tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23374557.post-1159476055881114492006-09-28T13:40:00.000-07:002006-09-28T13:40:00.000-07:00It's interesting that despite his education, Mr. Wells simply wasn't able accurately address evolution. I've never seen an evolution denier who could actually do this. Even when they try to hide their biases and impersonate an "evolutionist", it's really easy to sniff them out.<BR/><BR/>I know that's not what Wells was doing but have you noticed as well that creationists universally are incapable of even pretending to represent the opposite point of view without distorting it to their pitiful caricatures?<BR/><BR/>And yet it's very easy for an atheist to "fake" the fruits of the spirit. There are, after all, atheist ministers afraid to leave their churches, and you never hear about anyone calling them out. There are also mock creationist websites that are extremely difficult to tell apart from the real ones. I mean, Objective Ministries is totally obtuse, but so is Kent Hovind's website. Probably even more so.<BR/><BR/>Here's a facetious question: Why do you suppose it's fairly easy for an evolutionist to hide in a pack of creationists, but it's nearly impossible for a creationist to hide in a pack evolutionists?<BR/><BR/>My guess is that if the creationists actually had to face evolution without distorting it into a strawman, they'd realize that they have nothing. So they have to be obtuse, but obtuse things are always the first to get weeded out of science, so their cover is always blown.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, creationism has no standards by which to differentiate the scientific from the absurd, and thus it's fairly easy to just say ridiculous things that nobody will ever object to or even notice.Mr. Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03107141184138020610noreply@blogger.com