but there are also great websites that mostly stick to hte facts and evidences- and even if they present opinion as well as the science, their opinion certainly doesn’t invalidate the facts and evidences- it’s the strengths of facts and evidences that present the case- scientists are, allowed to, ... gasp.... give opinions in addition to the science they present-
And they have a tendency to go transparently and effortlessly from the facts and evidences to personal opinion and back without qualification, conflating and confusing people with what is fact and evidence and what is merely their personal opinion or interpretation of the evidence. If we let them do that, then people like Dawkins are going to feel free to inject their personal theology into the debate, and it turns into pissing match. You've seen what happens here. Is that your idea of how scientific debate is supposed to be conducted?
[[One thing at a time. Are there proponents of ID, here or elsewhere in your experience that use these websites or similar sources as their reference, or present similar arguments?]]
What are you suggesting? That a site heavy in opinion can’t supply relevent scientific facts and evidences along with hte opinion? IF those type sites present somethign scientifically relevent, I don’t see any reason why those sectiosn shoukldn’t be used- do you?
[[And they have a tendency to go transparently and effortlessly from the facts and evidences to personal opinion and back without qualification, ]]
EEEEEEEEEEEEK! you’re kidding me????? Psssst- Practically EVERY site that supports macroevolution does the EXACT same thing- Golly, whoda thunk scientists and others interested in science would have opinions? What’s htis world coming to? The nerve of those people!
[[conflating and confusing people with what is fact and evidence and what is merely their personal opinion or interpretation of the evidence.]]
Oh- it’s not so hard to determien what is evidnece and what is opinion- Heck- We Creationsits and ID proponents have to wade throguh mountains of opinion when we go to ‘science sites’ like Scientific American and Sites like Dawkins, and Miller and other such sites- Again- Psssst- Scientists and people itnerested in science ARE allowed their opinions, and it’s not very hard at all to figure out what is what-
[[If we let them do that, then people like Dawkins are going to feel free to inject their personal theology into the debate,]]
ahahahaha- good one- ‘Going to’? Ahem- Dawkins is nothign BUT opinion and personal theology- Ask him to back up his ‘Selfish Gene’ or ‘Religious virus’ statmeents with FACTS- sorry- but you apaprently are unaware that ALL science sites inject healthy doses of opinion an theological beleifs- Macroevoltuion is FULL of opinion an theological beleifs that both lack evidence AND contradict the evidneces
[[Is that your idea of how scientific debate is supposed to be conducted?]]
Show me a site that doesn’t- Demski’s site does it- ISCID site does it, Behe’s site woudl do it, The only ones that don’t are sites that don’t allow discussion- but every site that allows discussion- even between certified scientists, turns into pissing matches- What’s the matter? Afraid of healthy debate? again, the facts and evidences aren’t hard at all to seperate from opinion and assumptions- not nearly ashard as you’re tryign to make it out to be (but I note you only refer to Creationist sites and ID sites- apparently fully excusing Macroevoltuion sites?)
Look- MOST sites offer good evidence- BUT you have to wade through the opinions to get to the meat of the issues- and I certainly have NO problem pointing to ANY site that offers soudn and valid scinetific evidneces regardless of their opinions- IF the sicence is sound, and can be backed up by the science, OR leads to beyond reasonable doubt conlcusions,- that’s ALL that matters. Persoanlly, I don’t really like IRC that much as they do pepper with a healthy dose of opinion- however, that doesn’t mean they don’t present ANY scientifically valid arguments, and htye infact have presented soem very indepth and scholarly work, as have many other sites- to simply paint it all as irrelevent with a big broad brush is beign subjectively biased on your part, and for someone complaining about bias, you sure seem to be showing quite a bit of it yourself when generalizing sites based on opinions that get presented alogn with hte facts and evidneces- but whatever- just don’t expect us to buy into your bias- ID is fine- even if only bits and pieces get presented on sites heavy with opinion- either the facts and evidences stand on their own accord, or they don’t- but pointign to a site’s stated opinions, and tryign to refute the facts and evidneces based solely on the your bias agaisnt opinion isn’t very scientific itself.