So, going off of our class discussion, I started to think about the attitudes that those in the scientific community take towards those who advocate for creationism and the thinly veiled "scientific" take on creationism "Intelligent Design" (ID). It is definitely an interesting subject, to be sure.
Professor Hart said that there were those who still believe the earth is flat, people who don't get the time of day. Now, this is a comparison, obviously, to not giving creationists the time of day. Clearly, it would be hard to justify a creationist belief and there would be a mountain of evidence you would have to fight against. Though, I often find that popular scientists who fight against creationism and ID; such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Stephen Hawking, and so forth; tend to be fairly smug about what they are saying. They act like those who are ID'ers are idiots or children, talking to them as such. I wonder if this attitude is appropriate for this debate, because clearly they aren't going to convince anyone of their material if their attitudes are bad. Even so, they are giving ID'ers the time of day to talk by addressing their beliefs directly and attacking them. This is completely against what you would think should be done, simply leaving them alone. It won't kill you if someone believes something contrary to the way the world is. It isn't the end of the world. Eventually, people will start to adapt the evolutionary point of view just as they have for the heliocentric model and the theory that the world is a sphere. Remember it's just a theory!!!
As I said in a post on the discussion board, I don't really see any reason why someone can not believe in a God with the way the world is. Of course there are philosophical problems with this, but I digress.
Oh, and I used this background picture of a cross to represent the people who do go against evolution. Clearly it is mostly Christian opposition, though there are some Jews, Muslims and the like who oppose evolution.
