Why should evolution be accepted on authority?

we don't see christians bitching about T0E because ToE Directly contradicts the bible AND it does not serve then anny value. unlike when we found out the world was round sure they bitched bout it but when they got ti India and America they were like "well it IS there and were makin money."also they say that evolutionists belive we came from apes... APES little smelly monkeys how can we degrade ourselves to say we came from them... the reassurance that we were made directly from God's image (this might be a big thing) and we were created supreme... rather than dirtly and weak.

But that would be a fallacious argument, and why make it when the evidence is so much more compelling?Creationists are the ones that use fallacious arguments to convince. Don't you think we have a duty to raise the bar of the debate? Oh? Just because I used a dirty word? Did your poor little ears burn?Get over it. The only one introducing emotionality into this debate is you. As I said, I'll thank you not to speculate on my motives or expertise. It's the evidence that convinces me, not the authority. If you can't keep this debate at a non-personal level I suggest you withdraw.

"Creationists are the ones that use fallacious arguments to convince. Don't you think we have a duty to raise the bar of the debate?"O_o your going to sink to their level!!!"s I said, I'll thank you not to speculate on my motives or expertise. It's the evidence that convinces me, not the authority. If you can't keep this debate at a non-personal level I suggest you withdraw."EXACTLY thats the way to be. Go against the man how do you think evolution got were it is today. christianity was accsepted on athority at one time so science and evolution had to go against athority... i only belive in something like gravity because i jump and i fall makes sence to me... the earth being round... O_o it might not be the government could be controlling our education; therefore, i only accept it because it makes sence with the gravity thing... and i don't have the money to fly around the world :'( .

quote:

---

I think robin is right. Politics has everything to do with the popularity of religious beliefs and the rejection of ToE. Evidence has very little to do with politics, at least in this country and no doubt because evidence doesn't mean much to the average joe. He's much more likely to be swayed by emotional appeals than by logic or evidence. Witness the results of the recent presidential election.

---

Indeed. All religion is politics by other means. Our present society has just spent nearly a hundred years constructing non-materialist arguments with which to confront communism, and religion provided and excellent ideological bulwark. A little while ago Schrafinator asked if differing levels of public education accounted for the differing degrees of theism in European states vis a vis the USA, but in fact I think it has to do with the political climate; the stronger presence of labour politics in the European milieu has placed materialistic politics much higher on the agenda.

Crashfrog - Be nice!Everyone - Let's try to keep things in contact with the theme of the topic.AdminnemooseusThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-23-2004 04:14 PM

---

You amuse me no end, Crashfrog.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-23-2004 04:50 PM

It would be nice if you could actually address my points.But I'll agree to play nice. Hopefully you'll chose to do the same?But to get back on topic: isn't it better to figure out ways to make the evidence accessable to the "farmers" you're referring to, rather than trying to figure out ways to get them to accept evolution on fallacious arguments from authority?

You can't force people to belive in something, unless you are in a facist government, because it is free speach and free though... like how in the area were i live in there are neo-nazis who belive the holocause didn't happen. there are no laws stating that they cannot do that and even if there was they would still go against it. i'm a liberalist when it comes to peoples rights and i belive everyone has a right to do something as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. So why should it be accepted on athority? i think it shouldn't because, even though I belive in evolution and as much as i hate being critisized for it, people deserve to have their own belifes... even if they might have been forced or brought up with that belife all you can do is give people a choice and let them do their own thing... that doesn't hurt others.

Why is Perfect Death allowed to post?He can't spell.He should take a spelling test before posting.

I think your being unfair, robin. Lots of people here have far, far worse spelling and grammer than PerfectDeath. He's not that bad. Leave him be.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

I think there should be a basic spelling test. And by the way, you might want to change "your" to "you're."

I think this conversation belongs elsewhere. While we suggest that members take time and care with their posts, last I checked, perfect spelling was not a requirement of membership. If it was even our illustrious leader couldn't join.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

What do you suggest?

My apologies.

I think the point is that argument from authority, through not formally complete, is a reasonable way to proceed under some circumstances. Fossil hominids, as I noted previously, are often kept under lock and key, and only allowed to be examined directly by a very small number of people. There are good reasons for this; but it does mean that for details of hominid evolution we have no choice but by reading. The critical skill for a novice is being able to tell what is worth reading; balancing a critical eye with recognition of a strong case.Thus the answer to your question is (mostly) "No". It is not better to give everyone direct access to the evidence. And even if we could, it is not the case that everyone will be able to interpret evidence effectively; so it is still better for the novice to be guided by trustworthy authorities. The most appropriate access to evidence is by reading trustworthy authorities. Consideration of evidence is, of course, a good thing; but for many areas it must be second hand; we trust the reports of the evidence given by others. Even if we can access some kind of evidence directly, it is usually only for the sake of learning how evidence is gathered; we then go back to the more professional reports of evidence we we cannot examine directly.Cheers -- Sylas