Though rare, Creationists
have pulled out of certain debates admitting their wrongs. They generally say something to the effect of: the evidence doesn't support our opinion (but doesn't support evolution), there's always room for new evidence, and Creationists shouldn't use this point as an argument any more. Here is an example:
It is this part of the "retraction" that I wish to discuss here, as it clearly points to Creationism being a "social movement" if you will, as opposed to an open-thinking investigation of the facts through utilization of the scientific method. It is as if these very powerful Creationism "pushers" are calling out to their following asking that they now behave in a certain manner.
Certainly, the use of such tactics is not becoming of a scientist, nor of sellers of a scientific theory. The Creationist leader sermons to his congregation:
"I would ask that you no longer use this as evidence when debating an individual who believes in an old Earth."
His flock somberly moseys on out of the meeting hall, and with them they take his suggestion, and never again do the poor brainwashed folk use his mentioned argument when debating an old-Earth proponent. Where's the science in this? It seems as if a small number of Creationists own the market on what
is and on what
is not to be used/brought up when entering into a debate with a real scientist. Since when is power used to convince people of scientific facts? Who are these men who think they can stand up behind a podium, tell their followers something, and have it instantly be made true?
The only place we see this kind of behaviour is in a cult, not in a laboratory.
J0N
@admins: I'm thinking social issues in C&E? or maybe misc. topics?
Edited by Jon, : Changed Title & Added Subtitle.
In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin
On the Origin of Species