The Creation vs Evolution debate thread...

After reading through some of this thread I have to say it is quite refreshing to see this debate take place with so little vitriol and anger involved. In all honesty however, I have to admit that while I am perfectly capable of having this discussion in a friendly non-combative tone, I have little to no intellectual respect for any person who believes that some kind of supernatural being from beyond created our Earth and indeed the entire universe a mere 5 or 6 thousand years ago.

I've seen comments claiming that coming to a conclusion based on incredible amounts of firm, testable, solid scientific data requires the same level of faith as believing in fictional stories created by savage desert people over a thousand years ago. I'm sorry but there is a very clear difference in each of these approaches and to equate the two is dishonest and misleading.

I think what is required is a few additional rules before we can honestly continue this debate if we truly hope to learn something by having this discussion.

Actually only one additional rule is truly required and I will explain why.

The world of science is vast and full of many characters. Scientists are people just like you and me and often do become wrapped up in trying to prove a theory. Sometimes even to the point of acknowledging only that evidence which supports their theory while ignoring all evidence which puts it in doubt. That is why we have the peer review process in the scientific community which is designed to make sure only the strongest theories, which have withstood the most amount of scrutiny will be accepted as true and real science.

This is achieved by rigorous examination by the scientific community of any scientific research that is submitted for the peer reviewed process. The work is examined and tested by highly educated professionals in the field and if the research is found to be accurate it is published as officially scientifically reviewed research and can be trusted as the best data available on the subject at that time.

Without the peer review process I could put forth any ridiculous, crackpot theory I want to come up with as real science. I could say that clouds are composed of dragon farts or the Earth is actually only a few thousand years old or any other unfounded simpleton nonsense I may decide to come up with.

That is why in order to ensure the validity of the discussion I propose we initiate a new rule requiring all evidence presented by either side to include references to peer reviewed research.

Naturally, Creationism Theology, much like voodoo or witchcraft, has never been verified as real science by making it through the peer reviewed process, so please keep this in mind while reading some outlandish conclusions I have seen Creationists present as "evidence" against the process of evolution.

So how bout it, who thinks the rule should be added and followed from this point forward?