Recently, I posted some commentary about Richard Dawkins’ appearance on the O’Reilly Factor. That post generated some interesting discussion among a couple of our readers (Brad & Diego) and one of our writers (Cal August). After reading the posted comments I felt that both sides were arguing past each other (imagine that). The following is my take on the whole enchilada.

Diego, it's very easy to win the evolution vs. ID debate when you frame it as religion vs. science, or when you can't have honest disagreement without being labeled a hater. It seems no one is allowed to use labels but you. That said, labels are constructive when they give us an accurate approximation of one another’s viewpoint. They are destructive when we use them to create a straw man, or to degenerate into an ad hominem attack.

Cal attributes an evolutionary framework to Brad, because that's what he (Brad) believes is an accurate framework for our origins. But he didn't impugn Brad's intelligence because he ascribes to an evolutionary framework. That's the difference between pegging a philosophical system and attacking someone personally (ad hominem). I have no problem with someone labeling me as a(n) "creationist, intelligent design theorist," etc. My problem is when Darwinists use that categorization to dismiss me, i.e.: Oh, he's a creationist. You know what that means: He wants to throw out the Bunsen burners and teach Genesis 1 and 2 in the classroom. Oh, he’s a creationist; that’s the only reason he objects to evolution. Even Dawkins himself has written that anyone who doesn’t accept naturalistic evolution is “ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” No rational, sane, or educated person objects to the firmly established science of evolution. And on it goes. It's a powerful tactic which keeps us from discussing the real issue. The discussion is difficult enough without getting the, “oh, you’re a creationist” routine. Conversely, Christians (in general) will attack the philosophical implications of Darwinism, by questioning its foundation for morality. But neither side is actually discussing the science.

I may, indeed, be a creationist, but just because I question the "science" doesn't necessarily mean that I am one. Nor does it mean that my rejection of “uncreationism” is predicated on the fact that I’m a theist. It could be that I simply find the mechanisms Darwinists say are responsible for our origins are wholly inadequate to produce what we now observe in nature.

But as I said, all this does is keep us from talking about the real issue. We can debate all day about the philosophical underpinnings of each system of thought and that's constructive when we use it to expose a bias. But we should be cautious: History is littered with personalities who were biased, but were nonetheless correct in their conclusions. Naturalistic evolutionists have an atheistic bias. Creationists have a theistic bias. That doesn't mean that their conclusions are necessarily wrong. That is a determination which should be made based on the evidence. You want to talk about naturalistic evolution? Fine, let’s talk about it. You want to talk about religion? Okay, fine, then, let's talk about that. But quit trying to define the argument so the other side has no way to respond. Both sides need to respect each other to the degree that we can actually talk about the subject at hand, as opposed to the usual: appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks, question begging, selective use of evidence, overt fabrications, straw man arguments, lack of testability, vague terms & shifting definitions, etc.

Two questions which need to be asked and answered by both sides are: (1) What precisely do you mean by evolution? And (2) what is the evidence for and against your position?