[Coyoteman]

Evolutionists, in rejecting the concept of an intelligent creator, have to begin with the BIG BANG - which turns every proven scientific theory (”proven” being the operative word here)on its head. There was nothing, then - boom! Spontaneous life - which - PRESTO - turns into something else and adapts over time (but we really don’t have any fossils to PROVE this definitively). And they say Christian creationists must have to have a lot of faith for their belief.... WHEW!!

Evolutionists? You mean cosmologists and those other astronomy folks. Most of the folks who study evolution have no clue about those fields of science.

Or are you being a "lumper" rather than a "splitter" and using this well-known creationist definition:

“Evolutionist” is a term used by creationists to include all scientists who disagree with them. Source

[JLLH]

OK, then, using your terminology - science is supposed to be about FACTS, not theories (using your definitions of both). To present something as FACT which has as many holes as does evolution (remember: those who have a vested interest in seeing what they wish to see will somehow “prove” it to those who are like-minded) should not be presented as “fact” in a classroom. As for confusing religion and science, that is an old, tired argument which is often used - wrongly -as if the two are in conflict. When one is talking about scientific method, they are not. When one is talking about hoaxes and jumping from one species to another without any hard evidence to link them, then I suppose they would be. I still maintain it takes much more faith to believe that mankind developed sans creator than to look around at the scientific proof which strongly suggests otherwise. (The earth being just so far from the sun - not too close, not too far — or did that just “happen”?) If, as you claim, evolutionists know nothing about the origins of the earth, then how can they possibly posit the development of mankind without a creator? It must be one or the other. Either a creator is involved, or is not. I really don’t see how one can begin with a 19th century theory, work backwards, and then claim that the origin of any species somehow doesn’t fall within their realm of expertise. Not trying to be difficult here, but I just don’t see how that could in any way be viewed as scientific. This has been an interesting discussion, but I’m prepping to leave on a trip and won’t return for about 2 weeks, so have to sign off now. I’ll try to remember to check this thread when I return. Have a good evening.