Quote:

Dark matter/dark energy is another example of a magical miracle your god of naturalism has produced. Or in other words, widely accepted nonsense that is convenient because it fills in the gaping wounds of your theory. There's no evidence for either of these 'things' except that they must exist until a better answer is found.

This is the crank science that's passing for 'enlightenment' nowadays.



This was a very interesting post. It sheds some light on why even some intelligent people - which I assume for you - still believe in creationism in the twenty-first century.

You don't have a problem with evolution. You have a problem with science. And the problem you have is that science is not a dogma.

You didn't get the Hubble effect and some other things 100% correct, but the basic point that you've got is that science often leads to a change of knowledge. 600 years ago, science told everyone that the earth was unmoving at the center of the universe; then suddenly they said "It's moving around the sun". Hubble measured his constant at 500 km/s/Mpc; today we know that it's in the range of 70 km/s/Mpc, and is not even a constant but changes over time. And indeed, we also know that the visible matter in the universe does not explain the rotation speed of galaxies. Only 4% of the universe consists of baryonic matter, 23% is dark matter and 73% dark energy. And those percentages might even change.

There is a lot in nature that science does not yet know, or does not yet understand. On my website I've listed the 10 greatest mysteries of science; but in fact there are much more than 10. I suppose that there's still a total of more than 200 unanswered basic questions and unsolved mysteries today in all areas of science.

While this is fascinating for some people, others are scared. If science does not offer certainty, where do I find certainty at all? In religion? In superstition?

This is obviously one of the reasons for the phenomena of creationism and science rejection in some parts of the US population. I think it's also a reason for the lack of a "creationism theory", aside from the apparent difficulty to sell a belief system as a scientific theory. For delevoping a theory, you had to apply the very scientific methods that you reject.

The only problem is that neither creationism, nor religion is the safe haven that you're looking for.

Religion also changes. Christianity today is very different to Christianity in 1000 AC. And creationism, if it wants to survive, can't remain unchanged either. It has two choices in the long run: either further isolation, or further adaption to its arch enemy, science. The latter was the creationism strategy so far in its attempt to enter the US education system; this failed. Maybe its isolation now. Indications for this are that creationists do little or no research, don't publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals, don't even want to discuss creationism with non-believers, and are mostly occupied with putting up websites and papers that are only taken seriously by other creationists. Whatever the future will bring for creationism - it does not look bright.