The Gullibility of Evolutionists, page 9

reply to post by AshleyD

Maybe this has been pointed out already. I haven't read the entire thread yet. Please excuse me if it has already been mentioned.

The major difference between evolutionary scientists and creationists is how they arrive at their beliefs:

Creationists accept what was written in the Bible or other religious documents as fact without supportive compelling observable evidence. That is to say, evidence that can be observed by all persons regardless of belief, instead of just by those who believe and choose to support their faith by further making claims that also cannot be independently observed by non-believers and/or other believers. Creationists extrapolate hypotheses out of beliefs and beliefs out of hypotheses based on nothing more than faith that has been presented and held by the respected faithful that have preceded them. There is no independent system comparable to scientific theory within creationism other than the institutionalized political and bureaucratic religious systems that promote belief over observable evidence. Hard evidence that Man was created by God, a deity, or deities has yet to be presented. The belief presupposes that God, a deity, or deities exist; a claim for which evidence or proof has not yet been provided. Never mind the claim whether or not such "Supreme Beings" are responsible for the creation of Man.

Evolutionary scientists rest their beliefs on theories that are supported by observable evidence. Evidence that can be referred to as fact because it can be observed.

What makes science so compelling is not one's predisposition to believe just anything tossed her or his way. Science is compelling because it provides a mechanism that can absorb observable evidence that challenges previously observed evidence, previously drawn conclusions, and long held beliefs. Any accepted theory remains only a theory because scientists recognize that they are limited by what they can readily observe and ably conclude. Such a system makes it difficult for hoaxes and erroneous conclusions to be accepted, and if accepted difficult to remain accepted. Scientists understand that observing one thing, many things, or many, many things is not equal to having observed all probabilities and possibilities. Scientists observe change -- and the language that is used to explain any credible theory reflects this. To a scientist things seem. To a creationist things are or are not. Therefore a scientist's beliefs are hard earned by the scientist. Despite the influence of institutionalized politics and bureaucracy on the course of science, and on the course of the careers of many scientists, a scientist only ever need refer to facts that exist as observable evidence in order to decide which scientific theory believe in, and which direction of research to go. That is the choice that every scientist faces and makes.

I do have personal views on this matter but they would thoroughly take this thread off of the current topic.