Issues concerning moderation and the
Forum Guidelines has been raised several times, so I will attempt to address these in one brief post.
What is and isn't science can only be decided by measurement against the definition of science. If the evolutionists in this discussion agree, and if they see a correct definition of science as being advantageous to their argument, then it is hard to understand why they're doing such a piss-poor job of defining science.
The criticisms against creationism as science advanced in this thread appear to be:
- There is no evidence that they would consider as falsifying.
- They don't do peer review.
- They ignore evidence.
I've seen no answer to the first about falsification.
The answer to the second about peer review that has been proffered is that creationists publish quite a bit, but to the public, which is the whole point. Peer review is about putting your research results before peers, not before the public. Peer review is essential to the process of replication, a key quality of science.
The above comment should not be interpreted as taking sides in the debate. Moderators should strive for neutrality, but that quality does not include feigning ignorance. Peer review does have a definition, and it does have a clear function. I know what it is and what it's for, and I will moderate any discussion involving peer review with that knowledge firmly in mind.
The third question about ignoring evidence has been poorly argued by both sides. There have been general assertions that creationists ignore evidence, and general assertions that creationists gather and interpret evidence.
All in all, a pretty poor job by both sides with some occasional high points, e.g., Straggler's last post.
-- | Percy |
| EvC Forum Director |