Do you know the difference between “historical” and “observational”/experimental science? Well, it makes a big difference
to creationists! You see in an effort to discredit the fossil
record and all of geology, it is necessary to make a big distinction (link to discussion at National Center for Science Education) that doesn't exist. The assumption here is that you can only know
something if it was directly observed. Amazing! Creationist students are
being taught to ask science teachers “How do you know? Were you there?” Without direct observation, you cannot know
something. Think about how much knowledge
that rules out. Inference is just so
much wishful thinking. This is a made up
distinction that is just plain silly. Creationist also made up the distinction between “microevolution” and “macroevolution”
because it has become basically impossible to argue that “microevolution” doesn’t
happen. No such distinction is made in
biology, but what do you expect? These
people don’t know science and they don’t want to know science. It further demonstrates that creationism is actually know-nothing-ism.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧