hackenslash wrote:I don't even think we should be humble in our admissions of faulty thinking; we should crow with delight about them, because every time it happens, you learn something and you grow. It doesn't get any better than that.
You learn the most when you get it wrong, not least because the wrong idea serves as a point of reference for the correct one.
I'm reminded here of the Dawkins anecdote, about a scientist who had devoted much time and effort, striving to establish a hypothesis, only to find himself at a scientific conference, where a relative newcomer presented a recently published paper, demonstrating conclusively that the hypothesis in question was, in fact, false.
The scientist in question approached the newcomer on the stage after the presentation, and announced:
"I have spent fifteen years working on this, only to find that I was wrong. Thank you for educating me, and congratulations on work well done".
I can only recall seeing an analogous response once from a poster here, namely Willhud9, when he was provided with evidence demonstrating that creationist assertions were plain, flat, wrong. The response of every other creationist I have encountered has been in diametric opposition to the above: continued insistence that manifestly destroyed canards purportedly constitute The Truth
TM; thinly veiled
ad hominems directed at those providing, free of charge, an education here that many others would gladly pay for; and utterly duplicitous attempts at misrepresentation, such as misrepresenting a consensus arrived at through diligent examination of evidence as purportedly constituting "groupthink".
As a consequence, I'm tempted to offer up the notion of the Willhud Award, to be awarded to the next creationist exhibiting his willingness to listen to evidence.
by 
