Let's start at the beginning; a very good place to start. Why do we have standards at all?
Evolutionists think that evolution occured, and all that that entails. Creationists think that it did not. The core of the debate is, and always will be, the opposition of these two views. What do you think that means? I consider that it means each side is trying to convince the other, because of opposing viewpoints, etc., and that it is relevent to the world at large because creationists do not want evolution taught and evolutionists do not want creation taught. In the end, it comes down to each side trying to convince the other that they are right - or else why are we here? Why is there debate at all, why are there so many people trying to ensure that one side or the other is taught in schools? I for one doubt that it is anything so noble as "providing another perspective on life". No, it boils down to nothing more than trying to convice people, for
both sides.
So how do we conduct debate? Each side says, "Convince me!" and they begin to present what they feel is compelling or convincing. At this point, I feel that creationists stall outright. In their opinion, the bible, prophesy, and philosophy are very, very convincing; not so for the evolutionists. Why should they give special treatment to one holy book out of many? Why should they take Christian scripture as being valid, when even the Christians cannot agree on what is metaphor and what isn't? It is impossible to convince them using anything but what they accept, and that is limited to science. Fine then, the creationists say, we will use science - and from this we have the myriad pseudo-scientific creationist arguments.
An example:
Creo: "Genesis is true, because the bible is the word of God!"
Evo: "Well, how do you know it's the word of God?"
Creo: "Because I have faith in God."
Evo: "Well, I'm not Christian, so you'll have to show me some evidence."
See what I mean? It's easy preaching to the converted, but preaching to a non-believer is a waste of time. Nothing from scripture will be enough to convince them - and many will probably be less likely to take you seriously. You may try to convince them of the veracity of the bible, which is a whole other matter considering how skeptical they may be (as far as I can see, it's usually impossible).
Conversely, evolutionists try to convince creationists using science. The difference here is subtle, but important; where evolutionists reject the bible, prophesy, etc. outright as evidence, creationists must accept science in some form due to the world in which we live. It is impossible to live in modern society without utilising science in some form; the same is not true of Christianity or even religion. So the debate falls down to "different interpretations" of evidence, based on personal bias - and all that
that entails.
Evo: "But if Genesis is true, then why {insert any evidence for evolution}?"
Creo: "That's just your interpretation of the facts!"
Evo: "Well, why should we use your interpretation instead? What's it got going for it besides including Christianity?"
And there the debate stalls, because that last question has never been answered as far as I'm aware. The reality is that science is the only common ground between the two sides that may be used as evidence, and unfortunately evolutionists generally have the advantage there. That's why both sides are held to
scientific standards; it's the only area that both sides can accept to any degree, and it is in some way consistant (in that I mean that personal opinion or faith is mostly irrelevent).
As an aside:
quote:
I'm sorry, but the posts clearly indicate this. Regardless, if this is Evolution vs Creation, it is only fair to let both sides include what they feel is relevent to the debate, otherwise, the other side is hijacking the process. If you say science is relevent, fine, we will do our best. You think we haven't made a good scientific case. Fine. Fair enough. You have had your fun, now allow us to introduce what we feel is relevent to the debate. If you were to spend but a little time in the spiritual realm and explain why we are wrong there like you show that we are wrong in science, why, you would win the whole debate. Give it a try. IT IS FAIR!!!
—"Maestro232"
When you are trying to convice someone of your views, using evidence that they feel is irrelevent is not going to help. Talking about God and the bible in a debate with an atheist is simply not going to work, and expecting it to is just being naive. That is why creationists resort to science, and why we have things like Intelligent Design, the hydroplate hypothesis, catastrophic plate tectonics... and so on. But using science means being held to scientific standards, period - and it's been noted before that science is utterly heartless and makes no exceptions for pet theories.
No, it isn't fair. But that is the choice that creationists must make; use the bible, prophesy, philosophy, and theology and be completely disregarded, or use science and at least have a chance. That's why we use scientific standards, and why other standards probably won't work.
(BTW I know that many evolutionists are theistic, not all creationists are literalists or YEC or even Christian, and there are many scenarios I haven't addressed, but I'm using generalities to get to the crux of the matter. I'm not sure how well I'm doing either. Sorry.)
Is the standard applied fairly to both sides here? I think so. However, evolutionists are usually scientists well used to that standard; creationists are not. Also, evolutionists are more likely to be speaking from personal expertise (i.e. I'm a geologist) and so maybe don't back up what they say every time. That is not an excuse, of course, but it is some explanation.
Perhaps creationists need to be reminded more often to back up what they say, link to reliable sources, etc. - and so it would seem that they are treated more harshly than evolutionists.
*whew* Long post. I hope it's useful.
The Rockhound
"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."
™ Version 4.2