I didn't name call. "Creation science" is not science. I'm not saying anything bad about people who believe in it, other than they don't follow the scientific method. That's hardly name-calling.
Science isn't about magically knowing all the answers. It's a process, in which knowledge is slowly built. Modern science doesn't pretend to know all the answers to everything. Creationists do. Real scientists know that a lack of complete knowledge does not mean that existing knowledge is false.
Once creationists admit that their premise could be wrong, and evolution could be right, then I'll debate them. Scientists admit that their premises could be wrong. Evolution, however, has been tested and tested and tested.
IDers admit that evolution is a fact. That I can respect. If they want to believe that god shapes evolution, that is their right and I can respect that. Creationists? Nope. Won't pretend that's anywhere near science. I admire their beliefs in the face of all evidence, but I won't presume to try to change their minds.
The only scientists who don't believe in evolution are those who decided that they wouldn't believe in it before they started. That's a position that no one can debate with, as they have already shown that they don't want the truth, only their dogma.
Horatio,
"Science isn't about magically knowing all the answers."
Many Naturalists project that they know more than they actually do. Macro-evolution is a case in point. They don't know the processes but believe in the magical Darwinian mechanism, that in a thermodynamic sense is no mechanism at all.
"It's a process, in which knowledge is slowly built. Modern science doesn't pretend to know all the answers to everything. Creationists do. Real scientists know that a lack of complete knowledge does not mean that existing knowledge is false."
Creationists don't pretend to have all the answers -- though they do argue that evidence does support the creationist framework.
"Evolution, however, has been tested and tested and tested."
There has never been a case where evolutionists have demostrated macro-evolution in the lab. It is speculated that macro-evolution is possible based on the evidence from micro-evolution.
"IDers admit that evolution is a fact."
Some IDers do and some do not! The ID movement is a large group of people that challenge the naturalistic assumption that random mutations alone can produce the complexity that exists within life.
"Creationists? Nope. Won't pretend that's anywhere near science. I admire their beliefs in the face of all evidence, but I won't presume to try to change their minds."
Creationists start off with different presuppositions than naturalists -- that God exists and has brought about the creation. No matter ones perspective, you need a framework or starting point to enable science to be conducted. If one throws out the possiblility that God may exist, then your science is effected. Assuming naturalistic causes, when actually dynamic and constrained initial and boundary conditions occured, skews the results causing one to favor the naturalistic assumption. Creationists use the scientific method just like naturalists, though the presuppostions are different.
"The only scientists who don't believe in evolution are those who decided that they wouldn't believe in it before they started. That's a position that no one can debate with, as they have already shown that they don't want the truth, only their dogma."
There are many scientists who examing the evidence find the Naturalistic straight jacket on science dangerous and harmful for science. They find the notion of nature self-producing complex systems absurd and devoid of logic. Also, these same people tire of the evolutionary dogma that gives "just so" stories to explain the development of complex systems.