Quote:
Originally posted by elaphe
Both sides have slammed each other. But to suggest that scientists involved in evolution do not have personal agenda because they are trained to be "objective" is rubbish. They are human too. they have agendas. And like it or not, these people do feel threatened by the creationist movement and find the time to make comments, like the one I sited earlier with regards to the "dinobirds".
|
Don't get me wrong-I know that scientists aren't all objective, I wasn't trying to make that point (I mean, Dawkins for one is clearly bias-IMO). My point though was that, for the most part, scientists involve themselves in a system that has checks and balances. If one scientist puts forth an idea, it goes up for an awful lot of scrutiny. Creationism isn't like this. In fact, AiG has attempted to get Hovind to stop spouting some of his arguments (IIRC, the moon-dust one, and some others). They realize that argument had no merit, but it doesn't stop Hovind from being one of the leading authorities on creationism.
I'd also like to repeat that neither creationism nor ID is scientific. Neither stand on their own, and neither offer any evidence (aside from attempting to debunk evolution-which isn't evidence *for* creationism or ID).
All that said, I am a theistic Christian evolutionist. I, like the majority of Christians, do not believe the bible to be inerrant (a simple read through of genesis should correct that belief
). Evolution isn't atheistic, and the whole dichotomy between creationism and evolution is, IMO, a false one.