Books By Creationists?

slevesque writes:Second, is it not, by itself, dishonest to read a book with the sole intention of ''debunking'' it; ie having come to a conclusion to what it is going to say even before reading it.

slevesque writes:I would not think so.I understand that you can't read a book without bias, and I can understand an evolutionist reading a book with a bias against what it is going to say. This is normal and not dishonest, especially if the intention is simply to better understand those with whom you disagreeHowever, reading it specifically to debunk it and show where it is wrong, even before opening a single page, and certainly NOT to just understand what creationist actually think, comes by as dishonest to me. (just think of how you would view a creationist reading an evolutionists book with this attitude)

slevesque writes:And once again, if we take an example from another context, if I, as a scientists, would review scientific papers with the intention of debunking it even before reading it ? Why would it be dishonest in that case, but not in the other ?

slevesque writes:We're talking in general here, not this particular case of ''the answers book.''What if you were about to read ''genetic entropy'' by Dr. Sanford ? Would it be dishonest to read it with the sole intention of debunking it ? Even considering he has made a great career in genetics, has believed in the theory of evolution for the majority of his career and just recently realized that YEC was true ?His particular case is interesting, since he fits nowhere in the ''either ignorant, stupid or insane'' false dichotomy.

cavediver writes: I disagree - in all seriousness, it means he fits all three to greater and lesser degrees.