(August 30, 2014 at 12:52 pm)Dolorian Wrote: I see this claim made rather often by Creationists / ID proponents when it is said that neither of those views should be taught as science in schools. The reason they say this is because they believe that their views are banned because "evolutionists" are afraid of honest debate.
But are Creationists / ID proponents really interested in honest debate? From what i can see they are not (just look at the Nye vs Ham debate), creationists in particular engage in so much misrepresentation that one wonders if they actually do so deliberately and not simply due to ignorance of the facts. They also don't really have a scientific outlook but rather presuppose the truth of the bible and try to fit the evidence to their interpretation of it.
ID proponents on the other hands seem to just want to poke holes at evolution and it's mechanisms without providing a scientific solution of their own.
By the looks of it neither of them want to play by the rules of scientific inquiry and research and when asked why they don't publish their papers in respected scientific journals, they claim there is some kind of anti creationist / ID conspiracy going on.
If anything, I think what "evolutionists" are "afraid" of is the subverting and undermining of scientific education that would result by introducing these ideas into the classrooms.
Has a creationist / IDer ever asked you this question when you discuss evolution with them? In their mind what can possibly be the harm in teaching both sides or the so called "controversy"? It is all in the name of honest debate. So why not teach both sides? What are you afraid of "evolutionists"? :p
You do know when it was published the Theory of Evolution was not falsifiable, it was simply accepted by the scientific community at large - in much the same way religion spreads.
While the Theory of Evolution has since been demonstrated to be broadly correct by genetics, we should not forget that it was easy enough to look back when we eventually had proof to justify our earlier 'presuppositions', wasn't it.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
