Why do I consider this blasphemous? Imagine attempts to analyze Christ's blood biochemistry in the context of resurrection... On top of this, of course, 'creation science' is moronic from the scientific point of view, and this gives all conservatives a bad name, at a time when we need credibility to debunk climate junk science.
I am not advocating closing FR to any particular point of view, even the YEC belief. But please, do not try to admonish those of us, who do not subscribe to this belief and debunk the pseudoscience, as conservatives in name only, or even godless commies.
I am also a Christian who thinks “evolution” has been scientifically demonstrated. I believe it makes perfect sense that God used this mechanism, and that there is also evidence that perhaps He did not employ it exclusively.
Evolutionary processes are very imperfectly understood, but there is ample evidence to make adaptive evolution beyond theory, and within the realm of observable fact within many species. How it might work to create entirely new species is much less well understood and still in the realm of theory, IMO.
The climate changes. I think that certain types of man-made pollution are harmful to humans, but have never been demonstrated to have anything to do with climate or climate change, which at this stage in our scientific knowledge is VERY imperfectly understood.
I do not believe in AGW, or indeed in AGC. However since the climate does change cyclically, we ought to know more about how the process is driven. It surely would be helpful to know more about where we are in the natural cycles that govern the physical planet!
However, the present Global Warming movement is an unscientific hoax designed to empower world government and to lower living standards to an arbitrary lowest common denominator.
I promote what I consider a sane energy policy using Nuclear Power, ALL available hydrocarbons, and geothermal or hydroelectric generation wherever possible. Physics tells me that wind power is minimally feasible, and solar power only marginally more so, both on an extremely limited basis. I also have seen well developed evidence that hydrocarbons and increasing nuclear capacity will be the broadest basis of the world’s energy for the next 100 years, at least, and that there is NO shortage of these resources. "Alternative energy sources" are a very long way from economic reality.
I agree with Einstein when he tells us that "....real science is to know God." To consider reliable, substantiated evidence cannot harm faith.