Quote:
|
I am quite schooled...my words will judge me and not you
|
Indeed they have. They've helped illustrate the difference between schooling and learning, between being exposed to information and actually comprehending it. To disagree with concepts poorly understood does not discredit those concepts or even challenge them.
Those of us opposed to allowing creationism to pose as a science have read the statements of those behind the ID movement and the Bible, the source of the Judeo-Christian creation story. We read the sites of those suggesting creationism has scientific support. We have studied our opposition and can refute their contentions based on our understanding of their argument.
Creationists, in large part, never bother to fully comprehend science or more specifically evolutionary biology. They depend on other creationists, and their own subjective perceptions, to supply them with a limited and incorrect notion of the tenets they oppose. They don't "know their enemy" and therefore are poorly equipped to go into battle against those who don't accept their creation story. Those opposing them are not only advocates of evolution, but non-scientific atheists and those of other faiths with their own creation stories.
To attempt to debate a subject without having grasped the fundamentals of the opposing viewpoint leads to frustration and a failure to prevail. Bluster alone will not convince anyone. No one succeeds in a debate by putting their fingers in their ears and chanting "la-la-la-la". If you oppose evolution but cannot provide any reason to accept creationism, then you're basically indicating you either believe in neither or that you've chosen a position to take for no practical reason beyond faith.