It is a subtle point, but using “evidence” as the standard allows one to differentially weigh that evidence based on subjective criteria. That is all that the YECs are doing, they are weighing the “evidence” and awarding enormous weight to handed down traditional stories of illiterate bronze age nomadic shepherds.

It is a fact that certain traditional stories of illiterate bronze age nomadic shepherds assert things about the creation of the Earth and about reality. Many of those stories are not consistent with other data and facts that are easy to observe and measure today. The stories and the present data are both “evidence”, but the data that can be measured and remeasured today has higher reliability than stories of uncertain origins.

‘All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.’

The battleground is therefore the children of religious parents.
The stradegy is to loosen the grip of the parent’s religion on their children.
The rest will be child’s play.

Well, it worked for me anyway.

The elephant in the room: RELIGION.

Forget facts.
Forget critical thinking.
Religion trumps both.

It will take the marginalisation of religion for the populace to accept evolution.

And it is already happening.
There is a graph somewhere showing religious belief and acceptance of evolution is countries around the world. The least religious are also the most accepting of evolution. The USA comes second only to Turkey in relgious belief and rejection of evolution.

Pssshh..arrived? No way! What do you mean by truth? You act like there is “a truth” to the universe. What makes you so sure? Yeah, there’s definitely a consistency to the universe. We invent ideas then test them against observation – if they fit we see if they can predict something more then we have a better understanding but you make it seem as though we running full speed towards some truth. Truth is, there could be just a shit load of perspectives and no absolute truth. Much of science thus far has delt with a linear type of reductionism but [opinion] most of the good things in life [/opinion] is not amendable to such analysis. We occupy such a small slice of time that I am skeptical of anyone who claims that we are at some critical point of scientific inquiry or realization.

“We see our way clearly ahead of us.”

Bullshit

“chemical and mechanical interventions will become the norm to establish the norm, our norm that we know with all of the certainty of critical thinking to be the true ‘way humans should be’ norm.”

And what is this “norm” shit? You almost sound like a hardcore religious person when you talk is some terms like that. Evolution doesn’t give a shit about norms…it wants variability to select phenotypes that increase bio mass.

“In tandem with this great enterprise we will build machines that will operate on a purely rational basis.”

Uhhh hows is that different than any computer? What’s hard is the nonrational human part.

We see our way clearly ahead of us. Neuroscience is slowly but surely giving us the means to alter people’s brain states – chemical and mechanical interventions will become the norm to establish the norm, our norm that we know with all of the certainty of critical thinking to be the true ‘way humans should be’ norm. It cannot be beyond our capabilities to eventually develop a pill that will chemically adjust the brain to accord with this norm that will of course be based on proper DSM standards.

In tandem with this great enterprise we will build machines that will operate on a purely rational basis. We may even be able to make these machines sentient. At the very least they will provide us with a template upon which to model our new society.

Evolution has brought us to this glorious point in our history – we cannot afford to let the opportunity slip by us.

I hear those words thrown around a lot around these parts – it seems that most of y’all think it has something to do with the elucidation of facts via scientific methodology. However, if I were with friends who do unconventional warfare (special forces) they would define critical thinking as the strategy employed to kill the most people with the fewest bullets in the shortest time.

Seems like everyone wants critical thinking…including skeptical enemies

I think the opposite of what Dr. Leakey predicts will occur – science education is dropping off in many parts of the world, especially in the US. There has been a constant battle to sow “doubt” about evolution as a theory, much like there has been for global warming. Sowing this doubt is the most effective way of undermining the general public’s support for scientists and science in general. When the general public does not support science, populist politicians get elected on anti-science, pro-religion platforms and they begin to develop public policy that is bad for science education. With fewer people getting good science education, less people support scientists and science in general and more populist politicians get elected…. and there goes the cycle. So, it is not the scientific theory of evolution that is having problems, it is the populist view of evolution that is problematic.