You can call people who have alleged relevant backgrounds conservative if you like, but for real, they ain't conservative, and out here they ain't relevant.
I have been around the block, and the so called relevant backgrounders are worse than any mob names that you could ever hurl at FReepers.
Those so called "relevant" types, were in many cases, intolerant, smug, arrogant, and BS artists who have not likely done half the reading that this here particular High School dropout has ever done.
So what you are basically saying is that in order to be conservative, one cannot be a scientist with stronger knowledge of evolution? In all the years I've been here, the crevo threads have been brutal, but the proponents of evolution have consistently had rational, well researched and well cited posts. Creationists, on the other hand, have been caught, multiple times, essentially, and IMHO, "lying for the Lord." Being a creationist is not a requirement for being conservative. Like From Many - One has said, without techical people posting haere anymore, these threads are nothing more than echo chambers so the choir can sing to themselves. It's political masterbation.
I am not saying that.
I have taken Microbiology courses, A & P, Biology, and a few others. I believe that I have some grasp of the debate positions
If I have to express a position then I will say that their Theory of Evolution is a "Scientific Theory." That is, it is not the word "theory" as defined by most people.
It is a poor description of an explanation of a vast collection of works that are intended to describe just what the cause, course, and processes of biological life forms are about.
Evolutionists, in the debate club, are coming from a position of presumed authority which is contrary to the "scientific method" and additionally they are it seems to me preset in their opinions on the matter.
They want it both ways. Darwin did not intend to explain "the origin of life" despite the fact that he titled his big work "On the Origin of Species."
OK, ,,,probably non sequitor, but still, the Crevo threads were full of know-it-alls who really after all (IMHO) never really were open minded, and on the other side a bunch of folks who could not argue coherently about the real aspects of TOE because among other reasons, they did not know what they were talking about.
The Bible states that God created Heaven and the Earth. It does not take more than a single page to get to that fundamental claim.
When people choose to debate things then consideration ought to be given to just exactly what the other position is, and where the adherents are coming from.
Do you mean to imply that the Evos were not largely condescending and arrogant out here?
If folks want to discuss the cellular structure of Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes, DNA, RNA, Mitochondria, hydrophils, Golgi Complexes, reticular this or that then there is no real conflict.
When folks are intent on undermining fundamental beliefs and principles, then they have crossed a line.
The Evos may all be bright people, but they certainly have proved that they have no place in a forum that is intended for discussion of issues based on common sense and reasonable positions.
As far as I am concerned, the Evos can all get together in their little lab coats at some convention someplace with their nerdy little note pads and play with each other.
They are no better than the folks who claim that a third trimester baby is still just a mass of cells or as they euphemistically like to put it "fetal tissue."
I know a little bit about a few things, and as I have been accused of, I do not mind thumping my chest every once in a while, if that is what it takes to make a point out here.