Our debate has wound its course.

I would like to thank Vox for a spirited exchange, and an interesting one. The arguments that Vox raised are interesting because they are not the same old tired YEC or ID boilerplate arguments. I don't significantly disagree with Vox's characterization of the resolution of the 'debate'. Indeed, more than once, I felt that we coalesced upon the same points of agreement. One of the advantages of our exchange is that we felt free to acknowledge our occasional points of agreement without worrying about whether or not we were losing 'points' in the 'debate'.

As to a moderator....yes, if our goal is to have a quick back-and-forth, then that would be helpful, but then if that were the case we probably should have agreed upon a more tightly-focused point of discussion. On the other hand, by not having much in the way of ground rules, we ended up having this sprawling off-and-on exchange that probably frustrated readers at times...but, I have to say, from my point of view, was a helluva lot more fun. I suspect Vox would agree.

Vox, let's do this again sometime. I think, based upon where we ended up, we could probably have a pretty rewarding discussion on the nature of science and the role of theories in guiding scientific research, and when and whether theories are modified, or else scrapped.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I think it was pretty obvious that Vox, Self-appointed leader of the Libertarian Christian Denialist Movement and Marching Band, was in no way going to give you an inch. To do so would have exposed the ignorant man behind the curtain.

Who would all his sheep look to for their daily supply of denialism, obfuscation and pseudo-scientific quackery?