I always find it curious that secularists and evolutionists attribute fairness and scientific superiority to anyone who argues their side.
Why would that be? If it's about scientific knowledge it's not a partisan argument, meaning that necessarily, you are closer to reality. It's not because you politicize knowledge and entertain fake debates that it's actually in question.
They have determined their worldview and interpret everything they find in light of it, twisting everything to fit.
This sounds like confirmation bias. If it's about scientific knowledge, there are ways to verify hypotheses. It is part of the scientific method to take common human fallacies into account, to distinguish belief from reality. To autocorrect, reject failed hypotheses, redesign models called scientic theories, etc.
I is sort of like the media – what doesn’t fit is not reported, and what is reported is so slanted as to be meaningless.
While any media could do this to some point, it's a typical description of unfair propaganda. Still, without a specific example it's difficult to put in context.
I have followed creation thinking for over fifty years, and I find creationists to be far more willing to admit if they were scientically wrong than evolutionists.
So it really was about a type of deceptive propaganda, but projected against others. Since again, this is about scientific knowledge that you find inconvenient, it's not about dictating, just a higher standard of knowledge based on evidence. What you really need to demonstrate that it's false is a better theory that takes into account all that's covered by biology and explains it even better. It would be very unlikely that it would discard basic well understood facts of biology. Similarly, newtonian mechanics is still useful despite relativity.
Creationist propaganda is more of a denial and faith affirming category, it does not participate to an actual scientific debate by research and publishing in the best biology peer reviewed journals. It instead attempts to claim that the knowledge is tenuous and "highly debatable", to a general public. It's the propaganda method, not the scientific knowledge acquisition method. Not the same standard.
expected, because those who believe in a creator know they are accountable to the creator.
Many religious are actually fine with untainted scientific knowledge. Why is it that in your particular case, you must attempt to isolate your followers from society and reality?
Those who are agnostic or atheistic have no oral compass, so lying is justifiable to achieve their end
So deceptive creationist propaganda is "true" and scientific knowledge is "lying"? This sounds like misleading projection again. Also, why do you expect to find scientific knowledge in ancient mythology in the first place? For evidence that creationist propaganda is deceptive, it's easy to compile long lists of false claims. The Talk Origins archive is a good old resource. In a book by the cult I was raised in, I immediately remember deceptive misrepresentation. A quote by Darwin was cited to claim that even he considered special direct creation more likely than evolution to explain the eye. Without citing anything from the same page of the same book that explained how it happened by natural means. Darwin didn't even know of the genetic code that had not been discovered yet. Today we know of various eye types that have evolved differently.
The rank hypocrisy is galling – we see it in politics, in the pathetic old-earth evangelical blogs, and in e pseudo-scientific community that clas every debate they are losing is somehow ove
A shiny mirror. Somebody who even rejects the overwhelming, well tested, very strong evidence of an old Earth, has no lessons to teach about deception. More someone who should go back to school...
