CSC

I don't even know where to begin.
I was reading an assigned article about Creationism vs. Evolution.
The article expressed how the clash between the two has led to an evolution of Creationist's tactics.
It started in the 20's by suing a school teacher in Kansas for teaching evolution.
By the 50's, evolution was entered into some textbooks.
In the late 60's, evolution was no longer banned from being taught.

In 1978, an article was written to the Yale Law Review in support of giving equal time to both creationism and evolution in the classroom.
To give additional clout to their theory, they now touted the name 'creation science' to sound as weighty as the theory of evolution.
By 1982, 'equal time' was ruled as unconstitutional in Arkansas under the first ammendment stating that religion was actually being pushed in public institutions.
This was found to be true again in Louisiana in 1987.

So since religion was no longer an option in fighting evolution as it is taught to our children, a new tactic in 1989 conceived to keep our children's minds clear of the concept that man evolved from earlier forms.
This came in the form of neocreationism. Their ideology was to eliminate the religious aspect of their agenda and only mention an intelligent designer.

In the mid 90's further development came when disclaimers were actually printed into textbooks or forcibly read by teachers to warn students that evolution is only a theory and it shouldn't confuse or clash with teachings of the Bible.

Lately, the new fad has been turning from elliciting alternative explanations (since they keep getting shot down) to simply trying to refute evolution as a theory.
In 2000, a private institution based in Seattle called the Center for Science and Culture (how non-religious and science-camoflagued can you get?) was founded.
I found an article on their website named Survival of the Fakest.

Its point is to tear apart evolution. It makes claims that embryos studied at the time of Darwin were fakes.
It claims that evolutionary theory is mere philosophy and circular reasoning is its only basis.
For instance, it states homologous structures (like the same bones in forelimbs/hands are found in relatively related species) are Darwin's evidence for evolution, but that Darwinists state that evolution is true through homologous structures.

He tears apart an analogy used by a scientist stating that Corvettes of different models like 53 to 54 to 55 can be compared like homologous structures from the same concept.
The author takes this analogy as literal and claims that the scientist "forgot to consider a crucial, and obvious point: Corvettes, so far as anyone has yet been able to determine, don't give birth to little Corvettes."
He brilliantly explains how people make these cars and thus this supports Intelligent Design becuase his simple analogy can be manipulated in that way.

My favorite is the peppered moth example that everyone hears in high school. This is the example of natural selection where pollution in England leads lighter colored moths to lessen in numbers as becoming an easier prey to the birds where the darker-colored moths survive because of the darkening of tree bark from pollution leads to their camoflague. Although the author may have a point where he claim situations of the experiment weren't natural; both moths were introduced in the daytime where the lighter moths usually hide during the day.
But he claims the moths were glued to the tree therefore the testing is falsifiable.

He attacks Darwin's finches and mentions Piltdown Man.
All he seems to do is find its weaknesses.
I guess that's a healthy tactic to negate a theory.
However, in the whole article, when using quotes, no references are mentioned.
And at the end of the article, his only references are a list of 10 science textbooks which he grades, giving none higher than a D+.
His grading scale dealt with how well the authors dealt with the subjects I previously mentioned that he attacks and attempts to debase.

So now that that's taken care of.
Evolution has apparently been debunked, what alternatives does the Center for Science and Culture bring forth?
I sure can't find it on their website.
I find letters of dissent from Darwinism, but beyond that nay-saying is all I seem to find.

Is it getting to the point where religion has convoluted the public so much that it's taking its worst enemy and entegrating with it solely to be "right"?

Will the Center of Science and Culture, or something like it, ultimately form a new religion based on an even further ambiguous deity who created vital parts of life (like humans), and left the rest to the laws of nature?
Are people so entrenched in the idea of God or the notion that they need some guidance in life that they will fall for something that seems most "true" or "right" simply because it is tied to science. It seems odd that in all other shapes and form, antievolutionists accept science except for its notion in evolution?
Because evolution conflicts with deeply-seeded notions of human uniqueness, they will create whatever lifestyle necessary to continue accomodate a self-aggrandizing sense of being.
As other religions seem less logical, unless they too evolve to fit science's ever-changing scope, people will always be duped by the evolution of religion to give their lives meaning and follow blindly.
Science is too hard. It makes you think.