# What do creation scientists believe **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 1, 2003, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070 "2003-02-01T08:09:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2003, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070/41 "2003-02-01T23:29:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > Firstly the practice of selecting that which agrees and rejecting or ignoring the contrary is far more prevalent amongst the creationist camp than anywhere else (although of course examples of scientists clinging doggedly, in the face of much disproof, to their pet theories can always be found). It has been pointed out that actually having individual scientists having their own preconceptions and biases and even clinging doggedly to theories is not altogether a bad thing. In fact, I would say that some of the best scientists are sometimes quite dogmatic and opinionated. One reason this can be useful is that sometimes data against a hypothesis or theory does in fact turn out to be incorrect, so having everyone immediately abandoning a theory in this case is a bad thing. However, if the evidence continues to accumulate against a theory over time, then those who still cling to the theories will face an ever tougher battle keeping other scientists on their side. In the long run, the good science seems to win out. I think the long run has already happened with respect to evolution and competing theories. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070/42 "2003-02-02T01:06:11Z")
—An unscientific opinion, unprovable one way or the other.— Well, I don’t think it is a matter of being unprovable or unscientific: it’s a particular assertion, and argument, both metaphysical and logical. And I think it is not only false, but… well, let just leave it at that I don’t have a very high opinion of it at all, in regards to evolution or belief. —When all the evidence is weighed the theory of evolution becomes laughable.— I don’t think anyone asked you to clarify this yet, but do you mean that the idea that (historically) it is what happened is laughable (i.e., that’s not at all what the evidence supports), or that the very idea is implausible (for it to ever happen anywhere)? Those are two very very different critiques of evolution (under which we often lump both a historical description of life on earth and an abstract descriptive theory) ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070/43 "2003-02-02T02:34:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > \*\*It has been pointed out that actually having individual scientists having their own preconceptions and biases and even clinging doggedly to theories is not altogether a bad thing. \*\* Right. Einstein didn’t agree with Heisenberg on Uncertainty, and never really did accept it, and in doing so forced Bohr and others to come up with better evidence in favor. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070/44 "2003-02-02T02:39:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by valerie \* > **Darwin’s Finch. Thank you as well for the welcome and honest questions. What you are referring to is variation of the species which is a proven fact of science, micro-evolution. This has nothing to do with full blown evolutionary theory.** Others have addressed the distinction, but I would like to emphasize that the points I listed are the logical core of Darwin’s theory of natural selection. _The Origin of Species_ was written, in part, to argue that the facts are as presented, and that the resulting conclusion is logically valid. The other purpose of _Origin_ was to argue that such a simple process could, indeed, result in the entirety of variation we see in the biological world today, as well as account for what we interpret as life in the past. That is, he specifically argued for natural selection as being sufficient to account for both small-scale changes (adaptations) and large-scale changes (speciation and the origins of higher taxa). While we have modified and built upon Darwin’s original view, natural selection is still deemed to be the primary creative force of evolution, and, as such, does indeed form the core of “full blown evolutionary theory”. As others have alluded, if you accept natural seelction as valid, then you have a much weaker case against evolution as a whole. \*\* > [@](#): > > No, I am never opposed to true science. It has always landed on the side of creation/flood, and has never been able to prove evolutionary theory.\*\* Can you provide some examples of science landing “on the side of creation/flood”? \*\* > [@](#): > > Actually, mrsface hit most of it on the head for an example. So many people have been convinced that science proves evolution and that is simply not the case. When all the evidence is weighed the theory of evolution becomes laughable. Please do not take offense, I do not mean I personally laugh an any of you for believing it. I am specifically talking about the scientific premise.\*\* Obviosuly, there are those who disagree, despite having weighed the same evidence. Why do you think they have arrived at what you deem a “laughable” conclusion? \*\* > [@](#): > > Most people who believe that evolution is true do so on the basis of college professors who told them so. Not because they have looked at the evidence themselves. They simply believe what they are told, not even realizing that all of it is guesswork and supposition paraded as fact. But to really compare the two beliefs in factual, scientific evidence is to have a whole new world opened up.\*\* I, for one, have looked at the evidence for myself. And I see that evolution has occurred, and is occurring. I have seen numerous comparisons, and in each case, creation science fails to explain any of the available facts without resorting to convoluted _ad hoc_ arguments. To what extent have you examined the evidence for evolution? \*\* > [@](#): > > George Gaylord Simpson, world’s foremost evolutionary paleontologist said, “The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers never happened in nature.” (George G. Simpson, Life Of The Past, p.119)\*\* I realize that this quote, along with the others you listed, were simply cut & pasted from various pro-creation sites (see [here](http://www.bittsandbytes.org/Subscribers/10_17_02.html) for a verbatim version of the above quote), but you shoudl realize a couple things: 1. G. G. Simpson made his statements during the '40s and '50s - a lot has happened since then to cause a re-focus on how eovlution occurs, as well as what the phylogeny of horses looks like. 2. What he said about the “uniform, continuus transformation” having never happened is exactly in line with current evolutionary thought. Darwin believed that speciation _did_ occur through the slow transformation of lineages; we no longer believe this to be the case. > [@](#): > > **"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded …ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Dr. David Raup, Curator, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology”, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50(1), 1979, p 25)** This quote by Raup restates what I just did, yet you have included here as an alleged argument against evolution: why? It is a common tactic among creationists to “quote mine” - look for quotes made by famous scientists, take them out of context, and twist them to suit their purposes. Here, I commend you on actually giveing a citation as to when / where Raup made the statement, but it would appear you haven’t actually _read_ it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070/45 "2003-02-02T03:43:36Z")
> [@](#): > > **_valerie said:_ > In simple terms. I do indeed approach my scientific facts with the teaching of the bible as my jump off point.** An utter contradiction in terms… > [@](#): > > **I am not a scientist, but a homeschooling mom, so I may have to take the time to look some things up to give you an answer before I shoot my mouth off… but if you truly are interested in asking me something, I’d be happy to explain why I think that creation is the only thing that makes sense and it takes extraordinary faith to believe in evolution! > \ > No, I am never opposed to true science. It has always landed on the side of creation/flood, and has never been able to prove evolutionary theory.** [hijack]This is why home schooling must be abolished-- I’m serious, why are parents permitted to present this garbage to their children as if it were a legitimate education? They are doing a tremendous disservice to their kids and they are utterly failing to prepare them for any kind of serious acadamia. Kids have a right to a genuine education, not religious brainwashing. Please write your congessmen. End home schooling now![/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![nogginhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5e9695/32.png) [@nogginhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nogginhead)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070/46 "2003-02-02T04:15:24Z")
I admit I’m also troubled by home-schooling. But (as a practicing scientist, even) I think there are far more damaging prejudices that can/will be inculcated that way than anti-science. IMO, anti-science tends to negatively affect the individual more often than the society. Example: “I can treat my compound fracture with this homeopathic preparation” vs. “I believe you are less than human because you have a different skin color than me.” Counter-example: The Kansas school board. * * * That being said, I 'm very curious about why a bona fide biblical literalist feels the need to dispute evolution on its own terms. If you belive, you believe, and the argument that ‘all the evidence of your sense was put there by god to confuse you’ should be just as powerful (or more so) than any attempt to claim the evidence is true but is being misinterpreted. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070/47 "2003-02-02T04:35:23Z")
I wish _The Onion_ had archived that article from about a month ago titled, “5,000 Year Old T-Rex Skeleton On Display at Creationist Museum”. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070/48 "2003-02-02T04:55:17Z")
Retrogenes are genes which are flanked by the kind of repeat sequences you see when a piece of RNA is spliced into the genome. The obvious inference, then, is that a retrogene is created when an RNA copy of another gene is spliced in, and then natural selection introduces mutations which can either create a new, functional gene, or can inactivate it, creating a pseudogene. So, where did this RNA copy come from? The answer turns out to be easy, because retrogenes have a number of distinctive features. They lack introns, which are noncoding segments which interrupt many genes. They also end in a long tail of “A” nucleotide bases. As it turns out, when the cell wants to use a gene to make protein, it makes a “working copy” of the gene out of RNA, and then processes that RNA by removing its introns and adding a “poly-A tail.” So the natural conclusion is that retrogenes are caused when messenger RNA is spliced back into the genome. This explanation makes a number of other things about retrogenes fall into place. Retrogenes can be found far from the original gene they were copied from, as you would expect if a copy of messenger RNA were floating around inside the cell before it got spliced back into the genome. (The other main gene-duplicating process, unequal crossing-over, makes copies which are adjacent to each other.) Moreover, sometimes retrogenes are cut short, and it’s known that the enzyme which splices the new sequence in can terminate too early. So, here we have the evolutionist explanation for retrogenes. It explains the following properties: 1. Flanking sequences 2. No introns 3. Poly-A tail 4. Can be found far from the “parent gene” 5. Can be cut short Valerie, can you provide an explanation for these properties which proceeds from the hypothesis of separate creation of individual kinds? (FWIW, you can see my whole FAQ on evolution and molecular genetics [here.](http://psyche11.home.mindspring.com/ben/molevol2.html)) ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070/49 "2003-02-02T04:57:45Z")
Incidentally, if any creationist can answer all 11 of my stumper questions, I’ll put their answers on my website, if you like. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070/50 "2003-02-02T05:02:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by valerie \* > \*\*No, I am never opposed to true science. It has always landed on the side of creation/flood, and has never been able to prove evolutionary theory. \*\* What books have you read about evolution? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Everything that I have seen points to creation/flood told about in the oldest, most reliable book ever compiled in human history. \*\* Are you serious?!? How can you say that the Bible is the oldest book? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Evolutionary theorists keep saying they will prove it when the evidence comes in, but the evidence is getting further away. \*\* Cite? Talk.origins and my website are both full of evidence. Evolution was proven before Darwin, on the weight of the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070/51 "2003-02-02T05:12:41Z")
Yeesh… I just remembered one more thing. Are you a geocentrist? Why or why not? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070/52 "2003-02-02T07:36:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by valerie_\*\* > > > > “Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded …ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.” (Dr. David Raup, Curator, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology”, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50(1), 1979, p 25) > > This quote by Raup restates what I just did, yet you have included here as an alleged argument against evolution: why? It is a common tactic among creationists to “quote mine” - look for quotes made by famous scientists, take them out of context, and twist them to suit their purposes. Here, I commend you on actually giveing a citation as to when / where Raup made the statement, but it would appear you haven’t actually _read_ it. \*\* As **Darwin’s Finch** has said, **valerie** has taken a quote out of context. Based on the title mentioning conflicts between Darwin and and current paleontology Dr. Raup might well have been speaking of reasons for the considerable modification of Darwin’s ideas with the passage of time. The quote was from 1979. In 1983 Dr. Raup contributed an essay to the book _Scientists Confront Creationism_ (W.W. Norton, New York, edited by Laurie R. Godfrey) in which Raup wrote the following: “This essay is inspired by my rereading of “Science and Creation” by Boardman, Koontz, and Morris (1973). “Science and Creation” is not the most recent treatment, but it is one of the best in the sense of being a clear and unambiguous statement of the case made by contemporary creationists against the conventional wisdom of evolution. The same basic ground is covered by later books such as those by Wysong (1976) and Gish (1978). I will be concerned here only with the strictly geological and paleontological parts of the argument. Gish (1978) has popularized the notion that the rocks and the fossils say NO to evolution. As I will show here, the rocks and the fossils say YES to evolution!” The essay in the book, which **valerie** can doubtless obtain through her local library, also has a section quite similar to the passage she quoted and Dr. Raup provides three possible explanations for breaks in the fossil record, all of which he says are probably germane. The passage is too long to quote here and includes a lot besides what **valerie** wrote. So despite the attempt to enlist Dr. Raup on the anti evolution side by the source from which the quote was taken, it just won’t work. ---
**Author:** ![Laughing\_Lagomorph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6bbea6/32.png) [@Laughing\_Lagomorph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laughing_Lagomorph)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070/53 "2003-02-02T19:13:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*An utter contradiction in terms… > > [hijack]This is why home schooling must be abolished-- I’m serious, why are parents permitted to present this garbage to their children as if it were a legitimate education? They are doing a tremendous disservice to their kids and they are utterly failing to prepare them for any kind of serious acadamia. Kids have a right to a genuine education, not religious brainwashing. Please write your congessmen. End home schooling now![/hijack] \*\* You can’t be serious. How can a person with a signature line extolling freedom of speech be opposed to home schooling? Do you seriously want a Constitutional amendment requiring all American children to be educated by the government? That’ll fix everything.:rolleyes: IANAC (I am not a Creationist) but I strongly support the right of people to home school their children, if they wish. Would you ban private schools and religious schools as well? My pre-schooler is partially deaf, but academically very advanced for his age. He is eligible for special services in our local public school, but my wife is afraid he will be bored by learning stuff he already knows. At the same time, the private schools in our area, which are more academically advanced, have no experience in teaching kids with any special needs. We are considering homeschooling as one option. You think it would be a good idea to take that choice away from us? ---
**Author:** ![Laughing\_Lagomorph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6bbea6/32.png) [@Laughing\_Lagomorph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laughing_Lagomorph)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070/54 "2003-02-02T19:16:02Z")
BTW, I think you guys scared \*\*valerie \*\* away. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070/55 "2003-02-02T19:24:34Z")
**Laughing Lagomorph** , I was being facetious, sorry for any offense. What I _actually_ feel is that children should be taught facts and not mythology. While I do not literally want to abolish home schooling, I feel very strongly that home schoolers should have to meet a minimum statndard of academic legitimacy. Creationism is not a legitimate biological theory and should not be permitted to be taught as such (any more than a home schooler should be able to teach that 2=2=5 or that Benjamin Franklin was the first king of America). I realize that you can’t prohibit parents expressing religious views to their kids, but I also think that all educators, private, public, religious or home schoolers, should be mandated to teach basic evolutionary theory. Home schooled kids should be able to pass a test and correctly answer questions about such things as natural selection and the age of the earth, whether they really believe it or not. What I object to is any educator, in any context, being permitted to teach falsehoods as fact. ---
**Author:** ![Laughing\_Lagomorph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6bbea6/32.png) [@Laughing\_Lagomorph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laughing_Lagomorph)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070/56 "2003-02-02T19:31:05Z")
**D the C** : OK, no offense taken. I was wooshed. I think your proposal would be unworkable in practice, though. It brings us perilously close to messing with SOCAS from the OTHER side, if you follow me. Hell, my fifth grade public school science teacher taught many falsehoods as fact. She wasn’t a creationist, just old fashioned, ill informed, and stubborn! ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070/57 "2003-02-02T19:37:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Laughing Lagomorph \* > \*\* > Hell, my fifth grade public school science teacher taught many falsehoods as fact. She wasn’t a creationist, just old fashioned, ill informed, and stubborn! \*\* Of course I don’t think it follows that just because some teachers of elemenary grades are ignorant in science we should knowingly allow nonsense to be taught. ---
**Author:** ![nogginhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5e9695/32.png) [@nogginhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nogginhead)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070/58 "2003-02-02T19:40:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\* > Home schooled kids should be able to pass a test and correctly answer questions about such things as natural selection and the age of the earth, whether they really believe it or not. What I object to is any educator, in any context, being permitted to teach falsehoods as fact. \*\* [further hijack] Hoo boy. Talk about your slippery slopes! Who’s going to decide what a fact, what’s a falshood, and what’s important enough that it belongs on the test? Also, you ought to give it to all kids, not just homeschooled kids. And what’s the sanction for failure? [/further h.] ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070/59 "2003-02-02T19:50:54Z")
I agree that it would not be workable to actually prohibit the teaching of creationism, but I think it would still be reasonable to require that students be able to answer questions about evolution as well. They can “disbelieve” if they like, as long as they understand it. I went to Catholic schools as a kid, even though I never really believed in God. I had to take religion classes and answer questions about Catholic doctrine. Rather than getting huffy and offended at having to learn a theology I had no belief in, I simply learned the material and prefaced my answers with phrases like. “The catholic church teaches…” or, “the current church view is…” This allowed me to pass the classes by showing that I had a respectful understanding of the material even though it contradicted my personal viewpoints. I think it can be the same with evolution. Homeschoolers can teach creationism if they want as long as the kid can also show a basic, coherent understanding of what “science has shown.” BTW, good luck with your son. I have some experience in educating special needs children as well as with gifted ones. Those who are both, like your son, need a specific kind of guidance and I think that home schooling is very appropriate in a situation like that. (as long as he still gets a lot of social interaction with other kids, which I’m sure you’ve already thought about) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070/60 "2003-02-02T20:05:56Z")
> [@](#): > > _nogginhead_ > Talk about your slippery slopes! > > Who’s going to decide what a fact, what’s a falshood, and what’s important enough that it belongs on the test? > > Also, you ought to give it to all kids, not just homeschooled kids. And what’s the sanction for failure? Who decides that 2+2=4 is a fact? Scientific method does not reall prove, it only disproves. A literal reading of Genesis can be disproven in almost every particular. Evolution is not an opinion or a belief, it is solid, dependable theory (not a hypothesis) which has been repeatedly confirmed by every conceivable method which can be applied to it. It is the same with atomic theory. The atom has never been directly observed by human beings. Does that mean that atomic theory is only a matter of faith? Should “alternate” theories to the atom be taught? What should be on the test should be a basic, high school understanding of evolution. How is it defined? What is natural selection? How long does it take? What is radiocarbon dating?Perhaps a basic timeline for the descent of homo sapiens. Nothing too complicated, just a basic FAQ. And yes, I think that all kids should have to take the test, not just home schooled. I trhought it went without saying that public and private school kids were already tested on this material. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-creation-scientists-believe/152070.md?page=4)