jonathansampson said:
mtz said:
*snip*

In order to find a cure for cancer we need to be investigating the behavior of cancer, and how it interacts with our biology - not how birds magically came from dinosaurs tens of millions of years ago. The latter benefits nobody but the fellow who suckered out the grant money.

With regard to 98% similarity between Creation Paradigm and Evolution Paradigm, I don't know of a resource for you. To be completely honest, it's my perspective and not one I've gotten from any place online. Why do I suggest they are so similar? Because they both are predominantly the same scientific knowledge, with a minor interpretation difference. Chemistry is the same in both, Physiology is the same in both, Astronomy is the same in both, Geology is the same in both, etc. It's all really the same in both Paradigms, with the exception of the interpretation given by the researcher.

AIG does a good job of pointing out that this isn't Science vs. Religion, which is sort-of what I mean when I say "both are very similar," because it's Scientists vs. Scientists - and both sides use the same Science.

How do I define a Creationist? I suppose one who thinks the Universe was Created an intelligent Being.

With regards to teaching ID in schools, no. I don't support it. Nor do I suppose Creation in the curriculum. I do support debate and discussion though. I think the students should be able to discuss whatever they wish without the local atheist group getting all pissed off.
jonathansampson,
you are more of an intelligent design person than a creationist ..i thought creationist is a person who believed the world came into existance according what the bible says ..i looked it up and there are the definitions i got from dictionary.com

1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.
3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

url : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationist

of the three, which one do you subscribe to? i noticed you have used the capital "C" when writing "creationism" ..does that mean you go with the second definition?  if so, then the GOD you are talking about is the jewish GOD since the definition is talking about the bible , right?

the paradism are different, if you go with the above definitions ..creationism starts with "GOD created the world according to what the book of genesis says" and then move on from there ..all the conclusions and hypothesis starts and end in that book and that is why you can not have anything older than 6000 years old with this theory

on the other hand ...evolutionism(like any other scientific theory of how complex systems are formed) starts from saying that all complex entities starts from combination of simpler entities and evolution is trying to explain the complexity in living organisms  ..there are other perspectives too like what quantum mechanics people and relativity people are trying to do

 ..scientifically, it is really the same questions that drives those scientists who wonder about the relationships btw dinosours and birds, the the forces that govern the world of the very large(relativity), the world of the very small(quantum mechanics) and whatever those people at that hydrogen collider are up to(i believe they are most quantum mechanics people)

..all of them operate on the same general principle, basic entities form complex entities and these basic entities could be, inturn complex entities in themselves depending on how "close" you choose to look at them..fundamentally, here is where science differs from creationism(as mostly defined in the 1st definition)

how exactly can you logically "add" a GOD's hand in the formation of the periodic table?  if you go with definition 1 ..did GOD created the periodic table? ..if he did, logically, HE seem to add one proton to an already existing elements and scientists use this knowledge to add more elements to the periodic table(the ones HE didnt feel like adding for whatever reason) .. to be able to add new elements ..scientists must first start with an assumption that heavier elements came from previous ones and all they have to do is add more protons to form new ones(and a bunch of neutros to stabilize the nucleaus)

can i come up with any useful information that came from dinosour research? no ..but i am sure that link is crucial in understanding how animals relate to each other and how they evolve(you will have to be a pro/anti evolution though to take on such question) ..what is the use in researching dark matter and dark energy and galaxies billions of years away from us? how about what make up sub-atomic particles?..if anything, they increase our understanding of the natural world ..the world that didnt start 6000 years ago