Why does the Creation/Evolution Debate Matter.

A panel discussion.

Philosopher Michael Ruse comes across as a windbag simply assuming that his opponents are cross-dressers and that denying global warming is identical to denying evolution.

Law Professor Mike McConnell [at 20 minutes] comes across as uncommonly sane and a throwback to an earlier time when the idea that exposing all sides of discussion to a public airing was a way to get at the truth, and that if fundamentalists were Navajos, then Liberals would treat them better.



At 50 minutes, McConnell actually makes the argument for welcoming creation arguments in with the confidence that the right side will win.

My 10th Grade Biology allowed a debate on Evolution v. Creation. I took the Evolution side and mopped the floor with the other side and ended for myself and many others the Creation argument by actually dealing with those arguments!!!

What a crazy idea!

That approach, incidentally, was considered to be the essence of the First Amendment when I was in law school, and was part of the Supreme Court's remedy that "more speech" not less speech was the answer.

The atheist evolution lady doesn't want that debate at all because there is only one right answer in her mind.

In that regard, she represents the new thinking on "public discourse."

She then tells us that the topic is not science; ok, make that the debate, then.

*Sheesh*