Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:54:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5485 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> > 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."
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 erroneous due to falacious logic. Therefore being one who
would never do such a thing, I'm more that you [read you're lesser than me]".
Also, I don't think it's falacious logic. Let's suppose (because I love the
theory) that I, DaveE, am master of the universe. Let's also assume you
disagree with that assumption. What reasons do you have for disbelieving my
theory, other than "faith"? I'd say it's fair to say that your argument
would be something along the lines of (see from above): "I can't imagine,
after a brief period of speculation, how DaveE could be master of the
universe, so the theory must be false." (Though I would've omit the 'brief
period of speculation' bit, because, again, I think your intent in stating
such was demeaning)
> 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"
A good point. I agree with your criticism, but I'll also reverse it on you.
If Creationism can't explain a particular aspect you find in geology/etc,
wouldn't you be equally keen to dismiss it, despite what Creationism *does*
explain?
> 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.
There it is again. "Lack of reasoning ability" == "lesser person".
> 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.
When it comes down to it, it's all faith. Science is faith. You have faith
that because we *ALL* see Lego bricks that they exist. And it would be kinda
useless to theorize otherwise, but it's still faith.
But disregarding that already-labeled-as-existentialist viewpoint, can you
prove that these people "reject reason" simply because they reject *your*
reason?
> 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.
Maybe not all Christians are like that, but aren't you? Aren't you going out
of your way to condemn Christianity/Creationists/etc for being ignorant,
prideful, willful, and blind?
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) Well, don't condemn me for the assumptions *you're* making. Here's a restatement: A: Rational reasoning is based on experience and observation of verifiable evidence B: Intuitive reasoning is based on feelings and impressions independent of (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: <snippety snip> (...) I'm OK with that view! (does that come as a shock to anyone???) Reason is our evolutionary advantage. If you can't or won't reason, you're repudiating your humanity. I'm an (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 11-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
|
|
|
|
