--talk about freedom of speech always accompanies the 'argument' of those who like to pretend that they have the right to breach the Establishment Clause (it's often cited as the reason they feel they can do that). If freedom of speech didn't exist in this country, Paszkiewicz would not have the luxury of whining about getting caught preaching to his students.

[Strife767]

By the same logic, he dismissed Christianity since he admitted that it had a basis in faith.

Except Christianity _is_ a faith--science isn't.

Your position on this is easily reduced to absurdity by pointing out that it would cause Paszkiewicz to dismiss his own faith.

Yeah, when you use a straw man, it is. Saying that evolution is based on faith is not only an L-I-E lie, but it is an insult to all of the research and evidence that confirms it--saying that Christianity is based on faith is a true statement.

Creationists like to pretend that evolution is nothing more than a competing religion in order to make it seem like creationism can really oppose it in any way. Most of us know better, though.

Can you identify Paszkiewicz's alleged misunderstanding of science?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh, how about believing that a global flood occurred? To believe that an impossible event like that actually happened is a damned good exmple of a "misunderstanding of science." And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[Guest A Christian]

Except Christianity _is_ a faith--science isn't.

Yeah, when you use a straw man, it is. Saying that evolution is based on faith is not only an L-I-E lie, but it is an insult to all of the research and evidence that confirms it--saying that Christianity is based on faith is a true statement.

Creationists like to pretend that evolution is nothing more than a competing religion in order to make it seem like creationism can really oppose it in any way. Most of us know better, though.

Uh, how about believing that a global flood occurred? To believe that an impossible event like that actually happened is a damned good exmple of a "misunderstanding of science." And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you PROVE a global flood didn't occur ? Of course you can't, that's just an atheistic claim just like we all evolved from soup.

[Strife767]

Can you PROVE a global flood didn't occur ?

1. Proving negatives is not how science works--you know, since you can't PROVE you don't molest children every day, I guess that means you do, by your logic...

2. Actually, yes, by virtue of the fact that a global flood is a scientific impossibility and that all of the evidence backs that up.

Of course you can't, that's just an atheistic claim just like we all evolved from soup.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Quote right out of Hovind's idiotic mouth (for an idea of how honest he is, just look up why he's currently headed to jail, likely for the rest of his life (max sentence is 280+ years): because he doesn't pay taxes, claiming he doesn't have to pay taxes since all his assets belong to God and he's bankrupt--LOL).

An exposition of just some of the most obvious of Hovind's misinformation

[Strife767]

Can you PROVE a global flood didn't occur ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I forgot to add this:

http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

In which I especially like:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html

[Guest bewildered]

Can you PROVE a global flood didn't occur ?  Of course you can't, that's just an atheistic claim just like we all evolved from soup.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Come on! Do a search for scientific proof there was no flood. There is a huge amount of information supporting that. How much scientific evidence is there for a world-wide flood? Nothing. This is another attempt of the Religious Right to inflict their anti-science position on all of us.

[Guest Guest]

I forgot to add this:

http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

In which I especially like:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

let me see, you give us the website becasue you don't understand well enough to explain? That makes sense, it is quite impossible to understand what you guys believe in!

[Bryan]

Dear Bryan,

It would be interesting to do a little experiment.

How about you speak to one of the Baptist ministers you know, and suggest to him that he tries preaching that the Bible is a purely manmade document, and that it contains errores of fact and doctrine. Also suggest that he try preaching that Jesus was just an ordinary man, who was mistaken about certain things just like any other ordinary person is likely to be, or that he didn't really rise from the dead.

Just see how long it takes before this minister gets hauled onto the carpet before his religious overlords, and is driven from the ministry.

I guarantee that it wouldn't take long for this to happen.

I have a close family friend who was driven from the ministry because the Baptist church leaders here in Australia thought that he was too Calvinist in his outlook. It broke his heart, but did that affect the Baptist union's decision concerning his fate? Not at all.

Tell him to cheer up. The Reformed Baptists will take him in.

http://65.71.233.194/arbca/

If you believe for one moment that the Baptist church authorities would put up with a maverick preacher (such as you have intimated) you are sorely mistaken.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, now back to the topic.

You had claimed that it was point of orthodoxy that belief in the inspiration of the Bible was required for salvation.

When are you going to deal with your claim instead of trying to change the subject?

Guess what's missing here:

http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/g...things-save.php

and here:

http://www.equip.org/free/JAE100-2.pdf

or any one of literally dozens of sites about salvation?

[Bryan]

Last reply to DingoDave until he figures out how to address the issue ...

Dear Bryan,

you wrote:

'By the same logic, he dismissed Christianity since he admitted that it had a basis in faith.

It is too vigorous a massage to the truth to claim that identifying the faith basis of scientific claims is tantamount to dismissing scientific claims.'

Yes! Scientific theories aren't based of faith, they are based on testable, verifiable evidence. There is a world of difference between a well established scientific theory and religious 'faith'.

You should have paid closer attention to Paszkiewicz's lecture.

Scientific evidence never deductively confirms a scientific claim. All scientific claims are probabilistic. What's more, the "laws" of nature are descriptive rather than prescriptive.

I'll let you ponder the ramifications.

You wrote:

'Can you identify Paszkiewicz's alleged misunderstanding of science?'

He doesn't even understand the meaning of the term 'scientific theory' for goodness sake.

He referred to the word 'theory' as if it was some sort of halfassed guess, when in reality, a scientific theory is nothing like the caracature that David implied in his classroom speech.

I think in the context of his illustration, where he compared direct observation of water boiling to (what seems to have been) the idea of common descent (which is a theory that is being challenged, BTW), his statement appears quite reasonable. There is certainly a stronger epistemological justification for the boiling point of water than for common descent. Do you disagree?

It's hard to see how you missed the point of what he was saying, IMO.

Here is a useful and concise definition of the term 'scientific theory'.

"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. "

In scientific terms the 'theory of evolution by natural selection' is both a fact and a theory.

In epistemic terms, it isn't a fact--and that's Paszkiewicz's point (and it's a good one).

It may be suggested that teaching science as if it somehow bypasses its epistemic limitations constitutes an establishment of religion, BTW.

Your arguments really have started to go from the sublime to the ridiculous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, at least I don't need much to refute your pathetic arguments.

[Guest 2smart4u]

1. Proving negatives is not how science works--you know, since you can't PROVE you don't molest children every day, I guess that means you do, by your logic...

2. Actually, yes, by virtue of the fact that a global flood is a scientific impossibility and that all of the evidence backs that up.

Quote right out of Hovind's idiotic mouth (for an idea of how honest he is, just look up why he's currently headed to jail, likely for the rest of his life (max sentence is 280+ years): because he doesn't pay taxes, claiming he doesn't have to pay taxes since all his assets belong to God and he's bankrupt--LOL).

An exposition of just some of the most obvious of Hovind's misinformation

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can see you no longer get your news from Comedy Central now that there's youtube .

[Bryan]

Except Christianity _is_ a faith--science isn't.

How is that supposed to address my argument, please? An explanation is due from you.

The claim was that science was dismissed, not that science was made into a "faith" in the sense you're using the term.

You're not allergic to staying on topic, are you?

Yeah, when you use a straw man, it is. Saying that evolution is based on faith is not only an L-I-E lie, but it is an insult to all of the research and evidence that confirms it--saying that Christianity is based on faith is a true statement.

Hmmm.

Strife is showing the symptoms of the ideological indoctrination he received in school, it seems.

http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node8.html

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biolo..._Meth&Philo.pdf

http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nat-epis.htm#H4

http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/p...ideology_of.htm

(see VIII near the bottom for the last one ... full disclosure: I did find one wacko scientist who thinks that there is no faith at all behind his scientific beliefs. The man has deluded himself)

Creationists like to pretend that evolution is nothing more than a competing religion in order to make it seem like creationism can really oppose it in any way. Most of us know better, though.

Most who think they know better base their opinions on misunderstandings about science and epistemology--and you seem to be a case in point.

Uh, how about believing that a global flood occurred? To believe that an impossible event like that actually happened is a damned good exmple of a "misunderstanding of science." And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A global flood is not impossible.

You think it is, most likely, because you assume a relatively static height for the planet's mountain ranges and such. That is a faith-based assumption.

Plus it begs the entire question of miracles to proclaim it impossible. Like God would have a tough time whipping up some extra water if he needed it.