Since the huge body of evidence supporting evolution is compelling to most
scientists, they should probably have not tried to begin with such as
sweeping statement. That may have been the problem. They could have easily
taken a specific series of experiments or body of data and tried to show
why the scientific method was not being used or why the data does not
support what it is thought to support.
>Your comments suggest that creation scientists or ID theorists regularly do
They do those things on nearly every creationist web page I've ever seen
and in nearly every creationist book I've ever read. The ARN website is a
case in point. It has a huge list of out-of-context quotes that
misrepresent what the original writers were saying. In scientific circles
this is considered to be unethical. In Christian circles it's probably
considered to be lying. Someone with a good case does not need to lie to
support that case. If you've got a million dollars in the bank, why bother
to write a bad check? Why would *any* creationist lie if evolution is so
flimsy and easy to refute?
>In fact every evolutionist I've known has at one time or
>another misrepresented evidence pertaining to evolution, refused or failed
>to scrupulously back up extraordinary claims, and willfully ignored the
>scientific method whenever it suited their purposes.
I've provided a concrete example of my claim (of creationists being
unethical) in the above website. Please provide a concrete example of
evolutionists being unethical.
> I mean, I've sat in on
>department meetings where the overwhelming evidence against evolution has
>been discussed and lamented,
provide an example, what evidence? if it's "overwhelming" surely you can
think of one piece of it.
>Susan Brassfield replied:
>perhaps you are at the wrong university. Most details of evolutionary theory
>are under constant examination. You may not have noticed that Evolutionary
>theory is always in flux (like nearly every scientific theory) and the
>discussion and questions are always ongoing.
>What you say is true, but what is discussed is how to hide the failure of
>evolutionary "theory" (doctrine really) to explain anything observed of the
>natural universe (without distorted or faked evidence that is). And the
>flux you mention (which I have noticed) is simply a desperate attempt to
>keep dancing as the barn burns down.
this is rhetoric. Give some concrete examples of what you are talking about.
Life is short, but it's also very wide.