Replies

Correct me if I am wrong, alchemy, phrenology, numerology, are readily falsified and get you nowhere in the pursuit of a scientific education. Raising them as serious concerns is really just blowing smoke.

My first two PhD chemist supervisors were both creationists. Their rejection of evolutionary theory appeared to do them no harm in their careers as they were quite productive in the lab with patents, published papers and such. All PhD chemists in the lab where I work are respected only as they successfully apply the laws of chemistry. I would guess that biologists are respected more for their observable discoveries and applications than for an adherence to a doubtful theory.

I used to struggle with my faith in the Biblical account of creation in light of the authoritative nature of institutional evolutionary teaching. As I have aged the political nature of that authority became obvious and easily discounted if not totally ignored. As my wife and I home-schooled our children we taught them what evolutionary theory states (in addition to the basic observable sciences) largely so that they, when necessary, can parrot it back to future "authority" figures, but we also taught the clear Biblical account of creation so they won't suffer the consequences of gainsaying the creator. So far I have one studying for her PhD and one deciding which field of engineering to pursue. Given that we taught them creationism far more then what any government school would even conceive of doing, do you think they have a chance?

The funny part for me in reconciling creationism with authoritative teaching was discovering that the authorities, like everyone else, all put their pants on one leg at a time and suffer no less for all their academic credentials.