Replies

Your hyperbole here on this thread far exceeds any of that from the "creationists" views that have been presented.

And I say that from a completely neutral standpoint.

I myself am an antagonist. I enjoy questioning the weakest points of both sides of an argument (not just crevo), of a philosophy, of a science, of a religion, etc.

The attitude and attack of a response is just as (or more so) informative as the content of a response.

I'm against creationists who attack evolutionist's evidence (some evidence does exists); I'm against evoloutions who attack creationist's (IDer's) science (some science does exist, especially when you get into information theory, origins, dna replication processes, etc.) -- I'm not defending either side, I'm pro-rational discussion that says there are many unknowns.

As someone who studied anthropology and have come to appreciate the scientific method as a way of understanding the world, I have discovered it is very difficult to discuss any precept of the Method with a creationist. Whenever I try to explain why I think the way I do, they go for the jugular of my faith, which has never been in conflict with the idea that the earth is older than 8000 years old. I can never get beyond that point because their arguments/questions/accusations then become about slapping down my particular view of God, rather than my original assertion that the Scientific Method has borne out some very interesting things about the world. Its as if the Scientific Method no longer counts, and I get very offended by that.

And once that emotional ball gets rolling, it gets down to a choice of keeping a civil face and shutting down the discussion, or getting into a highly emotional match with people who aren't a) using the same debating rules and b) aren't sticking to the topic...in which case, they end up "proving their point" by fiat.

And convinces me that creationists have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the genuine study (and heartfelt appreciation) of the world and its history.

I agree with an earlier poster : asserting a Scientific Method and believing that God had something to do with the object of the Scientific Method are not mutually exclusive of each other. Even trying to explain this to a creationist becomes an exercise in futility.

and then once they say that I am not a 'true Christian' because I "believe in evolution" (after having completely tuned out my explanation that the Scientific Method is not a matter of belief) all bets are off in my even considering giving them their argumentative due.

Guess what? Am teaching my daughter about early hominids as we speak!