Changes

:No, it's not a joke.  What's a joke is that the atheistic agenda of evolution is treated as empirical science and creationary science is ''dismissed'' as an unreliable source, rather than actually being ''refuted''.  The tactic is to argue, as you have implicitly, that "evolution is science" and is therefore totally objective.  Scientists are ''not'' always totally objective, and [[physical science#[edit] Types of science|origins science]] is not empirical science]].  There is no anti-creationists ''conspiracy'', but there is a ''ruling paradigm'' that refuses to acknowledge creation as a valid alternative.  Evolutionists (some of whom acknowledge their anti-theistic bias) are no less agenda-driven than creationists, and lay evolutionists who argue otherwise are the pot calling the kettle black.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:No, it's not a joke.  What's a joke is that the atheistic agenda of evolution is treated as empirical science and creationary science is ''dismissed'' as an unreliable source, rather than actually being ''refuted''.  The tactic is to argue, as you have implicitly, that "evolution is science" and is therefore totally objective.  Scientists are ''not'' always totally objective, and [[physical science#[edit] Types of science|origins science]] is not empirical science]].  There is no anti-creationists ''conspiracy'', but there is a ''ruling paradigm'' that refuses to acknowledge creation as a valid alternative.  Evolutionists (some of whom acknowledge their anti-theistic bias) are no less agenda-driven than creationists, and lay evolutionists who argue otherwise are the pot calling the kettle black.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 3 May 2007 (EDT)