ringo writes:
Learning to regurgitate onto a test paper while secretly rejecting the evidence is faking it, yes.
Is someone who understands a now falsified but formerly accepted scientific theory to the point where he could "regurgitate" it accurately faking it?
Anyway, accepting the label for the sake of discussion, I don't think there are too many creationists out there "faking" an understanding of evolution. Most creationist rejections of evolution that we see here are based upon profound misunderstandings of evolution, and it isn't even unusual for some prominent creationists to share these misunderstandings, such as those of banana and crocoduck fame.
Dover has had a profound influence on how informed the average creationist is on the details of the creation/evolution debate. Creationists coming here today well exceed their predecessors in their ignorance of both scientific and creationist interpretations of the evidence, and of course of the evidence itself. Even if "faking it" is the correct label, I see little evidence of any faking. Most creationists have an incredible amount to learn before they could even hope to attain what you call "faking it".
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
