Actually I was referring to public scrutiny. No one really cares until they see they are paying for it. Then they want some ‘return on investment ‘ (ROI). I will grant you that genetic evolutionary algorithms have proven useful but the ROI is very very poor.
I saw in your next post - 53 I think - that you think it is wrong to indoctrinate children w/ creation science in public schools.
I agree 100% but to teach evolution in public school is problematic for the same reasons. The main reason I agree is the church can and should do a much better job teaching creation science since they should be held to a much higher standard of truth and avoiding politics. Also I feel that the public schools would mis-represent and grossly distort creation science anyway. I see it all the time on these threads w/ folks who lack any real theological reasoning.
They often think the Bible is merely written from the minds of men, but to their own detriment they ignore the uniqueness of God’s Word. Try explaining how Psalm 22 written approx 1000 years before Jesus Christ was foretold by mere men.
At a minimum the school needs to have a frank and open discussion about its’ strengths and weaknesses to separate fact from fiction.
Strengths = micro-evoltion (leading to the algorithms you stated previously), genetic code allowing for increased diversity of species.
Weaknesses = Cambrian explosion of most lifeforms, stasis in the fossil record, limitations for mutations in the genetic code, etc.
Public scrutiny, ROI, has absolutely nothing to do with scientific validity.
Also I feel that the public schools would mis-represent and grossly distort creation science anyway. I see it all the time on these threads w/ folks who lack any real theological reasoning.
I see a problem there. You call it "science" yet acknowledge the need for theological reasoning to understand creation science. No theological reasoning should be necessary to understand the natural sciences. That's why they call it science, not theology.
Try explaining how Psalm 22 written approx 1000 years before Jesus Christ was foretold by mere men.
That's easy. At the heart of the concept is the desire of the believer for it to be true. With that desire, anything can be shaped to appear to be what he wants it to be with very little effort. Psalm 22 is a simple plea as you see throughout the Psalms. You just see the plea as describing Jesus because you want to. The believer will ignore that they are about David, with much poetic license, and not even meant to be prophetic. Ignore that they are in the writings part of the Tanakh, not the prophesies. Because a few things match up, some only because of bad translations (like piercing of hands and feet), it is taken as a prophesy because you WANT to believe the prophesies come true. See also, confirmation bias.
Nostradamus did it too, his prophesies being heralded as true for years, when they were bunk. I remember in the 80s when crazy Khadaffi was the big bad guy who was going to kill us all. Suddenly one of Nostradamus' predictions just had to be about Khadaffi. They absolutely couldn't be about anything else, they were perfectly clear, Khadaffi was going to attack New York!!! What a prophet! Then Khadaffi slides from the national headlines and we come to the first Gulf War. Suddenly that prophesy just HAD to be about Saddam Hussein, it couldn't be anybody else! See, it fits him perfectly!
This is why con men so-called psychics have such an easy time. People who want to believe something are very easy targets. John Edward isn't communicating with the dead, he's using cold and hot reading to convince people who want to believe that he's communicating with the dead. Anybody who stands back and looks at it objectively, without the desire to believe, can tell what he's doing because he can get 20 statements wrong and a few safe statements (that are obvious or can be made to seem right) correct, yet people will latch on to what he appeared to get right and think he's for real. They'll be in tears thanking him for deceiving them.