Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 04:03:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5172 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> > What I am reacting to is the notion that a belief in God is somehow
> > anti-intellectual or intellectually compromising.
>
> Now *THIS* I can agree with (the reaction, not the notion). It's an
> impression I've had for a long time in .debate, although I don't think
> anyone's stated it outright. There are several people who appear to reject
> out-of-hand anything that involves faith or belief instead of strict reason
> or logic.
I'm one of those people, so I'll offer something of an explanation. It's not
that we (allow me to presume to speak for others who share my view on this)
think an anti-evolutionist is a lesser *person,* but it is almost invariably
the case that someone who rejects evolution does so for logically falacious
reasons, such as "the Bible or William Lane Craig or Michael Behe says
evolution is impossible, so I believe them" or "I can't imagine, after a brief
period of speculation, how an eye could evolve, so evolution must be false."
The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of descent with modification via
natural selection, and no other theory presented to date offers a more
comprehensive explanation. In addition, most anti-evolutionists I've argued
with eventually say something like "well evolution can explain A, B, C, and D,
but not E, so it must be 100% false" or "we don't know where the universe came
from, so God must have done it" or "Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins
disagree on evolution, so even scientists know it's false" or "even though
99.99999% of scientists accept evolution, this scientist over here rejects it,
so he must be right." These are not logically sound devices of reason, and the
zeal with which anti-evolutionists cling to them speaks of a poor logical
founding.
My inclination, when faced with someone who demonstrates such a significant
lack of reasoning ability, is to question that person's reasoning on other
matters, too. That's not really unfair; if you had a friend who constantly
made bad financial decisions, would you accept on faith his suggestion that you
invest in betamax home video? Of course not--you would question his reasoning
because it flies in the face of logical thought.
Logic and reason are, from a pragmatic point of view, generally superior to
intuition or leaps of faith when it comes to deciding real-world issues, such
as crossing the street or undergoing surgery or investing money. It seems
fair, therefore, to apply reason whenever possible (and feasible), and people
who reject reason (such as my coworker who says "the pet psychic couldn't
possibly have known that my cat liked to have her ears scratched") in favor of
faith often seem to do so out of ignorance or simple preference. Again, that's
not to say that spiritual people are unintelligent, but I do believe that they
often apply reason to their lives in an inconsistent manner.
> This is of course, personal choice and all that jazz, but they
> also appear to reject and even deride or vilify anyone who *does* feel that
> belief is a valid premise for anything.
But let's be honest; many Christians (speaking from my own experience, and
from here on LUGNET, for example) go out of their way to condemn the so-called
ignorant, prideful, arrogant, willful, blindness of people who for some
benighted reason don't accept on faith a conclusion based on nothing but
someone else's personal revelation and testimony. I know, I know--not *all*
Christians are like that, but neither do all proponents of evolution deride
those who believe based on faith.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) Isn't accusing someone of using "falacious logic" an insult to their person? IE assuming they're a lesser one? I think the assumption you're making is that "I would *never* come to that conclusion, but you would, and that conclusion is (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) Very well thought out and written, Dave! A few of my thoughts and ideas (that I can guarantee won't be as thought out nor in any sense a coherent order)... I find that there are fellow Christians out there who *have* to hit others over the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) Evolution isn't trying to explain the universe. You seem to be stumbling over that. (...) Now *THIS* I can agree with (the reaction, not the notion). It's an impression I've had for a long time in .debate, although I don't think anyone's (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
