Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 21:57:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6024 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> Rational: After repeated trials eliminating as many external variables as
> possible, it is apparent that penicillin has a positive medicinal effect on
> the disease tuberculosis
>
> Intuitive: I slept with the window open, and my tuberculosis appeared to
> clear up; therefore sleeping with the window open ameliorates tuberculosis
Really? Now, I'd call them both rational (==logical?) decisions, there's
just less support for the 2nd as opposed to the 1st. IE I'd be "less sure"
of the 2nd assumption than the 1st. Which is really how I feel about
Creationism. It's not that it's invalid or illogical or whatnot. I'm just a
lot "less sure" about it than Evolutionary Theory. Evolution has withstood
*loads* of evidence, whereas Creationism has a minimal amount, most of which
could be held to support other theories. Therefore, I find Evolution more
*likely*, but equally *possible*.
Moreover, I'd argue that it's my *personal* preference, and *not* an
objective truth, that Evolution is more likely than Creationism. IE that our
preference for evidenciary support is personal, not universal.
> > Ah, and others would say Creationism, on the basis that Evolution doesn't
> > satisfactorily explain it for them.
>
> But why? Because it makes them feel better? Great! But that certainly
> doesn't make it science, which is the issue we're addressing.
Well, basically that it's too "perfect" for their tastes. That such a
naturally occurring system couldn't produce the world we live in or
ourselves. Of course, there's one I'd reverse on them, because I find the
notion of a Creator too "perfect" for my tastes.
> The logical action would be to wait for more data.
*THE* logical action? What would your theory be? Is there only *one*, or one
*best* theory with so little data?
> Electrocution, I believe, refers to death by electricity, but I suppose
> you're referring only to a nasty jolt.
Yes indeed :) Sorry bout that one...
> David Hume, after a lengthy examination, declared that some creator is
> just barely possible, but that "creator" is just barely enough to get things
> started. If we're talking about God Almighty, the chances, based on Hume's
> calculus (which I've read but can't reproduce here) deteriorates almost to
> zero.
Just to play devil's advocate here, why should I believe our friend Mr. Hume
rather than the Bible? (Honestly I found Hume a little dull-- I didn't read
much of his, though...)
> For anyone reading on the sidelines, I hasten to add that the fossil
> record *does* provide samples of medium-necked giraffes (though I
> understand, Dave, that you're just using that as an example).
Huh-- ok, bad example then... I wasn't aware that they had any "medium"
necked giraffe fossils to date...
> Anyway, you've raised another tangential point, but an interesting one.
> Many, if not nearly all, of the Creationists I've spoken with eventually
> raise the "but then life has no meaning" question. The answer is, frankly,
> "too bad." The fact that the truth is unpalatable to someone is irrelevant
> to its truth.
Heh, my answer is a little different, but I suppose a little less imposing:
"If your current life's meaning is now invalidated, you better find a *new*
one." I don't think life is without purpose or meaning, but I certainly
don't believe that it's to appease some greater entity seperate to ourselves
(AKA God).
> > [This debate] is concerned with being "right". And as such, I think you're
> > saying that your ability to be "right" is better than theirs. That's the
> > issue at hand, not your "overall judgement" on a person.
>
> So be it. If someone's ability to be right is superior to someone else's,
> why should anyone behave otherwise?
Well, that's just a matter of taste, I think. Basic etiquette/whatever. It
may be true on occasion, but being condescending to people, or being blatent
with such an attitude isn't really necessary a debate, and generally serves
to only highten tensions. Certainly you don't do it all the time-- and
certainly I'm guilty of it in the past as well-- but just because it's true
doesn't mean it needs to filter into the debate.
However, as it stands, I'm of the mind that I'm no more able to be "right"
than anyone else. But in general I like to think of having a good track
record...
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) Rational: After repeated trials eliminating as many external variables as possible, it is apparent that penicillin has a positive medicinal effect on the disease tuberculosis Intuitive: I slept with the window open, and my tuberculosis (...) (23 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
|
|
|
|
