Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (8963 total)
80 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 77 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume: Total: 870,909 Year: 2,657/23,288 Month: 848/1,809 Week: 280/225 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On Objectivity and the Mindless Middle
Taq
Member
Posts: 8229
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 3 of 17 (549255)
03-05-2010 10:38 AM


Another example of the Mindless Middle in the evo v. creo debate is the insistence that the scientific model is flawed because it excludes the supernatural. This is seen as "unfair" by those who believe in the supernatural even though there is no objective reason to consider the supernatural in the first place.

The same effect can be seen in the philosophical argument between Russell's Teapot and a God of the Gaps. The ID argument boils down to inserting a designer where we least knowledgable. We hear time and again that scientists are ignoring the "possibility of a designer" just as we ignore the possibility that there is a teapot in the orbit of Mars. Even more, one of the main arguments from ID proponents is that if something "looks designed" then it is designed. I can't think of any argument that is more subjective than this.

ID/creationism does fill in the blanks with subjectivity, or religious belief to be more accurate. There is no reason that the supernatural or a designer should be considered if you start from the facts and move towards a logical conclusion. The only argument being put forth to include them is an appeal to fairness.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020