There are no creationists who oppose the scientific method, what is that? The method consists of a systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification. In cement like volcanic ash, footprints was discovered in 1978, paleontologist Ian Tattersall called a fossil of human behavior, prehistoric walking since it was assumed by the evolutionary time frame to be 3.66 million years old.
However, in 1990, a study challenged that very notion, biomechanics was used and it showed that the tracks i the volcanic ash resembled modern humans, and last year in 2010, another study confirmed as such which said the footprints “walked with weight transfer most similar to the economical extended limb bipedalism of humans.”
So how are things like this, bad for science? Why are researchers continue to question the footprints? Because these particular footprints were discovered in sediments deemed to be too old which makes it enormously complex to the point that even a Darwinist is unable to draw a reasonable conclusion (in his eyes). It would basically mean that modern man descended from an ape-like creature that existed after modern man was already alive and walking!
So these footprints which look like modern humans because they are, an old saying goes, if it walks like a duck, it’s a duck. It’s not half duck and half fish no matter what time line it’s in. Likewise evolutionists are creating something in order to fit it in their story which they believe is fact. The footprints would have to come from something half ape from the waist up and half human from the waist down. There is no scientific data that requires such a creature, only in the minds of men who believe in the evolutionary story. This why it’s bad for science.
Another example, one blogger in UC puts it this way…
“Darwinism is the only ‘science’ that has no real evidence, and requires force of law to keep it in public schools. Not to mention a large sum of money from public taxes to keep its ‘religion’ running.”
He is referring to a comment made by Ian Binns, a science education researcher at Louisiana State University, who suggested that Louisiana’s, law passed in 2008 was not accurately describing established scientific theories such as evolution as controversial while “tells our students and teachers that there are problems that there aren’t” and distort their understanding of the nature of science…” Ian Binns, where does it state in the law that evolution is controversial? This particular science educator is misleading the public, here is what the law actually says…
“C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.”
“D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.”
The law doesn’t undermined evolution in its ‘theory’ status neither does it label it controversial which is what Ian Binns is suggesting rather it treats it like any other scientific theory that is geared toward the scientific method rather than a religious ideal which requires students to drop their own religious convictions to conform to the teachings of evolution which Ian Binns has in mind with presenting the ‘theory’.
Evolution’s ideal consists of using it as a intelligent designer. Often times it is misused in this way, just recently in science daily, evolution was referred to as a “force that led to multicellularity”. Keep in mind natural selection doesn’t put orders in for the mutation to follow enabling it to obtain new information for better fitness. It’s a totally mindless process, which ones assumes that accidents and errors can design engineering feats (stuff happens) that has only been observed happening with intelligence doing certain engineering feats.
Evolution is bad for science because it goes beyond the scientific method for its story, even greater, the belief in it has caused some educators to use indoctrination for teaching it. No other scientific theory requires such an indoctrination.