Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,334 Year: 3,591/9,624 Month: 462/974 Week: 75/276 Day: 3/23 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Books By Creationists?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3662 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 18 of 142 (613311)
04-24-2011 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by slevesque
04-24-2011 1:22 PM


Second, is it not, by itself, dishonest to read a book with the sole intention of ''debunking'' it; ie having come to a conclusion to what it is going to say even before reading it.
Of course not, if it is sufficiently obvious that what is being presented is complete idiocy. If I saw a book claiming to present evidence of geocentrism, I would approach it with a wry smile, and no doubt of my conclusion. Same happened in Heffers, nearly 20 years ago, when I came upon a book entitled "Has Hawking Erred?" written by an engineer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 1:22 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 5:35 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3662 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 22 of 142 (613317)
04-24-2011 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by slevesque
04-24-2011 5:35 PM


So does this mean that if it not sufficiently obvious that what is being presented is complete idiocy, then you would agree with me that that attitude would be dishonest ?
No, definitely not dishonest. It would just be bizarre and contradictory.
In this particular case, it is quite obvious from the subject matter and the authors in particular that this is pure idiocy.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 5:35 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 6:20 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3662 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 25 of 142 (613323)
04-24-2011 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by slevesque
04-24-2011 6:20 PM


Would it be dishonest to read it with the sole intention of debunking it ?
Again, I don't think I'd ever use the word "dishonest". To me, it's just the wrong connotation. Possibly "unfair" fits in some contexts, and "mistaken" in others.
Even considering he has made a great career in genetics, has believed in the theory of evolution for the majority of his career and just recently realized that YEC was true ?
This would immediately make me doubt anything he had to say that touched on the fact that he had recently become a YEC - so anything related to science I would assume he is completely wrong as a default position, and only accept once receiving confirmation from an alternativge source.
His particular case is interesting, since he fits nowhere in the ''either ignorant, stupid or insane'' false dichotomy.
I disagree - in all seriousness, it means he fits all three to greater and lesser degrees.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 6:20 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 04-24-2011 6:49 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3662 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 59 of 142 (613474)
04-25-2011 3:29 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.
No, it is not. I have already explained that. Surely you can pick up on the confusion you are casuing by insiting on using the word "dishonest"? Perhaps the native English speakers have a slight edge on the native French speaker on what English words mean (irrespective of the multiple meanings listed in dictionaries)?
Every which way I turn it, I see it as being falsified by all angles.
Of course; and I'm sure also with the worldwide academic views of the history of the Universe through cosmology, astrophysics, geology, paleontology, archaeology, etc. Guess what? No one cares. You are in such an insignificant minority that if it wasn't for the damage creationists are causing to education, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, as EvC wouldn't exist. Creationism is regarded slightly below geocentrism in academic circles - it is openly laughed at and regarded the domain of the utterly deluded. I did not meet one self-acknowledged academic (excluding undergrad) YEC in my entire academic career, depsite being an active evangelical Christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 2:47 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