Self-contradiction

[Mallon]

I've heard many special creationists argue that evolution should be taught as theory, not fact. Take, for example, the stickers that some fundamentalist Christians wanted placed on biology textbooks in Cobb County, which read:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Now, contrast this with the position touted by one disgruntled member of AiG:

When I first read Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, I remember thinking, ‘Evolution doesn’t come out well in this book.’ The lavish sprinklings of hesitant words like ‘perhaps’, ‘it is probable’, ‘could be’, ‘might have been’, and so on, left me wondering whether Darwin really believed he had a solid case for the naturalistic emergence of species. I thought that his chapters listing difficulties of, and objections to, his theory sufficiently demolished his case.

My question for special creationists is this: Which would you have? Is it worse that evolution be touted as fact? Or is it worse that scientists speak tentatively about the theory?
Why the double standard?

 

[shernren]

Mind you, that was written in 1995. Granted that creationists here have been known to contradict themselves in three posts ...

 

[Mallon]

Mind you, that was written in 1995.

Big whoop. This argument that evolutionists use "speculative" language and are therefore uncertain of themselves has been repeated more recently by the likes of Ray Comfort (gotta love the non-biology undergrads he picked to interview):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rHTN8Re1izg&feature=related

 

[shernren]

Haha. Well, you know, there are various public myths of how science works. One myth is that science is the Absolute All-knowing Arbiter of Knowledge - and of course creationists are absolutely sure of what they know, therefore they are more scientific! Another myth is the Galileo myth, the underdog-scientists-repressed-by-evil-dogmatists picture - and of course creationists are being ostracised and persecuted by the evil establishment, that's why they don't have any research!

Scientific creationism isn't really science, it's well-meaning fundamentalism trying to don the garb of public opinions of science. It's not being science, it's being what they think people think science is. And we all know what happens when you try to please everybody ...

 

[Vance]

Right, creation science is really apologetics. It is going out seeking evidence, NOT for a hypothesis you are testing to see whether it holds up, but to support a CONCLUSION you have reached which is based on theological persuasions.

If you are not willing to go where the evidence leads, even if it contradicts what you previously thought to be true, then you are not doing science.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

If this were to be placed on textbooks I would want another sticker that said, "This textbook contains material on gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the relationships between two bodies in space. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Shernren is correct in saying that there is a myth about Science in which it claims to know everything. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Darwin uses the kinds of words that AIG criticizes him for in this quote...

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/ridicule.asp
When I first read Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, I remember thinking, ‘Evolution doesn’t come out well in this book.’ The lavish sprinklings of hesitant words like ‘perhaps’, ‘it is probable’, ‘could be’, ‘might have been’, and so on, left me wondering whether Darwin really believed he had a solid case for the naturalistic emergence of species. I thought that his chapters listing difficulties of, and objections to, his theory sufficiently demolished his case.

Of course there are words like 'probable', 'could be', and 'might have been' just like it is 'probable' that gravity works, it 'could be' that it will continue to work as it does, and it 'might have been' that it worked the same in the past.

Furthermore, again in response to the infamous sticker that some people wanted placed on the textbooks, people need to realize that evolution does not speak to the "origin of living things", it speaks to the origin of individual species by way of their adaptation and evolution. The theory itself does not address the origin of the first spark of life. That is an entirely different theory.

Lastly, in regards to AIG, I find it hysterical when Creationists try to disprove the modern evolutionary theory by way of disproving Darwin. News Flash: Darwinian evolution is no longer even close to the dominate theory of evolution.

Anyway, I know this probably wasn't what the OP was looking for but that was my little rant.

 

[PaladinValer]

In my experience, when people begin to resort to double standards, it means the last grasping for straws isn't far behind.

Just more evidence (dare I use that word?!) of the inherit problems of YECism - if that philosophy must ultimately rely on the double standard, then it seems clear that some other better philosophy exists.