Ambiguity-uncertainty-vagueness the key to resistance against the idea of evolution?

Faith, can you come up with any philosophical argument that there was a Fall, apart from Bibilical references?On the face of it, it all looks accidental.

I suppose one might be able to come up with some "argument from conscience." We know these things are bad, but how do we know it? Why does the world seem so unfair? After all, all we have is this world. What is this ideal that we are comparing it to? It must be an ideal buried in collective human memory, of Paradise.Not much of an argument, I don't think.Perhaps the reason for my unbelief is my fear of ambiguity! ha! I can't handle all those paradoxes about the concept of God.

This is a science forum? I didn't know that. Doesn't seem like it.

I don't know about your overall point in your description of the psychology of creationists, since it seems to be that a "fear of ambiguity and uncertainty" could as well propel a love of science as anything else. However, in your reference to essentialism I agree totally that this is the main stumbling block in understanding TOE.Now, as regards politics: One might have a point in linking up a dislike for homosexuality with essentialistic thought. Of course, I'm uttering a stereotype here. There might be many creationists who have no problem with homosexuality. But let's assume for the moment that the stereotypical generalization is fairly accurate: homosexuality might be seen as an ambiguous sexual activity that falls in line with an ambiguity about "kinds." Essentialism would also look askance on homosexuality.

Sorry to hear that.

Science forum? Do you find the OP scientific? Looks like speculative psychological comments to me.

Yeah, but the OP is not scientific nor was claimed to be by the poster. So the term "science forum" is being used very loosely here.

The question that occurs to me is whether "science forum" means the topic is about science or whether the topic is a scientific question.The OP was not a scientific question. Science depends on physical evidence, and there is no such evidence as to why Creationists reject evolution. However, the topic was ABOUT science in the sense that it was about evolution.But there seems to be some kind of rules about "science forums" that don't apply to others. Provide evidence. But do we mean scientific evidence (physical evidence)? Surely not, if we are talking about the psychological reasons that Creationists reject evolution. What are you going to do--take a survey?This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-13-2005 11:35 PM

I don't understand how a survey is scientific data. The participants may be lying.

Definition of "soft science": psuedo-science.

Why do you reject the theory of evolution?a. It's just a "theory."
b. I don't like being told that my ancestors were dirty, smelly monkeys.
c. It conflicts with Genesis.
d. It smells of atheism
e. I never saw a dog give birth to an otter.
f. I have a fear of ambiguityThank you for your participation in this survey.

We just want to be clear that there is a difference between real science (hard science) and this stuff that parades as science, like psychology and sociology.

You're right, Schraf. I couldn't understand a word of it, so it must be science.

If the evidence he studies is physical and isolatable, then it's science.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-14-2005 02:46 PM

I just mean it has to be amenable to the scientific method--control of variables and so on. Only physical things are amenable to the scientific method.This is not to say that a field that is non-scientific is not a useful and worthy field of study. History, for example, is in my opinion very worthy of study, but you can't study it scientifically.Some historian studies a bunch of documents and comes up with a theory about the causes of the rise of communism--a very worthy topic but not scientific.There are things you can do with mathematics, of course--in many fields. But mathematics in itself is not science--it's a tool.So if it's not science it shouldn't be called science.