The Rebel Faction

Evolutionism evolves at an incredibly rapid rate

First, evolutionary theory has remained basically the same as far as I'm aware. But even if not, it means we don't make up our minds and then ignore better evidence later. Are you saying it's a bad thing to accept new, better evidence?

Creationism puts new evidence on hold until it ... fits correctly.

And if it never fits correctly into your preconceived notion? Despite observed proof of new evidence, will you still not acknowledge it if it doesn't fit?

You say the universe exploded from nothing.

Despite the constant Creationist lumping together of the two topics which are totally separate debates, the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. We obviously will never know how the universe was created, since we weren't there to see it. We can only guess.
On the other hand, evolution has been observed in nature several times, proving that it happens. The only thing that is still a theory is the full details of how.

Mules.

Back to the subject of willfully ignorant Republicans:

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.
Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

These are some of the findings of a new study of the differing perceptions of Bush and Kerry supporters, conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, based on polls conducted in September and October.

Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them. Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree." Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Equally large majorities of Kerry supporters hear the Bush administration expressing these views--73% say the Bush administration is saying Iraq had WMD (11% a major program) and 74% that Iraq was substantially supporting al Qaeda.

Steven Kull adds, "Another reason that Bush supporters may hold to these beliefs is that they have not accepted the idea that it does not matter whether Iraq had WMD or supported al Qaeda. Here too they are in agreement with Kerry supporters." Asked whether the US should have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said the US should not have, and 61% assume that in this case the President would not have. Kull continues, "To support the president and to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance, and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about prewar Iraq."

This tendency of Bush supporters to ignore dissonant information extends to other realms as well. Despite an abundance of evidence--including polls conducted by Gallup International in 38 countries, and more recently by a consortium of leading newspapers in 10 major countries--only 31% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the US having gone to war with Iraq. Forty-two percent assume that views are evenly divided, and 26% assume that the majority approves. Among Kerry supporters, 74% assume that the majority of the world is opposed.

Similarly, 57% of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the world would favor Bush's reelection; 33% assumed that views are evenly divided and only 9% assumed that Kerry would be preferred. A recent poll by GlobeScan and PIPA of 35 of the major countries around the world found that in 30, a majority or plurality favored Kerry, while in just 3 Bush was favored. On average, Kerry was preferred more than two to one.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html

Despite the constant Creationist lumping together of the two topics which are totally separate debates, the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. We obviously will never know how the universe was created, since we weren't there to see it. We can only guess.

The Big Bang is a cornerstone of the Evolutionary theory, just read any child's science book in a public school. Big Bang, Evolution, one after the other. Granted, the BB isn't a specific part of the Evolutionary process (which starts after the bang, on a planet, in a pool of slime), but without the first it's hard to get the other. Just like Creation is part of Creationism, the BB is a 'part' of Evolution.

Omnae, Micro-Evolution has been observed (moths changing color to adapt, mutated fruitflies after radiation bombardment), but Macro-Evolution (one species jumping to another) has not been observed, or documented.

"Restrictions" being relative. Example: a creationist believes that a supernatural "God" created everything. An evolutionist believes that we evolved over time. What's more realistic: a super powered Almighty Lord who we've never seen, heard from, or had proof or even evidence of his existance... or thinking something based upon what we know now? The thing about evolution is, it changes according to discovery. Creationism remains constant, even when it is contradicted...

I accept the world around us as proof of a Creator. Which is better, knowing you're going to live forever, or knowing that this is the only life you have so you had better make it a good one?

Gash's arguments, although often marred by difficulties in expressing his opinions in a format easy for his opponants to understand (which is forgivable, considering his condition), are often amazingly persuasive and ingenious, however, unless you are really looking for an answer and know how to interpret it correctly many will misunderstand.

Perhaps a more acceptable way of phrasing Gash's earlier argument would have been that Creationalism is and has always been based on blind faith and over-analysing religion. Many early religions were not really meant to be taken seriously - few ancient greeks, as Gash pointed out, really felt that the gods were sitting on a mountain and you could see them if you climbed high enough. The point was the lessons religion taught and the community and organization it brought.

In the case of Christianity, Creationism may have been written into the works of people held in high esteem by many christians, but perhaps the tale should not be taken literally but instead as one to help persuade people about a particular way of thinking or to vividly illustrate a belief. However, should real, strong facts appear that stand against creationalism appear (as some have) then obviously it is worth revising perhaps how we percieve the human race. Perhaps, as more evidence is found evolution will be proven undeniably right, or perhaps a new, different theory will take its' place.

But Creationism seriously lacks most of the base pillars a theory needs. Namely, there must be no evidence that cannot be explained by the theory in its' field, and that the theory must be applicable to further evidence. Creationism does not adequetly explain how ancient bones of human ancestors show that early humans were very different from the modern variety, nor does it seem to explain how far back human remains can be found (Millions of years, as opposed to the much more recent times in the bible and other religious texts). And none of the key evidence to the theory has been found, such as the skeletons of Adam and Eve, or the Garden of Eden.

Now, I'm not saying the way Gash expressed himself was wrong, merely that perhaps it needed clarification. Nor am I saying that Kas should stop believing creationalism, merely that it should not be taught to children as factual or better then evolutionalism since it doesn't work on a practical, actually-happened level, but perhaps the tale told still gives moral lessons important to christianity, and thus perhaps it is still worth telling.