[TN4Liberty]

No scientist worth ANYTHING would ever present “proof” of a controversial theory. Even theories that are more or less “proven” remain labeled theories because other, as yet undiscovered, explanations could exist.

Last night I was reading a CREVO thread. The contrast with this one is striking. It was the usual suspects hurling insults at one another, talking about how ID cannot be a theory or how Darwinism is only a theory, not a fact, etc.

If I accept your statement here (and I do), I see the basis for pursuing any theory to try to match data and observation to it, rather than simply saying that is can't be. I wonder how the CREVO discussions would be different if the would only take your approach... let's set up the theories and look at the evidence and continue to challenge both theories. It will never be settled, but inquiry could continue on both theories.

Ah well, perhaps that is happening in one of those parallel universes.

[Grizzled Bear]

Last night I was reading a CREVO thread. The contrast with this one is striking.

---

That’s because too many on both sides of the CREVO argument are more concerned about being “right” than in truth and honest, respectful debate.

I still get pings and read the articles. I stopped reading the comments.