Replies

That's a good question and I have often wondered about it as well. What's it to them if we do or don't believe what they say about dead monkeys in the ground and amoeba-to-human transformations? I mean, it's really up to them to argue convincingly for whatever it is that we are supposed to accept from them as true. Why to they rage when aren't successful at making a convert? They seem to have an attitude that we owe them unquestioning intellectual assent for anything they say. Even the slightest skepticism of their often specious and purile arguments invokes flaming wrath and brings to the surface some remarkable anti-God, anti-soul and anti-Christian sentiments. There's clearly something not normal about that.

Which is why they constantly get accused of having an agenda. Because they're acting like they do.

I wish that those who are true scientists would speak out against the hijacking of science by the left like they do at the thought of it being influenced by conservative or Christian values.

Their silence on the issue of how science is being misused shows that they agree with it themselves.

Personally, I don't care whether someone agrees with special creation as stated in Scripture. I DO care when they go as far as demanding that what they believe is the only thing allowed to be taught in the public schools that my tax money is supporting.

Their silence on the issue of how science is being misused shows that they agree with it themselves.

There is a statement of absolute polarization. Anyone who isn't observed to actively support your cause must be assumed to actively oppose it needs to be confronted contentiously.

[[Personally, I don’t care whether someone agrees with special creation as stated in Scripture. I DO care when they go as far as demanding that what they believe is the only thing allowed to be taught in the public schools that my tax money is supporting.]]

I would just add to that that I DO care when what is being taught, and what I’m being forced to pay for, is CONTRARY to scientific laws and includes such a degree of faith that it can NOT be concidered TRUE objective science! We’re not talking about some minor issues that have other possibilites when it comes to macroeovlution being possible or not- We’re talking about SERIOUS violations of established laws ,and were talking about serious impossibilities- not probabilites, but impossibilites- Even the probabilites are so remote as to be concidered impossibilites themselves.

Macroevolution has so much science against the hypothesis- so many serious problems that it amounts to faith- pure and simple- Faith in nature’s ability to supercede these impossibilites- making it a supernatural hypothesis, and htese problems are being hidden from our kids.