It is certainly refreshing to engage in high level, intelligent discussion as opposed to the more conventional internet fodder of “who would you want to date more” and endless flame wars. I thank you for raising the average intelligence of the Internet, if even by a small fraction.
Welcome to the board montezuma999!
’Nilla, I did not mean that as a criticism of how you’re raising your son, but as an example of the “conflict of data” problem that kids (including your son) are apt to run into when they confront science and religious doctrine and they appear to contradict. I’m sorry if you took it as a judgment on you personally.
Hello Ruby,
You will also find some lively discussion of this topic here:
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php
Please ignore the Humo(u)r Forum, unless you enjoy jokes, parodies and satire.
Yes. It is refreshing. For high level discussion of this topic you can also check here:
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=6
Some of the posts are over my head, but it’s a great place to learn about the topic and it’s a very professional environment. They don’t tolerate any nonsense.
GOM -I could be mistaken, but aren’t both of those messageboards ID boards?
Here’s the C vs. E debate from another angle:
http://www.iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=58
This is from the internet infidels discussion forum.
Yes. You will find there are IDists, evolutionists and creationists all posting there. You get a more reasonable balance when all sides can participate, imo. It seemed like one or both of them might be helpful, or interesting, to some of the posters here. There have been a number of different links posted in this thread already, if you are objecting to my posting two links. I can’t quite tell…
No, not really objecting, I was curious because as I said they were both ID websites. I haven’t had that much experience with them, so I’m not sure as to if they are well balanced or not. If they are, then that’s fine and if they aren’t that’s fine too. I figured I might as well post a link that isn’t an ID site, in case it isn’t well balanced.
Okay. Sounds fair to me…
Ooops.
I just looked at your link. You consider infidels a balanced site? I haven’t been there, but that’s not the reputation of infidels I have heard…
For example, I doubt I would be welcome there.
I was balancing out the ID boards you posted, I wasn’t trying to present the infidels as a well balanced site. FWIW, I think the straightdope is one of the most fair and well balanced site out there.
I would just like to add that I think the infidels are more balanced than some other web boards I’ve seen .
GOM, you criticise the Infidels messageboard without having seen it, on the presumption that creationists aren’t welcome there.
Would you be willing to criticise the ICR messageboard on the same grounds? After all, they not only forbid any evolutionist to post there, they also edit posts that are pro-evolution (or even ones that ask too many questions about creationism) into pro-creationist hurrahs, without even indicating they are doing so.
I’d also like to ask a second question. Obviously the Infidels site isn’t balanced, any more than, say, a pro-Christian site is balanced. It’s meant to present a particular viewpoint.
But does that necessarily mean that the information there is unreliable? I find that fundamentalists generally dismiss the information at the Infidels site as being unreliable, but I have never seen anyone substantiate such claims.
Science isn’t supposed to be balanced. Evolution is a fact and that’s the end of it. There’s nothing to debate. Creationist and ID arguments are demonstrably false. They merit no more “fair” consideration than a flat earth debate.
I totally agree with you on all your points. I did have a question: Is ID and Creationistic type research a total waste of time? The problem I see is that some creation researchers use dishonesty in their research. Is it actually possible to try to search (scientifically) for God in the universe?
That can’t be true, can it? That’s a hideous practice for a “scientific” MB.:eek:
Of course it’s possible to search for God. As long as the methodology is honest and empirical. The problem comes if you presuppose a result, and then skew, misinterpret or misrepresent the evidence to fit that presupposition. Scientists have been guilty of that too, but Science is a self-correcting discipline. Religion is not.
BTW, you didn’t ask, but I don’t have a problem with theistic evolution. Looking for transcendent implications in the physical world is perfectly noble and defensible-- as long as such an endeavor is honest about the physical world.
From what I’ve seen, IDists are nothing more than Creationists who’ve taken up a certain not-dead-yet-argument of the month.
Bleeah! (But don’t think I’ve gone off the deep end and joined ICR!! :))
Evolution is a theory. But that’s not denigrating its status.
Facts are data. Theories are tested hypothesis to make sense of the data.
Don’t fall into the Creationist trap of thinking that “theory” means something less than “fact” – it means something more.