isn't that the position of most creationists? We see creation expressed in science, and see flaws in common scientific arguments.
The problem is that the flaws are invented by yourselves.
Its not that we oppose science, we just oppose the unscientific methodology of discarding alternative theories before testing them in an unbiased fashion.
But they're not really "discarded"... They're left unaddressed until actual evidence is brought forth. It could've been's and maybe it was's aren't scientific propositions if they aren't based on empirical evidence. There's no reason to waste time and money on them until they can actually be investigated.
If mainstream science willingly and in an unbiased fashion carefully tested the claims of creationists there would be no reason for all these websites,
No, that's not the problem. The problem is that science has shown that the Bible gets things wrong and contains errors. CreationistsTM simply cannot accept that as a possibility. So, they invent these "flaws" in science so they can focus on that instead of facing the fact that their cherished book isn't perfect.
That 'attack' on science is why these websites exist. It isn't that science really is biased against creationism and unwilling to address it, its that creationists don't have any empirical evidence and science ignores the unevidenced. Creationists feel slighted, but its nothing against them, personally. Its that their approach is unscientific from the get-go.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : proofreading by edit >.<
I can see why you would have that impression, and its your honest appraisal of the situation, but creationists see the obvious bias that you may be unwittingly supporting.
But the bias is only against unevidenced proclamations. Its not against creationists, themselves. Hell, I'm a creationist. It the anti-evolution portion of creationists, that just make up unevidence crap, that cry that they're being biased against. If they could just provide evidenced ideas, than there wouldn't be any bias.
For example in these threads, most of the time I'm just discussing facts, and yet the amount of unnecessarily emotional
Got any examples? This medium, online discussion boards, doesn't allow you to determine emotion. Take this for example:
OMG! HOW THE HELL COULD YOU WRITE THAT!!!!
Did you detect any emotion in that? Well, it had none, I just wrote it that way to make you think it did.
So what are you talking about, specifically, that was emotional?
most of the time I'm just discussing facts
But its your application of those facts that people are arguing against. Like when you show that yeast can have different mutation rates in high UV and then erroneously think that can also be applied to humans. When you're told it can't be applied to humans, you cry that people aren't dealing with the fact that mutations are affected by UV. Well, its totally irrelevant to the issue. Unfortuantely, you only see bias.
and unscientific comments is a bit disturbing if this site is representative of common scientific thought.
This site is representative of the evolution vs creation debate. It has all kinds of different "thought".
So I see the bias expressed numerous times every day on this very site.
Yeah, you see it... its just that you're wrong about what its towards.