Changes

:::::It is not silly to claim that careers are being destroyed.  The article already mentions one firing and another where a person was harassed and hounded in his job.

:::::It is not silly to claim that careers are being destroyed.  The article already mentions one firing and another where a person was harassed and hounded in his job.

:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:15, 15 November 2007 (EST)

:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:15, 15 November 2007 (EST)

::::::Here's the thing, Conservapedias article on "Old Earth Creation" basically says that the criticism of OEC is all biblical!!  So YEC are basically saying that the bible is the only valid source of information about the creation of the earth.  Conservapedia is admitting that at least the YEC point of view is biblical!  Now really, why should people who base there "science" on the bible be allowed to hold important science posts of any type?  You are right, they are being "discriminated" against because of their point of view but that type of discrimination is completely valid.  If I am going to hire or fire people for any job I have to discern up front that they are able and "willing" to handle the job.  YEC basically aren't "willing" or able to handle the responsibilities of most science posts and especially teaching posts since they up front admit that they don't even agree with a good deal of the science they are suppose to be teaching or researching.  Discrimination of this type is normal.  You don't see any Catholic priest getting pastoral jobs at Methodists churches do you? [[User:Mfa1957|Mfa1957]] 10:06, 16 November 2007 (EST)  

::::::Here's the thing, Conservapedias article on "Old Earth Creation" basically says that the criticism of OEC is all biblical!!  So YEC are basically saying that the bible is the only valid source of information about the creation of the earth.  Conservapedia is admitting that at least the YEC point of view is biblical!  Now really, why should people who base there "science" on the bible be allowed to hold important science posts of any type?  You are right, they are being "discriminated" against because of their point of view but that type of discrimination is completely valid.  If I am going to hire or fire people for any job I have to discern up front that they are able and "willing" to handle the job.  YEC basically aren't "willing" or able to handle the responsibilities of most science posts and especially teaching posts since they up front admit that they don't even agree with a good deal of the science they are suppose to be teaching or researching.  Discrimination of this type is normal.  You don't see any Catholic priest getting pastoral jobs at Methodists churches do you? [[User:Mfa1957|Mfa1957]] 10:06, 16 November 2007 (EST)

 

 

:Philip, I think it should be noted that it was the information provided by James Hutton on his theories of geology and geologic time that cause most of the transition from creationism views to non-creationism views.  While Darwin caused an uproar by hypothesizing the development of life, it was Hutton that caused science to doubt the claims of the bible based on the timescale in the bible.  Before Hutton no one questioned the age of the earth according to the claims of the bible because there was no reason to.  Hutton showed his evidence to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1788.  Darwin was not born until 1809 and did not present his TOE until 1859, seventy one years after Hutton.  By this time many of the scientists in the Europe were no longer what you would consider creationists due to Hutton's influential works.

:Philip, I think it should be noted that it was the information provided by James Hutton on his theories of geology and geologic time that cause most of the transition from creationism views to non-creationism views.  While Darwin caused an uproar by hypothesizing the development of life, it was Hutton that caused science to doubt the claims of the bible based on the timescale in the bible.  Before Hutton no one questioned the age of the earth according to the claims of the bible because there was no reason to.  Hutton showed his evidence to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1788.  Darwin was not born until 1809 and did not present his TOE until 1859, seventy one years after Hutton.  By this time many of the scientists in the Europe were no longer what you would consider creationists due to Hutton's influential works.

:I agree that the scientific community is not of one mind with the concept of creation, mostly because the scientific community does not agree on anything however the amount of scientists in the world that have a basis in biological sciences tend to not support creation according to the bible and most in the scientific community do not agree that ID is a valid scientific hypothesis due to it failings at providing a testable mechanism that differs from the testable mechanisms provided by the theory of evolution.  Many IDists often avoid the issue that their claim of an intelligent designer would mean that said designer would have to have some way to manipulate the genomic material of the organisms to create change.  Whereas biological scientists have show thousands of testable random mechanisms that cause change of a genome, ID has provided none that link the change with a designer.

:I agree that the scientific community is not of one mind with the concept of creation, mostly because the scientific community does not agree on anything however the amount of scientists in the world that have a basis in biological sciences tend to not support creation according to the bible and most in the scientific community do not agree that ID is a valid scientific hypothesis due to it failings at providing a testable mechanism that differs from the testable mechanisms provided by the theory of evolution.  Many IDists often avoid the issue that their claim of an intelligent designer would mean that said designer would have to have some way to manipulate the genomic material of the organisms to create change.  Whereas biological scientists have show thousands of testable random mechanisms that cause change of a genome, ID has provided none that link the change with a designer.