What't the upper (or lower) limit of what it's reasonable to accuse someone of knowing only that the believe that ToE is plausible, and that they don't believe that Biblical creationism should be presented as a scientific theory unless it can be backed up with empirical evidence? No other information has been given about their political or religious beliefs.
Just for clarification, I’ve seen accusations of being atheist, godless, liberal, socialist, marxist, and Christophobic from differnt quarters in different contexts.
Absolutely, by the evidence all too often it’s not really about the science but attacks on Christain worldview. And then we see this tit for tat exchange ensue. Ideally, people discuss things rationally and when necessary agree to disagree without either side seeing a necessity to shut down the other side but this isn’t always the case.
I’m certain there are occasions that this happens between scientists, politicans and so on, but obviously the polarization in this country all too often precludes this, communication breaks down and then we see this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2086085/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2086138/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2086127/posts
MY personal experience has been it is the rabid anti-Christian far left that really has no tolerance and zero interest in anything other than their own worldview, and mostly, not always, but mostly what you see with the aforementioned “godless” “liberal” “atheist” is a RESPONSE to this intolerance and not a symptom OF intolerance.
In this outlook they have alot in common with their communist cousins. (Or in some cases brothers and sisters.)
What’t the upper (or lower) limit of what it’s reasonable to accuse someone of knowing only that the believe that ToE is plausible, and that they don’t believe that Biblical creationism should be presented as a scientific theory unless it can be backed up with empirical evidence? No other information has been given about their political or religious beliefs.
>>>>>>>Well personally I myself have no problem with ToE taught with the clear understanding it’s indeed theory.
And of course I agree with ID and that this ID theory better explains some of the gaping holes of ToE. ToE doesn’t submit valid “empirical evidence” that makes sense to me when it comes to origins. Not even close. That life just sprang up out of dirt with no purpose or intelligent thought behind it, totally random and all the perfect conditions just happened to come together by...chance? accident? The sheer astronomical odds are staggering.
I’m of the opinion that there’s room for everything and the science itself will survive a healthy debate.
But this is just my opinion...I wouldn’t think less of someone not knowing their worldview if they see ToE as PLAUSIUBLE, as I myself do!
But when they start making smart@ss comments about the Old Testamant or what have you, it’s PAINFULLY obvious to anyone that we’re not only wondering away from the science but these poeople are too intolerant to discuss anything with rationality in the first place.
And therein lies the problem.
It’s ridiculous to ask ID to PROVE itself when ToE can’t, all while undermining their efforts to even enter the debate in the first place!
Again, this leads rational people to believe EITHER the liberal lunatics have once again hijacked science to promote their worldview drowning out the few that are honestly interested in the science, OR those that are genuinely interested in the science aren’t as “objective” as they think they are or want others to believe!