Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Books By Creationists?
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 35 of 142 (613411)
04-25-2011 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by slevesque
04-24-2011 4:01 PM


Hyper-Scepticism Should be the Norm
Hi Slevesque,
No, I'm saying, in typical 'future scientist' fashion (I study math and physics), that I would consider myself dishonest if I had this attitude when reviewing papers ...
Why? That's what you're meant to do isn't it?
When reviewing a paper, for peer review or otherwise, you should be aiming to debunk it. You should be actively looking for the flaws. It's to do with the limits of inductive logic. No matter how much positive evidence a paper can present, if it is founded upon a single mistake, the whole thing can fall apart. It's much more efficient to approach papers with this challenging attitude. If you try your best to find a flaw and you come up with no objections, then the paper might just be correct.
If I were a scientist presenting a paper (dream on!), I would be perfectly happy for people to approach my work in this hyper-sceptical manner. Indeed, I would expect it as a matter of course, certainly at the peer review stage.
It is also true, as others have pointed out, that these judgements are not made in a vacuum. I have seen a lot of creationist arguments. A lot. So far, they have all turned out to be complete poppycock. That this particular book, whatever it might be, will be the one to buck the trend of appalling wrongness, seems unlikely.
Sure, we should give it a fair chance, but by critiquing it as harshly as possible, we are giving it a fair chance. To my mind, that is exactly what a fair chance would look like. If the book has good arguments, it will be able to withstand such treatment.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 4:01 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 3:01 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 39 of 142 (613424)
04-25-2011 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by slevesque
04-25-2011 3:01 AM


Re: Hyper-Scepticism Should be the Norm
I'm talking about the difference between a highly critical approach, and a I-am-for-sure-never-letting-this-paper-pass approach.
Yeah, okay, but I don't see how you got that from Tram Law's OP. He said that he might read a creationist book for the purpose of debunking it, but he didn't say that he would never accept any creationist argument under any circumstances. I think you are reading too much into this.
It's deciding the paper is trash before even reading it, that is what I think is a dishonest attitude.
It is a creationist paper though. Creationism is false Slevesque. The very fact that it takes creationism as its subject virtually guarrentees that such a paper will be basically wrong.
You have to understand that for most of us, this issue is settled. It has been settled for over a century. It has been settled by the scientific community and it has been settled for us personally, by a comprehensive review of the evidence. The results are in. Creationism is bullshit.
Now place yourself in our shoes for a moment. Imagine the example that has been mentioned before; a geocentrist text. Can you really honestly say that you could read such a text without already having a pre-conceived idea that it would be nonsense? I mean, how could it be anything else? If it wasn't nonsense, it wouldn't be geocentrist, now would it?
It's the same for creationism. Just how many chances must we give to an idea that we know to be false before you are satisfied?
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 3:01 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 12:45 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 46 of 142 (613458)
04-25-2011 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by slevesque
04-25-2011 12:45 PM


Re: Hyper-Scepticism Should be the Norm
Maybe I am, but then again, do not be nave and think that the very same attitude of stubbornness you see in creationist is not also found in evolutionists.
Of course. Nobody is perfect and I have never implied otherwise. Everyone is prone to rash judgements.
And if we identified the no-evidence-will-change-my-mind as the origin of the stubbornness of creationist, what is to say that same attitude isn't simply also the origin of the stubbornness found in evolutionist ?
Nothing at all. But you have not demonstrated that Tram is guilty of this, you have just leapt to that conclusion.
But I wasn't talking about creationism specifically, I was talking about the attitude of someone reading a book, having already made up his mind about what he will conclude of the book.
But the fact that the book is about creationism (or in my example, geocentrism) does matter. It changes things.
If I (or Tram or anyone) were to approach creationism for the first time and simply dismiss it, that would be unreasonable. It would still not be dishonest - I actually think that you are misusing the term. There would be no intention of being deceptive. You would be right to call it unreasonable though. It would be illogical and unreasonable to dismiss something out-of-hand, without giving it a fair chance to make its case.
The problem is, what should we do when we encounter the same idea time after time? Every time I look at creationism I see it making bad arguments and I see it falsified by numerous lines of evidence. At its absolute bestt best I see it making unfalsifiable claims.
Now, this isn't about creationism specifically. Let's continue with our geocentricism example. Say I encounter geocentricism for the first time. I check it out, give it a fair shot and I decide that it is false. Soon I encounter it again, with some new claims of geocentrist evidence, but I look at those and find that they too are wrong. I continue, checking geocentrist claims and finding them to be the purest poppycock.
How long should I go on treating geocentricism as though I have no preconceived ideas? How many chances should I give it? How open should my mind be to the claims of geocentrists after I have seen their claims shredded time after time? How long should I effectively pretend that I haven't seen it repeatedly falsified?
There is nothing wrong with having a previously-conceived idea when you based those previous conceptions upon evidence. Preconceptions are only harmful when they are baseless. Well founded conceptions are essential to our everyday lives. If we made no judgements and treated every possibility with a completely open mind, we would never get anywhere, so obviously a balance must be struck between maintaining an open mind and learning from our past experiences.
No there are two options: either you agree with me, but want to make creationism an exception because it is obviously stupid
No, not at all. It's not about creationism being "obviously" wrong. It's about having personally investigated the issue and having repeatedly found it to be bunkum. Thus, the debunking. I fail to see what is dishonest or even in the least bit unreasonable about identifying a particular philosophy as bunk and wanting to debunk it.
So yes, if I encountered creationism for the first time and displayed the attitude that you describe, I would be behaving unreasonably. But having waded through the mire of many creationist texts of one sort or another so many times, why should I have much expectation that this latest book will be any different? It seems far more likely that it will turn out to be just like all the rest.
Of course this book might be different. It might be the one precious book with the fabled good creationist argument. But that's fine; if I go in trying to debunk it and can't find any bunk, then I will know that there might be some value in it after all. It's a win-win scenario.
Don't conflate a thorough attempt to debunk with a completely closed mind, because that's not the necessarily the case.
Mutate and Survive
AbE; Oh, by the way, when I say "Hyper-Scepticism Should be the Norm", I mean in science and philosophy. No-one can be that sceptical in their everyday lives. Not all the time anyway.
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 12:45 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 2:47 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 49 of 142 (613461)
04-25-2011 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by slevesque
04-25-2011 2:17 PM


I see people here define the words so that ''evidence of creationism'' is impossible. People claim that ''creationism isn't scientific, because it is unfalsifiable'' and then turn around and that the claims of creationism have been refuted, and therefore falsified.
Some of the specific claims of creationism (e.g. a young Earth, that humans and other apes are unrelated) are falsifiable and have been falsified.
Other claims of creationism are unfalsifiable (e.g. the existence of an omnipotent God, that God kick-started the Big Bang) and these, naturally, have not been falsified. Sadly, these latter kind tend to be the best arguments that creationism has to offer.
Conversely, many evolutionists will never question IF evolution happened, because ''evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist'' (Dawkins), and so because evolution is such an important underpinning of their worldview, no amount of evidence could change that fact.
Or, just possibly, we believe it to be real because we have examined the evidence and found it to be in evolution's favour.
Probably a bit of both though. As I say, no-one is perfect and we all believe what we believe for a mixture of good and bad, valid and invalid reasons.
The atheistic evolutionist, has not other option within his worldview: evolution must be true, or else he cannot be intellectually fulfilled.
Personally, I would rather remain unfulfilled than embrace a comforting fiction. But that's just me.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 2:17 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 3:19 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 56 of 142 (613470)
04-25-2011 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by slevesque
04-25-2011 2:47 PM


Re: Hyper-Scepticism Should be the Norm
I am using the term ''dishonest'' in the sense of ''unfair'' or ''lack of fairness''. This is one of the acceptable uses of the word.
Perhaps, but I think that it places the wrong nuance on what you're saying. You make it sound like you are suggesting that deliberate deception is taking place. I don't think that is what you're suggesting. You seem rather, to be saying that the attitude you cite is closed-minded and thus, an invalid approach to a book or argument. I would not use "dishonest" to say that, but rather "unreasonable" or, as you have it, "unfair". It's a semantic point though. No big deal.
I agree that such an attitude would be unfair if it were the first time that someone has encountered the philosophy in question. As we repeatedly encounter that philosophy though, learn more about and gradually make a lasting judgement on its merits, matters change somewhat. If we previously found the philosophy to have merit it seems reasonable to be more trusting of that philosophy. If we previously encountered that philosophy and found it lacking in merit though, it seems equally reasonable to express increasingly extreme scepticism.
It is foolish to be completely closed-minded, but it is equally foolish to refuse to learn from our previous experience.
But then, if the attitude towards a book depends on the subject of the book, then it becomes relative to each.
Yes!
The same way you think about creationism, the same way I think of evolution. Every which way I turn it, I see it as being falsified by all angles.
Yes! Absolutely. I totally see where you are coming from.
And so, if you see no problem with such an attitude towards creationism, then likewise I should see no problem with such an attitude towards evolution.
I don't think you should have a problem with that. You are sceptical of evolution. Okay. Go for it I say. Debunk it. Give it a good, hard debunking. Debunk the shit out of it! In the process you will discover the strengths and weaknesses of that argument. this is a good thing. Find the bunk, if you can, and hold it up for all to see.
Of course, I have a suspicion that you won't find it so easy, but that's the fun bit!
I would find it quite dishonest of myself if I were to read a book about evolution just to show how much it is wrong.
Well I don't. I think that wrong ideas need to be opposed. Both because;
a) Genuinely wrong ideas need to be opposed, and;
b) In critically examining ideas that we might mistakenly believe to be correct (but which are, in reality, false) we may best discover the flaws in our own arguments.
If we constantly apply harsh criticism to ideas we oppose, yet come up with no valid criticisms, then we can learn from that. Of course, it is also necessary to apply this harsh scepticism to one's own ideas to some extent.
Scepticism is the slaughterhouse of bad ideas. There is nothing wrong with applying it to the ideas of others, just as long as you do not consider your own ideas to be exempt from scepticism. Certainly, I see nothing wrong with approaching a book with this level of scepticism, especially if experience has taught us that healthy scepticism is justified.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 2:47 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 60 of 142 (613475)
04-25-2011 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by slevesque
04-25-2011 3:19 PM


YEC is more then ''God exists'', it is ''God exists and created the universe x time ago, and then a worldwide flood arrived x time ago, etc. etc.'' YEc makes a boatload of falsifiable predictions, and so it makes YEC a falsifiable hypothesis.
And I regard most of those types of claim as having been falsified. But the fact remains that creationism still rests, at its base, on the unfalsifiable notion of a supernatural being with loosely defined magical powers. That idea is unfalsifiable.
I'm not saying it is scientific though, but it isn't unscientific because it isn't falsifiable; it is. It is unscientific because it does not respect methodological naturalism.
But that also leads to unfalsifiable notions. If we are willing to admit as explanations loosely defined supernatural entities, with potent magical powers, nothing can be falsified.
We are probably drifting from the topic a little though...
Yes, but the issue of origins is so strongly related to worldviews, that the worldview you view the evidence through will affect how you interpret the evidence.
We are all guilty of this way of thinking, top a greater or lesser extent. The point is that logical thinking and especially (when dealing with claims about the observable world) the scientific method are the best means we have of overcoming these flaws in our approaches.
I don't see that aggressively critiquing an idea that you dislike is problematic, just as long as you are willing to apply that same scepticism to your own ideas and happy to have others attack your claims with that same zeal.
And yet I think that is exactly what an atheist is doing when he embraces evolution, because I think evolution is obviously false when examined honestly.
Well naturally! You think that you're right, I rather fancy that I'm right. What I'm saying is that in our attempts to get to the truth of who is really right about an issue, the debunking approach is a valid one. It's not the only one, but it is not incompatible with an open mind.
If I has to pin down the one thing that I most strongly believe you have got wrong, it's that. You seem to think that an aggressive debunking approach is necessarily closed-minded. I say that it is not.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 3:19 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 85 of 142 (613548)
04-26-2011 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by slevesque
04-26-2011 2:09 AM


Re: Evidence
Reality check for Mr Slevesque!
I describe Berlinski as an agnostic because that is what he is, and if I wasn't a creationist I would probably end up with a similar overall approach that he has.
Really? You would deny the Big Bang? Well that'll make your physics career interesting... if brief.
Dude, if you weren't creationist, the reality is that you would probably accept evolution (in so much as you would give a shit about it). What makes me say this? Well, it's just the numbers.
Almost everyone who is not a creationist accepts evolution.
Almost everyone is denies evolution is a creationist.
Even those who, like Berlinski, are non-creationist evolution-deniers typically employ the same old creationist arguments.
A vanishingly tiny handful of professional contrarians aside, non-creationists simply have no motive to deny evolution, so they don't bother. Without that powerful motive, you would probably have no problem with the science, just like most people.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by slevesque, posted 04-26-2011 2:09 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by slevesque, posted 04-26-2011 2:52 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 102 of 142 (613576)
04-26-2011 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by slevesque
04-26-2011 2:52 AM


Re: Evidence
Hi Slevesque,
I do not know where you got this idea.
From Berlinski. He is a Big bang denier, author of Was There a Big Bang? (the question mark is rhetorical; Berlinski thinks there wasn't).
You said that, were you not a creationist, your ideology might well resemble his. My advice is that if you want a career in physics, you might want to keep quiet about your admiration for this crackpot.
It would in fact be interesting to crunch the numbers, because I think many here would be surprised.
CMI has a list of 100+ names of scientists (PhD in science related field) who are YEC.
Firstly, it is not in the least bit surprising that CMI is able to reel off a few score YEC scientists. I knew that already, lots of creationists trot out these silly lists. The lists are valueless. Science is not a democracy and even if it was, there are pitifully few names; a hundred or so is piss-poor given the huge number of active scientists alive. Anyway, it's not a matter of there being YEC scientists. It's about whether they are doing YEC science and YEC science is a complete failure.
But really, you seem to have completley missed my point. I am not interested in how many YECs with science PhDs you can name. I am interested in how many non-creationist evolution doubters you can name.
You seem to think that were you not a YEC, you would still doubt evolution. You seem to think that in such circumstances, you would hold a similar position to Berlinski.
You're almost certainly wrong.
If you weren't a YEC, you would have no percentage in denying reality. You would not need to disagree with science. You would be like most non-creationists, in that you would simply accept evolution or you just wouldn't care about it.
This is obvious in that almost all the evolution deniers you can name are, at least in part, creationist in outlook. Certainly they are theists. They seek to replace evolutionary science with magical or divine causes. Meanwhile, atheist or agnostic evolution sceptics are exceedingly thin on the ground.
If it makes you happy to believe that you would still doubt evolution even without your religious convictions, then go ahead. But the odds are against it.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by slevesque, posted 04-26-2011 2:52 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by slevesque, posted 04-26-2011 8:41 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 108 of 142 (613603)
04-26-2011 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by slevesque
04-26-2011 8:41 AM


Re: Evidence
Admiration is a very strong word, I simply think because with both have a mathematical background that I would have the same approach.
Well you are very clearly wrong about that. Dr Adequate also has a mathematical background. I kinda doubt that he and Berlinski would find much to agree on.
I further doubt that you have as much in common with Berlinski as you seem to think. You are not a professional contrarian, making a career out of controversy. You don't strike me as being an arse. Berlinski does.
And btw, this isn't the topic but, you have a very bizarre view of how a scientists should act if he disagrees with a scientific theory, given what you have said earlier about how science is supposed to work.
Yet here you advice me that if I disagree with the mainstream theory, I should just keep it to myself ?
Yeah, I know that I am somewhat contradicting myself here. I still maintain that you should challenge any theory with which you disagree. I just don't want you to sabotage your scientific career before it has even begun.
It may or may not be fair, but that fact is that your YEC beliefs are laughed at by most scientists. Publicly doubting the Big Bang, one of the most important ideas in physics, is only going to mark you out as a crank. Rightly or wrongly, that kind of talk is something that I would advise you to keep separate from your academic and professional life. It would be naive to do otherwise. I offer this as friendly and well meant advice rather than as something for debate. If you listen to nothing else I say in this thread, please take that advice.
It was simply to try to put a figure on how many scientists doubted the theory of evolution, since you brought up looking at it from a numbers POV in the first place.
Yes. And you have ably demonstrated that it's not very many at all.
I was saying that, if I changed my mind today on YEC and concluded is was false, I would still not believe in the ToE. Meaning that I would prefer to live intellectually unsatisfied rather then embrace a comforting fiction
Seriously though, can you point to any YECs who have abandoned their religion but still retained a vigorous skepticism of evolution? I can't think of any. I can think of quite a few though who have abandoned their religion because they realised that evolution was real and that YE Creationism was a delusion.
I also notice that you have not come up with any more evo-doubters who are not strong theists. I would suggest that there is a reason for this paucity.
I do not deny reality.
People who are in denial rarely perceive that they are in denial.
I know that you think you are right. It's something we'll have to agree to disagree on for now.
No, because I have reasons to doubt evolution that do not rest on my religious convictions. Therefore, were I to abandon my religious convictions, I would still doubt evolution.
Okay then. My advice is that you stop wasting time with me on this thread, take those reasons and start some new threads on them. Bring your biggest concerns to the table and we'll see what we make of them.
You're a smart guy Slevesque, but if you will forgive me for being blunt, I see you talking a lot about philosophy and definitions and kind of talking around the issue. I see you talk far less about the actual science of evolution. I suspect that if you were to shift your emphasis a little more toward the hard facts, you might just come to realise that evolution rests on firmer foundations than you think.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by slevesque, posted 04-26-2011 8:41 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by slevesque, posted 04-26-2011 5:51 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 141 of 142 (613795)
04-27-2011 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by slevesque
04-26-2011 5:51 PM


Re: Evidence
But I find it so bizarre that although we agree that in science, hyper-skepticism should be the norm, and that nothing should be beyond questioning, and yet we have constructed a system in which we have so much incentives to not do those things that are crucial to science.
I think that there are several factors in play here.
Firstly, you have to realise that most scientists regard creationism as foolishness. You see it as being reasonable, viable... you have a very different view to most scientifically literate people. Whilst it is a good thing to question dogma, some ideas are just so damn well evidenced that there is nothing to be gained from doubting them. Evolution is one example, an old Earth/universe is another. They are simply so well supported that challenging them comes across as insanity. You might as well claim to be Napoleon and then demand that everyone take your claim seriously. They will not, and to be honest, that is how things should be. Creationism is treated as insanity for a good reason.
Secondly, science is, much of the time, a zero-sum game. A school can only teach for so many hours before the term is over. Add in an hour of creationism and that's an hour of real science that has to be lost. A college can only spend so much money on employing tenured professors. If they employ one who is dead set on proving the Earth to be 6000 years old (an error of a factor of over 2 million) they will have wasted their investment. A scientific research organisation can only give out so many grants. For every one that it grants to the lunatic fringe, they will be forced to miss out on the opportunity to grant that money to someone who might actually achieve something. Creationism has never taught us anything. That makes it bad science, a bad investment and a general waste of time.
Also, there is a difference between what is logical and what is practical in the real world. If someone claims to be Napoleon, it might be logical to approach their claim with a completely open mind. It might be logical to thoroughly investigate their claim to be Napoleon. It might be logical to assess the evidence. It would not be practical. Let's be honest, it would be an insane act to credit that kind of insanity with enough respect to take it that seriously.
It's just the same with creationism. By promoting creationist thinking, would-be scientists mark themselves out as being credulous, biased and even borderline insane and moronic, all rather unfortunate traits in a scientist. You may not like that, but that's the world we live in.
Then again, as a quote from a local mayor that I always liked: ''Only dead fish follow the current''
You don't think that the fact that creationists are forced to constantly swim against the current means that they're going in the wrong direction?
I didn't realize that I had to come up with a list.
Fair enough. Just give it some thought though.
There are many creationists out there; all religious, bar a tiny handful of contrarians and nutters (like the Raelians for example).
There are almost no evolution critics who are atheistic or agnostic.
There are a great many pro-evolution scientists out there and they come from all walks of life; atheists, theists and agnostics. They range from those who don't really care enough about religion to take a position all the way through to committed Christians.
Now I am saying that there is a reason for this and it isn't the pro-evolution bias of atheists as you seem to think. Why, after all, would that lead so many theist scientists to embrace evolution? And why the wide-spread agreement on neo-Darwinian evolution exactly? Why not Lamarckism? If it was only about plugging up a hole in atheist dogma, why wouldn't Lamarckism do the job?
I can already say that if there is maybe on fact or group of fact I am denying (in a loose sense of the word) it is the dating methods, because although the RATe group has produced some results, it is far from being satisfying.
I'd say that's going to be one of the more problematic areas for someone with a professional interest in physics, yeah.
I would also suggest that the correlation between the dating methods and the story told by the fossil record is an area that you might want to address. You can talk about "interpretation" all you like, but the fossil record practically screams "EVOLUTION!", whilst no alternative scenario has been put forward that makes the slightest bit of sense.
I think that this is the problem with most creationist: they don't understand all these aspects, and end up misunderstandings the arguments, the facts, the theories and the philosophical aspects of it all at once.
Sadly, this is often because the average creationist (in my experience) has been led astray by the pro-creationist churches and groups like AiG and your precious CMI. These groups promote and false idea of what evolution actually is, they spread falsehoods and they promote ignorance and wrong-headedness of all kinds.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by slevesque, posted 04-26-2011 5:51 PM slevesque 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