Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,393 Year: 3,650/9,624 Month: 521/974 Week: 134/276 Day: 8/23 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The consequences of "Evolution is false"
subbie
Member (Idle past 1275 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 37 of 210 (359103)
10-26-2006 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
10-26-2006 4:53 PM


Just toying about a bit
Faith, first let me thank you for that brief explanation. I have never seen you say anything as detailed as that before, although I do admit I haven't read everything you've written, so you may well have spelled it out like that before. However, your opening caveat that you haven't really thought it out suggests this is the first time you've explained it this well.
I'm curious, where would you disagree with the following paraphrase of your statement?
Paraphrasing:
I haven't really thought out my own explanation for people's commitment to [creationism], but I suppose there is a complicated combination of notions involved. The first I'd name is [pro]-supernaturalism, which is quite honestly held, and [fundamentalism]. ... I think [fundamentalism] is the preponderant philosophical mindset underlying [attacks on] evolution... . Then I'd add a collection of bits of evidence that are taken to be definitive, concerning how ideas of the flood were originally historically [supported], for instance, plus the [im]plausibilities found in Darwinism, and add to all that the ability to rationalize most data into fitting into the theory. And cap it all with a complete lack of motivation to question anything connected with the [creationism]. Ordinary fallible human intellect in other words. No intent to deceive.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 10-26-2006 4:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 10-26-2006 8:14 PM subbie has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1275 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 71 of 210 (359387)
10-27-2006 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by joshua221
10-27-2006 7:33 PM


Re: What other choices are there?
So far, prophex, you've manged to quibble about numbers without really addressing the point.
The vast majority of scientists believe the theory of evolution is solidly based on mountains of evidence. Most creationists reject this evidence. Now, if you can at all avoid arguing about actual numbers, can you come up with any explanation for why creos reject what scientists say other than a belief that the scientists are lying or they don't know what they are talking about?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by joshua221, posted 10-27-2006 7:33 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1275 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 89 of 210 (359441)
10-28-2006 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Buzsaw
10-27-2006 11:15 PM


Come on, Buz, give it your best shot
Deception is powerful but in the end will be overcome with truth.
Careful, mate. You came periously close to actually addressing the topic of the thread.
So, please tell us, are those scientists in that prestigeous list that you so blithely tossed aside liars or fools? A one word answer will suffice. Unless you happen to think they are both.
If you think there's another alternative between liars and fools, I'd love to hear it. Bonus points if you can answer without proselityzing.
Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Buzsaw, posted 10-27-2006 11:15 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1275 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 180 of 210 (361097)
11-03-2006 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Rob
11-03-2006 2:02 AM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
My point is that they are not exempt from such sins. Scientists are not Christs; ie. they are not sinless. They are not immune from, nor are they above, the pressures of the unruly crowd (think Politics and Pontius Pilot).
Certainly scientists individually are not immune to such things. They are, after all, just like normal people. Examples of fruad, duplicity, lying, honest mistakes and bias are well-known.
But the question is not are individual scientists lying or incompetent when it comes to evolution, but is science as a whole? Science has developed a number of methods to weed out inaccuracies, whether they be honest or dishonest. Peer-review and replicability are two of the most important ones.
Thus, when discussing the question raised in the OP, don't read it as asking about individual scientists, read it as asking about ALL scientists, as a body.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 2:02 AM Rob has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1275 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 182 of 210 (361128)
11-03-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Rob
11-03-2006 12:26 PM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
What is even more interesting, is that if you take a man like Richard Dawkins, you see the epitome of my point. He believes with passion in the 'truth' of naturalism and as such, must logically conclude that morality is an illusion. I applaud him for his clear headedness irrespective of the fact that I disagree with his conclusion. If naturalism is true, then he is right!
You ignore the possibility that morality is a human concept. That's where bible thumpers make their mistake. So many of them are apparently inacapable of doing their own moral reasoning so they simply follow what their fairy tale construct tells them, or, more accurately, what others who believe in their fairy tale construct say the construct said.
If it's a human concept, it's no more an illusion than freedom, democracy or any other abstract concept that we have created.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 12:26 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 1:21 PM subbie has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1275 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 184 of 210 (361137)
11-03-2006 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Rob
11-03-2006 1:21 PM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
Ah, I see. You used to be like me, but after serious thought, you came to "the right" conclusion. The implication of that little speech is that I just haven't thought enough about it. There's the arrogance I've come to know and love from thumpers.
As I saw after some serious thinking, the idea that morality is a human conception becomes non-sensicle.
Obviously I haven't thought about it nearly as much as you have, since I see nothing "non-sensicle" about it. Could you explain your reasoning to me?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 1:21 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 3:03 PM subbie has not replied
 Message 186 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 3:07 PM subbie has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024