"What I object to is people who cannot present a clear definition of evolution demanding to have an influence over how it’s taught.
I have yet to see an evolution critic who could argue the affirmative for evolution — a simple prerequisite for engaging in debate.
It would be fun to see a thread where the usual suspects switched sides."
Actually, one of the confusing things here is that we may be seeing that happen.
I keep seeing earnest individuals promoting the idea that their belief system is provable in some way, with allusions to logical points and supposed scientific studies.
Then others will assert that the so-called Darwinists are not to be believed because their conceptual framework is "a religion". One might be led to the supposition that they thought it was a bad thing to have a religion as one's conceptual framework.
In this manner of "switching sides", it is immensely confusing to those observers who may not have been issued a scorecard, so as to know which players are on which teams.
What I don't understand is the tactic of using "guilt by association" arguments to link science to eugenics, Naziism, Communism, etc. while simultaneously trying to portray it as a "religion".
It seems to met that religion and theology ought to deserve better, particularly from people who profess to be dedicated proponents.
It is amusing to see people who are promoting religion turn the words religion and belief into pejoratives and turn the word science into the highest compliment.
So evolution becomes “religion,” meaning false belief, and intelligent design becomes “science,” meaning TRVTH.
That’s an amusing spectacle, but it isn’t exactly what I had in mind.
My idea is much simpler. Just see who could do the best job of arguing the opposition’s case.
That's simply in response to the demand from the evos that creationists/IDers provide *scientific evidence* to support their side.
They are challenged that there is no proof (evidence) and challenged to provide something a scientist would accept. And when they do, what happens? Just what happened in this post.
The sneer that we think our belief system is in someway provable is unjustified because there are many evos here on this forum who think that evolution has been proved to the point of considering it able to be called a fact.
Scientists themselves think that their belief system is somehow provable, otherwise they wouldn't keep referring to the *mountains of evidence* to back up their claims. They also make allusions to logical points and supposed scientific studies, and not all scientific studies meet the rigor they are supposed to, even if they do not contain outright fraud.