> I do believe in a younger than billion year old earth I may not be the
> normal yec but I believe that science is the systematized knowledge
> derived from observation. It is a branch of knowledge, esp. one that
> systematizes facts, principles, and methods. According to my understanding
> evolution does not fit that definition.
What about geology (since you don't believe that branch of science either)?
Anyway, that's a gross simplification of how science works (one doesn't just
blindly go out and make observations which are later systemized).
So how does evolutionary theory NOT fit this definition? Darwin went out
and traveled the world OBSERVING nature and then systemized his observations
into a hypothesis which has been tested in countless labs for almost 150 years
and is still accepted by the vast majority of working scientists (with
modifications, of course, from new discoveries in genetics, molecular biology,
etc.). Evolutionary theory is so widely embraced because it DOES systemize
and make sense of observations from many different areas of biology and
paleontology.
> In my own perception I believe science to be the pursuit of truth without
> religion belief, or agenda.
I'm not sure what you're saying here...
I would think that most scientists would agree with you if I'm reading
this correctly -- that religious beliefs should have no place in science
(I'm not saying that's what I necessarily think, just the consensus of
most scientists).
Young-earth creationism, on the other hand, clearly has a overt
religious agenda since it's ALWAYS associated with a literalist reading
of Genesis 1-11.
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich KB9LCG s-schim@uiuc.edu Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 245 Natural History Building, Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 244-1246 http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/s-schim Fides quaerens intellectum