Warp wrote:
>   There's a difference between an attitude like "I think this is a very
> plausible theory, and I'm going to try to find even more evidence to
> support it", and "this theory is the truth, and anyone who doubts it
> is nuts and deserves ridicule".

Scientists don't say that second thing. They say "you're theory is nuts 
and deserves ridicule, as does anyone who believes it."

The first step of trying to put forward a scientific theory is to 
explain at least one actual fact.

I don't know of *any* actual fact that creationism explains.

>   However, debunking and ridicule are two different things. The former
> shows scientifical thinking, the latter shows arrogance.

I disagree. Debunking only works on the rational. Ridicule stirs up the 
emotions enough that the misled feel a need to interact.

>   Another typical attitude is that anyone who presents even the slightest
> opposition to the idea that evolution is the whole Truth, that the evolution
> theory presents exactly and accurately what happened, must be a creationist.

I've noticed that. I'm told it's something the creationists brought on 
themselves. Since creationism isn't an actual theory that explains any 
actual facts, the "theory" of creationism is "evolution isn't the right 
theory." So if you doubt evolution, you're likely a creationist, at 
least in the eyes of people who know what's going on.

> The attitude seems to be "if you can't present any counter-arguments or
> scientifically plausible alternative theories, then you simply must believe
> in the theory of evolution as presented". It's as if it was completely
> unscientifical and illogical to doubt a theory if there exists no plausible
> alternative. 

If there's no plausible alternative and nothing difficult to explain 
with the theory in hand, then it is pretty illogical and unscientific to 
doubt it.  On what scientific or logical grounds do you doubt that 
evolution is significantly correct, given that it's actually used 
regularly all around the world to create important products? It's not 
hard to understand in broad outline. It's not hard to understand 
detailed evidence when presented well. The only reason to doubt it's 
right is "I don't like what it implies", which is illogical and 
unscientific.

That doesn't mean it's *wrong* to do so. Just ... illogical and 
unscientific. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message