Catholic Scientist writes:
One of the problems evolutionists face with creationists is that the creationists are sometimes unwilling to learn another paradigm.
I think it's a little more than that. In my debates with various creationists, I have noted that there is an unwillingness to even
speculate about the possibility of being wrong. They won't even go along with a hypothetical scenario, such as this one:
---
Me: "Let's assume God doesn't exist. How would--"
Creationist: "But, He
does exist."
Me: "Okay, we're just pretending here, alright?"
Creationist: "But, it's stupid to pretend that the truth isn't real."
Me: "Please humor me. In a universe where God didn't exist, how would you prove that He doesn't exist?"
Creationist: "Without God, the universe couldn't exist. Period."
---
The creationist perspective (and the ID perspective, which purports to be different), at its base, stems from this conservative, non-compromising Christian perspective. Science realizes the benefits of assuming an alternative view in an attempt to discredit or verify an alternative argument, but religion does not. Without speculating, though, you never get to the point where you have the power to make a good judgment call.
That's why, when two preachers argue (or Mormon missionaries "bible bash" with a Baptist minister--I've been there before), it ends up in a back-and-forth sequence of assertions: "Ordinances and authority are essential for salvation," "No, only the faith and intent of the believer is essential," "No, it says here that....," "Well, how do you explain this scripture...?" It ends up like this: "A is right," "No, B is right," "No, A is right," etc.
In the end, it always comes down to "agreeing to disagree." But, you just can't use that in science: it tends to impede progress, and there really is no science without progress.
Edited by Bluejay, : Typo
I'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2
