Phat writes:
Is there more than one point of view regarding the interpretation of evidence?
Creationists are trying to claim that their position is supported by
scientific evidence. To make such a claim they have to use a scientific point of view and interpret the evidence scientifically. This means they have to have a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. They have to use objective criteria and methodologies for testing those hypotheses. If they don't, then it isn't scientific.
For example, how do creationists determine if a fossil is transitional? From what I have seen, they claim that no fossil can be transitional no matter what it looks like. There is no fossil you could ever show them that they would accept as being transitional. That is not scientific. Scientists, on the other hand, measure the features of a fossil. They then compare it to other fossils and living species. If a fossil has a mixture of features from two other groups then it is accepted as being transitional. That is how real science works.
Do you have a preconceived bias that all YEC spokesman are dishonest? If so, are they willfully ignorant? (Can anything be meaningfully discussed between both sides?
I only know of one YEC spokesperson from a major creationist organization that I would consider to be honest, and that is Dr. Kurt Wise. He freely admits that the evidence supports evolution, but he is a creationist because that is what his religious beliefs require of him. I don't know of a single other YEC spokesperson that has dealt with the evidence honestly.
Does this lead to a bias? Yeah, it probably does. When 99% of a group are verified con artists, it is pretty hard to ignore previous experience when you meet a new person from that group.
If so, are they willfully ignorant? (Can anything be meaningfully discussed between both sides?
With respect to YEC spokespeople from creationist organizations, there can't be meaningful discussion when one side is lying, and knows that they are lying. There can't be a meaningful scientific debate when one side has already decided that their conclusion will never change no matter what evidence is presented. For example, how can they even pretend to be honest when they use quote mines that completely distort what the source was saying? How could Duane Gish continue claim that human cytochrome c was more like bullfrog cytochrome c than chimp cytochrome c, even after being shown multiple times that this simply wasn't the case?
As for forum goers, I do think that a lot of new YECs that come to forums like these are ignorant of the evidence and of science in general. I assume that they simply don't understand the topic, and strive to educate them on how science is done and the evidence that exists.
Should we expect both sides to respond to the questions from the other side?
We should expect both sides to address the evidence that is presented, and do so in a scientific manner.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.