Are evolutionists "willingly ignorant"?

Not a surprise. What's claimed isn't what's found.

"Brown also has repeatedly claimed that no "evolutionist" will engage in a written debate with him,[14] but has been accused of discouraging or avoiding such debates.[15][10][16] An abortive attempt at such a debate was held in 1989 and 1990 in the pages of Creation/Evolution, the National Center for Science Education journal, before Brown refused to continue.[17"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brown_(creationi...

"People have attempted to debate Walt Brown, but Brown refuses.

Joe Meert signed Brown's contract in 1996. He proposed (in accordance with the contract terms) that evidence regarding a global flood be a topic for discussion within the debate. Brown has steadfastly refused to debate Meert (Meert 2003)."

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA342.html

"Claim CA340:

Evolutionists are unwilling to debate creationists.

Source:

Brown, Walt. 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, 212. http://www.creationscience.com/

"Response:

The proper venue for debating scientific issues is at science conferences and in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In such a venue, the claims can be checked by anyone at their leisure. Creationists, with very rare exceptions, are unwilling to debate there.

Public debates are usually set up so that the winners are determined by public speaking ability, not by quality of material.

Debate formats, both spoken and written, usually do not allow space for sufficient examination of points. A common tactic used by some prominent creationists is to rattle off dozens of bits of misinformation in rapid succession. It is impossible for the responder to address each in the time or space allotted.

Notwithstanding the above points, there have been several debates, both live and online.

Links:

Talk.Origins Archive. n.d. Debates and gatherings. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-debates.ht... "

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA340.html

So several have accepted the offer and one I find has been waiting for a reply since 2004! One the way to this point I found three creation based articles strongly criticizing Brown's theories. One states:

"People like Walt Brown do immense harm to the Christian faith by making absurd claims that anybody with a knowledge of freshman physics will know is wrong. This has serious consequences to Christian witness on university and college campuses, and in general amongst people with at least some grasp of science. Many Christians complain that their children leave Christianity after attending college. If such children are fed on a diet like that published by Walt Brown before leaving for college, they will certainly have a serious problem if they attend classes in astronomy or geology."

http://www.csharp.com/hydroplate.html

The website you offer is only an ad for a book and gives no real info. The problem is the literal interpretation of the BIble, if you look at the symbolism, as well as, other methods of reading it then you will get a better idea of the concepts that it communicates. The flood is the symbolic baptism of the earth. When we are born, we come from water and when we get reborn, we do that thru the symbolic baptism of being covered in water. This story explains baptism. When people encounter the heartaches of life, they sometimes want to do away with their life. The solution is to give your life over to God and wash away the old life and start afresh. They get a second chance and know to do the opposite from that which created havoc in their previous life. Floods happen all the time, I remember, not long ago, that a large area of Europe was flooded and New Orleans, even if that was more to human error than anything else. It shows that at any moment life can change and all that was is no longer. One should be prepared but you can ask the Mormons about that. Noah was prepared. I'm not a Mormon but they have a good idea and I'm sure they got it from religious thought.If you look in Chapter 1 of Genesis you see 3 verses that have the word "Created", the 1st verse where it is stated in the latter part and verse 21 where water life and birds come around. The third is 27, creation of man. With the wording it shows a direct relationship, beast were not created they were made. That which started with the fish ends with man, beast in the middle. 27-21 is 6 which represents time.

If Mr. Brown would wander over to the blog, "afarensis," he could debate all day and night. There are plenty of scientists who debate creationism constantly over there. They mostly don't waste their time, though, since they know that creationists' minds are already made up and they don't use logic, reason, or consistency. There is also the wee problem that what you call "abundant scientific evidence" is not what scientists call "abundant scientific evidence." Scientists, in fact, argue with one another all the time, putting each fact and each bit of reasoning to all sorts of scrutiny constantly. It's just that there are certain rules that must be followed.

These are:

Logic prevails. One must present one's hypothesis at the outset and it must be testable. God is not a testable hypothesis. One cannot put God in a test tube. One cannot ask God to act upon group A and not act upon group B in an experiment. It simply cannot be done. By definition, God and religion are matters of faith. Science is, quite simply, a matter of discovering what can be discovered by testing and experimenting and hypothesizing. It is not a matter of faith.

When a test result appears to confirm or disconfirm a hypothesis, a single result is never proof. It must be replicated. We have many examples of this. Sometimes an over-eager scientist goes ahead a calls a press conference to announce some fancy and exciting results. But others then try to replicate his results. If they cannot do it, that too means something. He has to take it back. And that's a dreadful scandal. He can't get funding afterward. He might even lose his job. Now if God performs a miracle but doesn't do it again, that's quite another thing, isn't it?

Science serves a very different purpose from religion. Now, this is the most important point. Science can answer only certain questions. Science can answer, "What is this? How does it work? How come it works that way? Can I make one that works that same way? Can I make a bigger and better one?" But science absolutely, positively cannot answer the really big questions that religion asks and answers. It cannot answer the questions such as, "Why am I here? What is my purpose in life? How should I treat my fellow humans?" These are not things that one can put in test tubes or perform experiments to discover.

That is why I trust a scientist to tell me whether or not my ancestors were ape-like. But that is also why I do not trust a scientist to tell me whether God exists or not. For that I turn to God. And so should you.

I hear the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) wants to join Walt Brown in the debate.

That said, one should also be aware of the movement to repeal the "law" of gravity and reduce the speed of light. The latter is much to fast as it is.

If you get the impression that I don't think much of the "debate" you're right. Why?

1. There's the assumption that both creationism and evolution are equal. They're not.

2. It's not a popularity contest where an audience decides winner or loser

3. The real "debate" takes place with peer reviewed papers where the person states their position, provides the evidence and then defends it.That's something creationists fare very poorly at.

WWFSM do?

I seem to like raznas and betsys answers. If he didn't want to bring religion into it, then all it is, is him proposing another crazy alternative theory other than what is generally excepted.It reminds me of those wishful thinkers that think global warming isn't happening because of humans. What it is really, is about religion, why take it out of the game?

Never heard of Brown, (I won't call him a professor) but scientists were refuting creationists for years now like Michael behe's intelligent design and irreducible complexity and so oooon and sooo fourthhhh.

Also, for a scientist to argue with someone about their ideas like Browns, the idea would be considered as a rival theory, and therefore a suitable hypothesis in science which is not what scientist want really.

The probable reasons why irreducible complexity and behe's other ideas were refuted was because it had to be refuted in court. Teachers wanted to bring his ideas into the schools curriculum, and to what I can remember parents (or somesh*t) took them to court for it.

No, creationists are.

"won't put their theory to any kind of scrutiny"?

You clearly have NO clue as to how science works, or the history of evolutionary theory.

There is NO evidence of any supernatural being. None.

Evidence of a flood of the whole world at once? I find this hard to believe.

Yes, I trust the scientists.

Someone who claims they don't put their work to any kind of scrutiny is not to be trusted.

I don't know why none have taken him up on his debate offer (assuming that's even true).

Doesn't make the truth false.

abundant scientific evidence for "the great flood"? If you're saying that there is ANY credible evidence for a "GLOBAL FLOOD" then you need to cite your source because that is....bull****! Especially if like Brown you take a young earth creationist pov. "The hydro-plate theory" (which isn't anything more than a hypothesis regardless of what creationists want to claim) that i'm assuming you're referencing has been pretty well ripped apart...and basically, no one can find anyone who wants to publish such a ridiculous debate, largely due to stipulations set by Brown himself...in particular, i think it would be hard for any potential debater to find 400,000 words to debunk creationism without drawing on theology? wth is he trying to get at?

Most origin stories have a great flood mentioned in them.

But man would have already been here by then so relating them would have nothing to do with evolution.

One fact, has nothing to to with an entire theory.

Most people don't want to debate anything so simpleminded, its like asking a team of top scientist to debate if Babar the Elephant wore pants, what size would they be?

I would suggest that scientists have far better things to do with their time than debate the truth of myths and legends with some nonentity.

you don't make science by challenging someone to a debate and then declaring you are right simply because nobody responded to your challenge, you make science by developing a concept that explains observed facts, figuring out a way to test said concept, actually testing it, disclosing your results and how you tested it, and then get it published in a scholarly journal, books don't cut it!

you need to go back to school and figure out what science is!