Every single one of the creationists here has told you yes, the moderation does seem a bit of a problem
Let's be realistic for a minute.
This is not an even debate.
If this were a debate about taxation, then moderators could be "fair" to both parties. That's because one group favors higher taxes, the other favors lower taxes, but neither group is "right".
It's just perspective, budgets and ideology.
It would be reasonable to expect that each group present evidence to support their claims, and that evidence would need to be valid.
But we aren't talking about a difference in opinion about taxes.
We're talking about reality.
One group believes that observable, testable, scientifically confirmed reality is real.
The other group believes that mythology is real.
One group presents evidence based in reality.
The other group offers denials and more mythology.
There can never be a "fair" moderator who will treat both sides equally, because both sides simply ARE NOT EQUAL.
The moderators have to choose.
A) They stick to a standard for evidence, and then treat people based on their ability to meet that standard.
-OR-
B) They make sure that both sides "score points" whether or not they are valid or supported in fact.
You seem to be complaining that the moderators have elected to go with A, just like the court system. You feel that having a standard for evidence unfairly prejudices the debate in favor of reality over make believe.
You are right. It does.
Tough.
™ Version 4.2
