mmnin said:
Good post kenzomatic. This is a good point and brings a new aspect to this discussion/debate. Why is it that one is so hard supporting one side or the other? Why does one HAVE to be right? Since we haven't been around millions (or thousands) of years to see the process in its exact, why do we HAVE to be set on one way or another as exactly what happened? So if that ONE WAY is wrong, we would all be wrong together? Psshh. It's the cat in a box scenerio. Certainly something could be in the box, or something could not. If something moves in the box, you could guess a cat, but it could be a squirrel, fox, or raccoon! Why does it have to be a cat, or no cat? What is so important that you have to take one of those sides, however many holes and unknown possibilities might be present? |
I completely understand a scientists aversion to ID and creationism. Science as a whole was set back centuries in the middle ages due to the pope and his minions. Galileo was sent to rot in prison till his death for simply stating that the Earth was not the center of the universe.
Vigorously defending scientific principals against ID (which is simply creationism disguised as science) is simply a response to centuries of repression. A time I hope we never revisit.
Scientific discovery is responsible for most of the conveniences we now have. This includes video games BTW. So if you love video games, creationism is not for you. 
