British Centre for Science Education ? View topic - Up Coming TV

https://confessionsofayec.wordpress.com ... ollerance/
Surely it is the creationists who think mainstream science, especially the theory of evolution, is a conspiracy?

Anyway, Mr Ham has posted this on his Facebook page:
"I was alerted to this post in response to a blog I wrote recently. As I read this I had to smile. I'm sure most of you could have your children point out the gross errors in logic. I really don't need to even comment on this--you can do t
hat. I will just quote one verse of Scripture:

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).

The post states:

"That aside, Ken Ham makes a basic Creationist error, one that I have seen made many times.

Then I am quoted from my blog:

His determination to deal only with ?natural forces? eliminates God automatically. In other words, he started with the assumption that God and His Word have nothing to do with explaining reality. He started with a bias against anything to do with the God of the Bible. He did not start by looking objectively at the evidence.

Then the post comments:

"This is a basic understanding failure. The fact that its made by a leading Creationist apologetic is damning and pathetic. He really should know better. Scientists who claim there is no god do so because of the evidence they see. Its this evidence that has lead them to the conclusion of evolution and its this evidence that falsifies the Biblical accounts of Adam and Eve and The Flood. Its not then unreasonable to conclude there is no god. Science looks at natural processes because that is all that we can see and gather evidence from. That evidence is explained by those natural processes only and therefore its an easy conclusion to make that no god was involved. There is no predetermining the non-existence of any god and then building a theory which excludes it, as Ken Ham would have people believe.

Scientists reach their conclusions from the evidence and if the evidence does not fit a hypothesis, then its abandoned and a new one is formed. The evidence always dictates the conclusion, not the other way round. It is the Creationist who starts from the end result and looks for the evidence that matches the result or comes up with a hypothesis for fitting the evidence into the end result. Ken Ham wrongly asserts that because his idea of science is all arse over tits, so must the scientists?"

Well this person wouldn't like our Starting Points Room at the Creation museum now would they!! This person has no concept of the difference between historical science and observational science. Your kids will they--particularly those who were taught to ask 'Were you There?'

The blog I wrote is at the link provided.

This post I quoted above is found at: https://confessionsofayec.wordpress.com ... ollerance/"

It's that 'observational science' drivel yet again.

Source: http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=3104&p=42673

wooly mammoth no child left behind no child left behind neurofibromatosis steve jobs fbi file suge knight obama birth control