Showcase Forum Issues and Requests

Another difficulty I have with this EvC forum is that it is purportedly dedicated to the Creation versus Evolution debate, which is an issue that tramples all over the boundaries between science and religion. I see myself as a defender of the boundaries between these two. I consider Creationist "Science" and ID to be pseudoscience, for it is religious rhetoric pretending to be science. And yet I find this discussion of the implications of quantum mechanics wandering over the boundary into a philosophical and religous discussion and so I am puzzled as to why this happened since this has never happened to any of my threads in thescienceforum. And it my effort to discover the reason for this is what uncovered troubling things about this EvC forum. It was a moderator who put the thread in the science section, but the real trouble is that there is no proper place for my thread at all.I now percieve that this forum only recognizes a one sided boundary. Religion cannot speak on scientific issues but apparently it thinks that science can speak on religious issues. It sets up a large forum area entitled Science. If the science section was really science it would not pretend to address the issue of creation versus evolution at all, but at most would simply talk about evolution as would the classes in the Biology department at a university. At least thescienceforum had a religion section in which I could put a thread that I knew would go over the boundary into religious issues. By the way this EvC forum is set up, it seems to put science in the position of passing judgement on religious belief and that is very wrong. It is not the task of science to do any such thing.The section on social and religious issues does not balance the science section at all. The very title (not to mention subsections) clearly suggest that this is intended to be an objective discussion of religion and social issue and NOT to represent the religious point of view. So while I was initially impressed by the quality of discusssion here, I am quickly becoming disapointed. I think that the claim that this EvC forum provides a place for the discussion of the controversy between Creation and Evolution is a fraud. I can understand this as a counter to the fraud of Christians putting up Creationism and ID as science. But one fraud does not justify another.Maybe my thread belongs in Showcase after all. In fact, maybe the whole debate on Creationism versus Evolution belongs in Showcase.Edited by mitchellmckain, : added explanation

---

See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at Astahost.com

Your post, while interesting, is really only marginally related to this thread. I'll try to answer briefly, but if you want to discuss it further then I'll move it over into a new thread.The difference between the science side and the theology side is not so much the content as one of methodology. In the forums on the science side posters are expected to support there assertions with evidence, not ful scientific rigor evidence, but something more than "The Bible Says..."On the Theological or Faith side a different standard of evidence is allowed. There, a simple statement of belief is accorded greater weight than it would on the science side.If you look, you will find there are some parallels between forums in the two sections. Bible Accuracy & Innerancy on the science side looks at the Bible from an external evidentiary perspective while Bible Study on the Faith side looks at it in terms of internal content.The layout is not, of course, perfect. It has changed and evolved over time, and likely will continue to do so.

---

Well I shall think about what you say. I admit that the Evolution vs Creation issue is not an easy one to handle and you guys have been working on it a while, and I cannot claim experience in a similar effort.In "The implications of quantum qhysics", I clearly acknowledge that I am leaving the realm of science to discuss philosophy, to explore the nature of reality in ways that there can be no scientific evidence to support it. So I am still not entirely sure where this thread belongs. In thescienceforum I would have put it in the either the religion or philosophy section.How about something like a philosophy section. A kind of neutral territory which relies on reason alone and niether scientific nor biblical evidence. At least there should be a section like this under "Social and Relious issues". I mean you already know that I do not think the title "Social and Relious Issues" is quite right, but their should be a philosophy section somewhere. What about calling the "Science" section "Scientific evidence" and the other section "Other Considerations: Biblical, Philosophical and Social".

---

See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at Astahost.com

The organization of the site evolves over time. We've never been able to keep everyone happy at the same time, and being realists we don't try.EvC Forum was created to explore creationism's claim to be every bit as much science as evolution. The science forums are where this exploration takes place.The religious forums exist for a variety of reasons, one of which is to explore creationism's claims from a theological rather than scientific perspective.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

That is what I was afraid of. A place ruled by smugness for the torture of fools. Not much place in that for a Christian with contempt this creation "science" nonsense is there. As for educating fellow Christians I prefer to do this in an atmosphere of friendship. I shall leave the job of crushing humiliation for the more stubborn fools to someone else. I am more interested in reconcillation by a clear recognition of the limitations of both science and religion.

---

See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at Astahost.com

I think the smugness is about to diminish by one.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Are you suggesting that those Christians here who oppose

quote:

---

creation "science" nonsense

---

should leave?If you want to see changes here, then perhaps you would like to step up and help effect those changes. If you think other forums or other procedures can help, then no one has stopped you from proposing a thread to discuss it.

Hi MitchellI've been on this forum for a while and to be honest I am not always in agreement with admin, (I think they have over-reacted with randman as he does seem to get under their skin), but frankly they have kept the site from degenerating into a name calling free for all. Also, everyone seems to get a 2nd, 3rd.... etc chance.To be totally honest I find you a little quick to take offence but I hope that you really do stick around a while to get a feel for the place. Please don't be too quick to judge. I am a Christian with a sincere interest in things scientific. I have zero formal training in the sciences but I have found that my lack of knowledge is readily accepted and that there are many on this forum that I have gained insights from in both science and theology.I very much hope you stay around as I'm intrigued by your views. I liked your web site but I was very much interested your essays in this section. I highly recommend them to everyone on this forum as they are central to our discussions on this site.
Astahost.comI would like to see you use these essays as new topics for discussion. They are well thought out and well written and would lead into some very interesting discussions, and none of us have all the answers. This is a great place to learn from each other.Cheers
Greg

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

In my effort to describe and explain the uneasiness that I have been feeling about the setup of this place (this EvC Forum), I have used too much "eloquence" (more concerned with displaying my own clever use of words than with the feelings of the people I was writing to).It was not my intention to threaten leaving, criticize the administrators, or to tell anyone else what they should do. The word "smugness" was intended to explain my distaste for the activity I was describing not to pass judgement upon anyone, so my choice of words were not the best. Nor do I feel qualified to pass judgement on the efforts of this forum. It is difficult to compare with other forums because few are so ambitious to dedicate themselves to such a controversial subject.I really am a rather passive and inoffensive guy, quite unsuited to evangelism, prefering apologetics for Christianity. I can lose my temper but I assure you that nothing said in this forum has offended me. It is only I who have stumbled and offended others (perhaps). I am also not a great fan of debate, whether I am good at it or not, for I aspire to communication and I think debate is limiting. Debate can get a little too involved in playing games of rhetoric for the sake of victory.In any case, I was only expressing the difficulty I was having in finding an appropriate place in this forum. So... the Science section may not be a place where I will post very often (there are other options anyway) OR... maybe I will get more used to the place and understand it better with time. Edited by mitchellmckain, : spellingEdited by mitchellmckain, : more spelling

---

See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at Astahost.com

I hope so. In my opinion you have already made some useful contributions to the discussions. The occasion reminder to stay focussed and to avoid topic drift, tends to keep such games from dominating the discussion.

Anyone trying to force evos to stick to discussing evolution only and the data and facts is hounded by the evos here, accussed of trying to hide in debate, and even the mods sometimes will go as far as to ban people for doing that. It's unbelievable, but the evos here see no problem with demanding that you offer up creationist theories on any thread criticizing mainstream evolutionism. it's weird, but that's where these guys are on this forum.Oh, and of course, if you do offer up alternatives, you will be dismissed as offering something not scientific a priori. Nevertheless, evos don't generally see the hypocrisy of their approach.

I think you will find that they want alternative theories. They needn't be creationist. If you think you have a scientific hypothesis superior to the current evolutionary mainstream then you are free to present it. What people object to is a constant barrage of creationists/ ID proponents who only generate multiple arguments from incredulity about current scientific theories. They aren't offering scientific refutations of those theories based on evidence merely arguments from their own incredulity, look at Martin V and Faith's current postings on the A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it thread. In the absence of any more credible hypothesis however the current one is always going to be preferred.Simply claiming that the outcomes of these debates is because of 'evo' bias doesn't mean that you have shown it to be the case.TTFN,WKP.S. You also seem to be in 100% disagreement with Mitchell whose point was that currently evolution is the only scientific theory going and all ID and creationist speculations are purely religious or philosophical.

Hi Randman,Your difficulties here stem from your unwillingness to follow the Forum Guidelines or moderator requests, in particular your determination to make discussion personal, not from your position in the debate.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Actually, that's not it at all. The criticism of mainsteam evo models have nothing to do at all with incredulity, and everything to do with real facts and data contradicting evolutionary theories.Furthermore, it really doesn't matter if there is an alternative theory that is viable or not. If the current theory doesn't explain the facts and it does not, it is wrong. Simple as that.

I am applying to post in Syamsu's latest showcase thread "the intellectual enemies of freedom".I wish to make an inquiry to Omni's reply.My post will be completely relevant to the discussion.If one needs further evidence I will type what I wish to say and ask.