A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it – Jacques Monod

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record" [solon]

Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith

700  U.S. earth or life scientists who accept creationism / 480,000 U.S. earth or life  scientists X 100%
=  0.15% of U.S. earth or life scientists that accept creationism.

The above is quoted from Public Beliefs About Evolution And Creation at ReligiousTolerance.org.  which in turn referenced Newsweek magazine, 1987-JUN-29, Page 23 as the source for this data.

Court Cases

"Creation Science" ...is simply not science." Judge William Overton, McLean vs Arkansas

In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

Judge John Jones, Kitzmiller vs Dover Pennsylvania school district.

Judge Jones was a registered Republican and George W. Bush appointee.

U.S. legal quotations

The Supreme Court, Epperson v. Arkansas (1968):

“...the First Amendment does not permit the state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma...the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them.”

McLean v. Arkansas case (1982), the judge wrote that creation scientists:

“...cannot properly describe the methodology used as scientific, if they start with a conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.”

The Supreme Court, Edwards v. Aguillard (1987):

“...Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment.”

In Webster v. New Lenox School District (1990), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated:

“If a teacher in a public school uses religion and teaches religious beliefs or espouses theories clearly based on religious underpinnings, the principles of the separation of church and state are violated as clearly as if a statute ordered the teacher to teach religious theories such as the statutes in Edwards did.”

The 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court wrote in a California case (Peloza v. Capistrano School District, 1994):

“The Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while belief in a Divine Creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower ones is not.”

United States District Court Judge John E. Jones III stated thus in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005:

"We have concluded that Intelligent Design is not science, and moreover that I.D. cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedents."

From evolution.berkeley.edu

Transitional Fossils

Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of intermediary forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition. "Missing link" is a popular term for transitional forms. Numerous examples exist, including those of primates and early humans.

According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight. Contemporary "transitional" forms may be called "living fossils", but on a cladogram representing the historical divergences of life-forms, a "transitional fossil" will represent an organism at the point where individual lineages (clades) diverge. (Wikipedia)

The most recent transitional fossil was discovered in 2004, Tikaalik roseae, an intermediary form between fish and amphibians. This fossil discover is the subject of the book, "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin - a fish paleontologist. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375424474/bookstorenow30-20

A more thorough discussion of transitional fossils can be found the talkorigins website - a website dealing with mainstream scientific essays on evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#intro

Science and Evolution

Post: Scientific inquiry did not start out to prove evolution. Evolution as a discipline came about because of a combination of 19th century fossil evidence, animal observations, and scientific papers that gained acceptance in the field. It became a realistic scientific discipline in the 1930's and was largely accepted by the 1970's. With the help of genetics, it is a highly measurable field of scientific study.

People don't go into the field evolutionary biology in order to prove God doesn't exist. There are many believers among all scientists. Evolution as a discipline has no religious agenda. It's a field of measurements, DNA genome studies, anatomical comparisons, biogeography, and fossil remains.

Creationism started out in direct response to evolution in order to prove God created living things. Creationism as a movement only exists because specific Christians (but not all) feel that the study of evolution threatens their understanding of the Biblical account of creation.

"...for creationists evidence is not a means of testing presuppositions: evidence must be interpreted so as to corroborate them or one will fall into apostasy". - Richard B. Hoppe on February 25, 2009

Creationism can never be impartial. It's existence is based solely on disproving an idea. Science, by it's very nature, must at least strive to be impartial. That may not always be true, but when it's not true, peer review is in place to subjugate it to more tests. Creationism has no peer review within the field of biological science.

There is nothing wrong with having faith in the Biblical account of creation. That's the nature of faith. I have faith in several religious concepts, but I know they are not scientific concepts. That doesn't bother me.

It bothers me more to see the idea of Creationism be portrayed as impartial and scientific. That does no service to either science or Christianity.

"Taking into account all of these requirements, it's clear that the fossil record must be incomplete. How incomplete? The total number of species that ever lived on earth has been estimated to range between 17 million (probably a drastic underestimate given that at least 10 million species are alive today) and 4 billion. Since we have discovered around 250,000 different fossil species, we can estimate that we have fossil evidence of only 0.1 percent to 1 percent of all species - hardly a good sample of the history of life! Many amazing creatures must have existed that are forever lost to us. Nevertheless, we have enough fossils to give us a good idea of how evolution proceeded, and to discern how major groups split off from one another." (Why Evolution is True, P. 22)

Bertrand Russell's Teapot

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of skeptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This, of course, is a mistake.

If I were to suggest that between the earth and mars there is a china teapot revolving around the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

But if were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attention of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.