Asimov wrote
False, Creationists a priori have their conclusions and see which evidence can fit it. Science draws conclusions from the evidence.
My point was, Asimov, is that you were being bias in making the above statement, inferring that creationists aren't practicing science. This is always resorted to because of the threat that creationism presents. If they were taken seriously, it would possibly cause a great schism in main stream science, and would have tons of political and social ramifications. So, it is best to use a common practice of simple bigotry...simply do not see it as valid by using ridicule, or attempst to discredit the scientists themselves. And my favorite, methodological naturalism, to completely exclude them, and insinuate that they are not practicing science as the more "objective" evolutionists are. When evolutionists are not true to MN either.
Syntax wrote
Also important is the fact that the bias of scientists can be questioned. Start questioning a priest on whether or not he's too biased towards belief in god and you'll get asked to leave the church.
As far as the comment about church, I fail to see the how two are related. But if we are talking about a particular worldview being set forth by a priest...then, yes, he is bias. As are atheists, agnostics, denominations of every faith, creationists (as I said in my first post), and evolutionists (also stated in my first post). The peer review system that we have is, at best, an internal debate. No one is challenging, or revisiting, the main stream framework at all. This is very dangerous, and proves to me that we have not learned from our history. Creationists could be utilized to truly help test the framework of evolution if we all really wanted to practice good science.
I don't see what the argument is, unless you are somehow arguing that evolutionists do not interpret evidence based on their worldview, and perceptions of what they believe to be true about their theories, and previous interpretations of evidence. They do. The myth that creationists do not interpret evidence is the worn out excuse that I constantly hear, and it is a spin from the very biased attitude we are discussing. In fact, all of your posts here reflect it.
In evolutionist periodicals I subscribe to, I see how creationists are misquoted, and their interpretations are over simplified and twisted for the sheer purpose of ridicule. There is no respect on either side in the arguments I read, most of them. If we were going to strictly discuss evidence, and the problems with the interpretations of it, then that would truly be interesting. But what happens intead is this petty, wheel spinning debate that resorts in a "my worldview can beat up your worldview" scenerio. It rarely resorts in someone really wanting to make an attempt at being objective, and open minded. This thread is a prime example.
I wasn't lobbying creationism with Peace, btw. Just simpy suggesting that both sides should be considered, and taken seriously. My father, a biomedical engineer, and an evolutionist, is the person who taught me this. When I was in college, I learned the same stuff he did, and did not draw the same conclusions he did. I also became a biomedical engineer. (now a mom, btw) My dad and I have extremely opposing view points, but one thing he practices, and has taught me; "If you want to really learn, question, and grow...listen to the opposition, they are never afraid to point out your flaws. Reflect on what they have said, and if what they are saying is false, then let it roll off your back, if what they are saying is true, then search for the answer by using your mind to work the problem. This is the practice of someone who loves truth." I am bias, but I believe these are wise words.
Anyway, sorry to get so long, but I wanted to be clear about my point. I wanted to point out to Syntax that I was admiting that scientists on BOTH sides are bias...hence the need for a true peer review system, inho.
