Yet another evolution 'debate'

[SpaceFluffer]

A biology professor from my college recently argued the case for evolution in a Georgia courtroom. Some parents have filed a lawsuit in objection to a sticker that was placed in a Biology textbook. It's the same old creationism schtick..."Evolution is a theory, not a fact", etc.

I was looking up info on the case and found the following (on www.answersingenesis.org) via a Google search. I found it so unbelievable I thought I should share it...
It’s hard to understand how such an innocuous disclaimer could arouse such a harsh backlash—unless we remember that the root issue is a conflict of worldviews. Most scientists are avowed evolutionists who base their life’s work on a materialistic worldview that excludes God, and they feel threatened by anyone who questions the ‘fact’ of their worldview. It’s important to note that the vast majority of scientists (e.g. physicists, chemists, anatomists) work on on events occurring in the present, so evolution, a belief system about the past, can’t even plausibly have any relevance to their work. The following excerpt by an associate professor of biology at Georgia State University summarizes their worries:

‘... Contrary to what Cobb's textbook disclaimer says, evolution is an observable process, a fact of life. It refers to changes in gene frequencies between generations of animals or plants. It occurs every day and has been demonstrated in many species. And it has its down side: Most laypeople are familiar with the rapid evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, or the evolution of resistance to DDT in mosquitoes.

So where is the theory part? Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is a nearly universally accepted scientific explanation for how, not whether, evolution occurred in the past and how it is occurring in the present.’[3]

Evolutionists keep repeating the same old logical fallacies. They say that evolution occurs ‘all the time,’ meaning that we see ‘change’ within species, but then they say that this proves ‘evolution in the past,’ meaning the rise of completely new creatures from simpler ancestors. These are not the same thing. Creationists also believe in natural selection and speciation—they merely help to explain how populations change, but true molecules-to-man evolution would involve the appearance of completely new genetic information, which evolutionists have never been able to demonstrate (see Q&A: Information theory).

Is evolution a factual explanation of the origin of living things? Hardly. It is something that evolutionary scientists choose to believe—in spite of the factual, eyewitness report that God gives us in the Bible. For people to want to squelch any hint of open-minded, critical debate about the merits of their belief-system demonstrates a fanatical religious commitment to evolutionism.

Although we oppose evolution, Answers in Genesis does not believe that the government should compel teachers to teach creation. (It would be counterproductive to make an atheist teach creation, anyway!) However, it seems reasonable that state and local officials should take steps to protect the liberty of individual teachers and students who wish to discuss the problems with evolution and offer alternative explanations.
What amazed me more than anything else, is that the language used in the penultimate paragraph sounds all too familiar. Just exchange evolution and the bible in that paragraph and it's not far from how one of us might argue the case the other way around.

How can someone really believe that the Bible is a "factual, eyewitness report"? Or that scientists have a "fanatical religious commitment to evolutionism"??

[Dr Adequate]

Well, it's the usual creduloid gibble. We've got a guy doing something very similar on this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48820). It doesn't matter whether it's psi, aliens, or the SkyDaddy... the facts are against them, so what else can they do? They explain that the only reason that people don't believe in their non-evidence for nonexistent things is "fanaticism", "dogma", "scientism", blah blah blah blah blah.

[c4ts]

Evolutionists keep repeating the same old logical fallacies. They say that evolution occurs ‘all the time,’ meaning that we see ‘change’ within species, but then they say that this proves ‘evolution in the past,’ meaning the rise of completely new creatures from simpler ancestors.

Most scientists are avowed evolutionists who base their life’s work on a materialistic worldview that excludes God, and they feel threatened by anyone who questions the ‘fact’ of their worldview. It’s important to note that the vast majority of scientists (e.g. physicists, chemists, anatomists) work on on events occurring in the present, so evolution, a belief system about the past, can’t even plausibly have any relevance to their work.

Is evolution a factual explanation of the origin of living things? Hardly. It is something that evolutionary scientists choose to believe—in spite of the factual, eyewitness report that God gives us in the Bible. For people to want to squelch any hint of open-minded, critical debate about the merits of their belief-system demonstrates a fanatical religious commitment to evolutionism.

Goodness, those blinders must be HUGE!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Most scientists are avowed evolutionists who base their life’s work on a materialistic worldview that excludes God, and they feel threatened by anyone who questions the ‘fact’ of their worldview.
Well, the scientist may appear to feel threatened, but that is because she it too polite to say to the creationist, "You're the silliest idiot I have ever encountered."

~~ Paul

[Upchurch]

I think the biggest misunderstanding that creationists have about scientists is that scientists would do anything to protect their cherished theories. Fact of the matter is, the oposite is more the case. Most scientists would give there left ... to be the one to figure out, or better prove, that a long held theory was somehow wrong.

As is often said, this is the main difference between science and religion. A scientist can change his core understanding and still be the same kind of scientist. A theist cannot change his core understanding and still be the same kind of theist (or necessarily a theist at all).

[pupdog]

The Cobb County stickers were discussed on a Science Friday show on Public Radio today, along with the Dover, PA biology curriculum requiring Intelligent Design (http://www.npr.org, search for intelligent design in "Talk of the Nation").

[Drooper]

I love the bit where they claim that the bible is an eye witness account of creation.

Unfortunately they don't go on to name the eye witness.

[pupdog]

It must have been Moses--he wrote that part of the Bible, and everyone knows he was also knowledgable in geology.