What a joke. You don't even know what you mean by creationist because as of yet, you have not provided a consistent definition of the term.
I am a tyrannical evolution pusher....
You got that right.
Science should be taught in science class.
Fine. Then leave evolution out of it because it's nothing but a philosophical construct based on forensic evidence and extrapolation. There is no ability to observe it in action, no testability, no repeatably, nothing that would qualify it for being classified as science except it's blinkered exclusion of God.
Evolution is the inevitable consequence of using a molecular form of inheritance that is subject to change. It CAN be observed in action in any number of scientific experiments. It is testable, the tests are repeatable, and nothing in it - or any other scientific theory - includes or excludes God in any way.
Science is based upon extrapolation. Galileo rolling balls down incline planes - or dropping weights off the tower of Pisa - is then EXTRAPOLATED to be true and applicable elsewhere.
As usual you don't understand science. People tend to fear and hate what they do not understand.
That is why it is so essential that science be taught.
MM: Fine. Then leave evolution out of it because it's nothing but a philosophical construct based on forensic evidence and extrapolation. There is no ability to observe it in action, no testability, no repeatably, nothing that would qualify it for being classified as science except it's blinkered exclusion of God.
Well of course dear allmendream, science should be taught in science class. But this begs the question as to whether Darwin's theory is "science." Evidently metmom has reasons to suspect it isn't; and so do I. It rather appears to be a philosophical cosmology rooted in materialist presuppositions.
It utterly denies any spiritual extension of the natural world. It is "successful" largely for subjective psychological reasons.
So let me bring in a forensic psychologist, Robert Godwin, who has deep insights into this problem. In his book, One Cosmos under God: The Unification of Matter, Life, Mind and Spirit [2004] he cites Aldous Huxley, who thought that "too much working hypothesis means finding only what you already know to be there and ignoring the rest. And this is especially problematic in the realm of Spirit, where people have a decided tendency to think what is thinkable and a strong motivation to 'discover' what is desirable, not what is true. We might call the problem of 'too much hypothesis' the 'fallacy of religion.'"
In my view (FWIW), Darwinist evolution theory is a prime example of "too much hypothesis" that definitely does involve the "fallacy of religion." Darwin's theory is effectively an ersatz religion for an utterly materialistic, despiritualized world. (Darwinism has no need for Spirit, just as it has no need for God.)
Godwin says the 'fallacy of religion' "is not, of course, limited to religion, but is pervasively present in political, cultural, and psychological thought, in fact, the humanities in general, which are overrun with pseudo-religions masquerading as theories and ideologies."
He goes on to say, "These parasitic pseudo-religions form closed systems that distort and obscure reality through the prismhouse of ideological I-glosses." He contrasts the problem of "too much hypothesis" with another problem akin to it, the "no hypothesis" problem which, strangely, also seems to affect Darwin's theory:
...Huxley points out that "no working hypothesis" means no motive for research, no reason for making one experiment rather than another, no way of bringing sense or order into the observed facts." This problem of "no hypothesis" we shall refer to as the "fallacy of scientism." Instead of enlarging our thought so that it fits the phenomena, this fallacy reduces, ignores, or excises the phenomena to fit the theory, often leaving a universe too impoverished even to sustain the original phenomena. [Emphasis added.]Elsewhere, Godwin calls this phenomenon "'Materialitis,' or perhaps 'Reductionosis'."
Imagine a two-dimensional being trying to "get away from it all" by going on vacation in Flatland; anywhere he goes, he will still be restricted to a cramped planar existence, and never experience the comparatively infinite freedom of the third dimension, even though that dimension is equally available from any point in Flatland.So, how do we rescue AMD from Flatland? Is this even possible?
Must close for now, but not before giving Robert Godwin the last word:
...strictly speaking, science has no "theory of spirit" — as put by the philosopher Eric Voegelin, it is philosophically "closed" and "logophobic" — because it does not acknowledge the existence of the divine or transcendent ground in the first place.... The "logophobia" or "pneumapathology" of science is actually a spiritual disorder whose symptoms include "refusal to engage in the search for the truth of existence," closure of the soul and resultant estrangement from the transcendent ground of being, adherence to rigid ideological and methodological preconceptions, the substitution of "secondary realities" for the primary One, and the inevitable worship of false gods in the form of intellectual "graven images." It leaves our world in the now familiar position of being "turned backwards and upside down, with its face toward darkness and nonentity and its back to the sun of truth and the source of being."No wonder our society is in such deep trouble nowadays....
Thank you so very much, dear sister in Christ, for your (as usual) keenly astute observations!