Faith's Participation in EvC

Listen RickJB,
Page not found - Science Friday
I mean listen to NPR science Friday. Dawkins was just on with Ira and callers but catch the rythm and timbre that is NOT equivalent,not even as equivalent as your last two posts in this thread. This is supposed to be about FAITH the evc personality yes? And so... you posted this one.On NPR Ira had dreged up a quote from Collins who said to paraphrase "atheists have to have more faith"(than creationists) but also suggested the secular praxis IS NOT the place of what we see in our world. Ira then asked Richard to respond. Richard (in a way that I my self even can agree) said that "faith" is not something to be applied to non-religious things or some such (yeah, I think what Collins said of that was silly at best) but Dawkins DID NOT respond to the allegation that secular science environment DOES NOT reflect what natural existence is outside in our environs. By the time IRA had redirected the question BACK to Richard on this (now as guised as "totalitarianism") a caller had already expressed common sympathy with Richard Dawkins but Dr. D referred to "the fact" of evolution rather than the social context. As far as I understand this "fact" is no other than Carter's "evidence" which in 1959 was really only the difference in biology of the taxonmist and the physiologist.Now once you suggest that Faith here on EVC CAN

quote:

---

state her HYPOTHESIS that the flood MAY have happened and then go about assembling the evidence in a scientific way.

---

you seem to me at least to be obviating Faith from presenting creation in the same way Richard Dawkins just did "the fact of evolution" on NPR. Are you not suggesting that she can not state the "fact of creation" in the same way that Richard did the "fact of evolution." It seems to me to be the cardinal value added nature of EVC is that we can have both sides drawn out equally here where as on LIVE MEDIA we tend NOT TO GET (recieve)THIS. When you suggest that she can state a hypothesis AND THEn...are you saying she can not state a"fact" and theN assemble??????Maybe I misunderstood why you were posting in this thread. I dont konw for sure.

Just to clear my own point out of this thread.It is true I did not notice that RickJB's emphasis was on "SCIENTIFIC case" rather than "scientific CASE" which NWR noticed but you are correct about 'my' "point."If Ira had really wanted to make things equal for 'the sides' after Richard had said that he didnt want to disabuse a kid of his belief in the equivalent of a flat Earth, Ira should have re-questioned the good Dr. as to if there was not any way that the spherical nature an evolutionist(s)' thought, might not be rather flatened, not by what was wrong, with what the kid's (hypothetical) thought was but rather with what the "sphere" *did not say* about the world that was out there in Collins' sense. Ira was either not aware that there was any possibility here (through a double negative during live conversation) or was also in sympathy with Richard Dawkins.Without getting a response any better than "I suppose" from Richard it does APPEAR as a double standard when the callers' and hosts' sympathy replaces hard questions and answers which were what the listener like me was expecting when first tuning in. My personal guess is that the host did not want to spurn the guest.Edited by Brad McFall, : some punctuation