The most maddening came from Ira Flatow, generally the host of Science Friday. On Day to Day he commented on a Kansas Board of Ed ruling that Intelligent Design must be included in any discussion of origins.
He was asked if Evolution is really a theory. "Well, in most truly scientific circles, it's actually taken as a Law or Principle."
He commented that they even had to CHANGE the very DEFINITION of SCIENCE! Why, in the definition, "Science is the observation and study of physical phenomenon," they struck the word physical.
If Mr. Flatow really looked at this defintion of science (before the ghastly change) the study of origins cannot in any way be science. There is no way to OBSERVE what happened in the past.
The further past, the less can be observed. When we get to the margins at the the beginning of the planet, the universe, time, we are out of the realm of science. It is all conjecture.
This tied in elegantly with a conversation on Radio Bible Class on WDER. They are beginning a segment on "Faith's Hall of Fame", Hebrews ch. 11. Notice how it starts:
1 Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen. 2 For by it our ancestors were approved. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen has been made from things that are not visible.
The first place of faith in the believer's life is in understanding that God created all we see out of nothing. Our faith in God includes faith in Him as Creator.
We step back to the brink of time and peer over the edge. We see nothing. Neither side sees anything.
What we say happened is what we BELIEVE happened. And whether we are aware of it or not, BOTH SIDES say it this way. We do not apprehend this with the senses. BOTH sides apprehend this by faith.
Look at the reality of this. The evolutionist must believe that time and matter have always existed. That they are eternal. They must BELIEVE it for how else can it be known? Eternity past cannot be proven. It cannot be observed. It can be postulated as an a priori a before-the-fact-take-it-on-faith surmisal.
Postulating that a substance, a thing, an entity, a quantity, a value, a force, a whatever, exists outside the bounds of observation... that sounds a lot like belief doesn't it? Isn't belief what is mocked? How is one belief different or better than another belief, if it all comes down to belief?
What the Evolutionists believe is is exactly like the animists and the idolatrous of the mocked earlier times. It is a belief in an eternal deadness. An eternal something that has no will, no life, no force. It's basically modern-informed superstition.
It's dead, Jim (a Trek reference HERE D?)
On the other hand, the Intelligent Design theorist (aka the Creationist) asserts a belief in a willful intelligence, a person, a God.
BOTH lean on faith. Which faith makes more sense to you?