I think the idea that people who question evolution orthodoxy are necessarily rejecting science is repugnant. Whether you are doing it consciously or not. I guess it is just par for the course that anyone questioning evolution is definitively questioning science in the eyes of the evolution faithful. Instead why not consider that it is the science that is starting to unravel the assumed mechanisms of Darwinism?
I'm going to have to request your help here. I don't want to cause inadvertent offense, but I don't want to abandon advocacy of legitimate positions simply from fear of causing offense.
So what I said that you objected to was that OECs are much less extreme in their rejection of science than YECs. I said this because I thought that this was true, and I want you to tell me whether this is true or not:
- YECs reject radiometric dating and OECs don't.
- YECs reject plate tectonics and OECs don't.
- YECs reject sea floor striping and OCEs don't.
- YECs reject an ancient earth and OECs don't.
- YECs reject the geologic column and OECs don't.
- YECs reject the antiquity of the fossil record and OECs don't.
- YECs reject the Big Bang and OECs don't.
- YECs reject an ancient universe and OECs don't
- YECs reject star formation and OECs don't
- YECs require accelerated radioactive decay for which there is no scientific evidence and OECs don't
- YECs require that the entire fossil record be a result of the flood and OECs don't
- YECs require thousands of magnetic reversals occurring in few month period and OECs don't.
- YECs require catastrophic plate tectonics during the flood and OECs don't.
- YEC's require hydrologic sorting, or at least something that is not supported by science, to explain the fossil distribution and OECs don't.
That video you posted was about the Cambrian explosion. Creationist objections to the Cambrian explosion are already well known to everyone familiar with the debate. Berlinski said that it wasn't just the Cambrian explosion, it was the entire fossil record that was mysterious to the point of telling us nothing. Upon what does he base this claim? Like I said before, not even ICR agrees with him.
One of the fun things about science is learning about the empirical support for some view within science, but beyond being fun the knowledge is actually necessary and important. Say I found Berlinski's claim about the fossil record persuasive, and so in my next discussion with someone I repeated the claim that the fossil record is mysterious and tells us nothing. The other person asks, "Why is it mysterious?" I have no other answer other than to say, "Got me, ask Berlinksi."
In other words, I believe it important to have at least a layperson's knowledge and understanding of the empirical evidence. Without that I become just a bundle of unsupported opinions probably selected on the basis of how much I liked them rather than how well they correspond to the real world.