Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate

Post Reply New Topic

I did look up holobaramin a few minutes ago... and was not impressed.

All descended from two individuals taken aboard Noah's ark?? Uh... riiiight.


And perhaps my naivete makes it impossible for me to understand the incessant arguments between the creationists and evolutionists (my apologies, Philologos, if that is not a real word )

Evolution does not explain biogenesis - creationism does. Evolution is supported by observations of the natural world - creationism is not.

Why does believing that God created life preclude someone from believing in evolution? Is there not some middle ground? God created life and set evolution in motion then sat back and watched... or guided the process... doesn't that work?

My theory of mind is quite lacking when it comes to trying to understand "hard core" religious people. Any insights would be welcome.

1. Religionists tend to believe everything they're told to believe, but only when told by their favorite religious leaders.

2. Religious leaders tell religionists to believe a collection of largely apocryphal camp-fire stories that have been passed around (in one form or another) since the end of the most recent Ice Age.

3. Religionist tend to believe that facts are mutable, and that Science is a Tool of the Devil that he uses for the express purpose of turning innocent children into sociopathic Atheists.

4. Science relies on methods of inquiry and empirical evidence; the goal of science is to acquire and refine all knowledge and understanding. This is anathema to Religion, which requires blind faith and obedience in all things.

5. Religion relies on arbitrary dogma and faith; the goal of religion is to impose conformity and arbitrary doctrine on a fearful and ignorant public. This is anathema to free inquiry, as Science is the gathering and collection of valid knowledge, along with the simultaneous rejection of false ideas.

6. Philosophy relies on dialog and rules of debate; the goal of a debate is to argue the opposition into a philosophical corner where they are forced to either capitulate or look foolish. This is anathema to serious scientific discussion, as philosophers tend to create "Strawmen" for the sole purpose of de-constructing them bit-by-bit to "prove" an irrelevant point.

7. Science flies you to the moon.

8. Religion flies you into buildings.

9. Philosophy makes up the excuses.

Of course, Science itself does this, and everything within the set of Science included? Via the fallacy of division? So, Evolutionary Biology flies you to the moon?

cave canem:

"And perhaps my naivete makes it impossible for me to understand the incessant arguments between the creationists and evolutionists (my apologies, Philologos, if that is not a real word Razz ) "

All words included between quote marks are excellent words in Standard English, properly spelled [I do not insist on importinf French accents], correctly used.

My only criticism would be that the arguments do not become more comprehensible nor pardonable as naivete decreases.

As I stated earlier, I consider myself a theistic evolutionist, and so I agree that God set evolution in motion, and guided it.
But I am not part of the intelligent design crowd, as the existence of God can't be proven, and so He should not be included in science class.
If people favoring intelligent design are so ready to have a stroke over having it taught in schools, then perhaps it can be taught in philosophy class... Perhaps.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Forget the New Policy while I spit on some of this:

I do not know anything about Religioists, whatever they are. I have known and interacted with [and generally respected the serious ones] Christians, Atheists, Jews. Buddhists, Muslims, Mormons and one Bahai type. Obviously you deal with Religionists - I am sorry for you, they seem to be quite unlike People of Faith.



You seem not to have encountered Religion. These statements could not come from anybody who has actually TALKED to the religious or read anything dealing with religion.

Perhaps you have been confused by the name, which does sound like your incredible Religionists.



I will leave that to the philosophically inclined - I suspect it is like much of your understanding takataka.



Too shallow for comment

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt130806.html

This was the result of keets continued insistence in light of all and any empirical evidence to accept the fact that is Evolution. I will dig up his previous attempts to falsify evolution

[http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt125797.html} more here although the main (serious) protagonist is angelrho

Not bad!

ruveyn

Not bad -

nor original - http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3567 - you see what I mean, ads on the busses?! !!

But originality is overrated.

More to the point, it is Pol talk - not, my psittacist friend, to be confused with Poll Parrot,

And Pol Talk UNLIKE science talk [including that of serious theology] indulges in hyperbole and ignores counterevidence.

So unreasoning flagwavers on the other side - which thanks God I am not, I got me enough trouble without being an unbreasoning idiot - could paint on the other side of the bus:

Science gave you Hiroshima and Thalidomide

Religion gave you hospitals and pacifism

----------------------------

Of course, no slogan is true - a slogan is a stupid video comedian destroying a serious poin to persuade the thought free.

Bu for every provern there is an equal and opposite proverb making a contrarypoint [look before you leap, he who hesitates is lost], and so it is with slogan. Only the nonfanatic capable of constructive thought considetrs ALL the evidence.

nicely put

Sad to see you guys dish on philosophy.

My take:

1. Science tells you what you have to work with

2. Philosophy helps you figure out what you'd rather do with it or how you'd choose to look at it or yourself, or society in light of new information.

In the last 3000 years science has succeeded and philosophy fails. Philosophers are still mulling over the same hash as Plato and Aristotle. No progress.

ruveyn

You're reading the wrong people.

Fine. Who are the "right" people?

My assumption is anything not ultimately based on fact is either nonsense or is irrelevant. Mathematics is excepted because it can be put to use.

ruveyn

I might not agree with everything these two guys say but I think they're a good starter example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurgen_Habermas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ralston_Saul

The main idea: you still have epistemic and ontological problems among others even after you've boiled away all the fairy dust. This is what I'm getting at though - there are more efficient/more healthy ways to interpret and view things. There are ideas on ways forward for economies. There are ideas for bettering human condition. When you think about it science gives us the tools to do things but it, in reference to our wants and needs, it doesn't give us an outline of what to do with them. Much to say the human mind, human condition, human psychology, take a bit of phenageling if one wants to find a healthy outlook - I'd pit psychology against the human condition as a philosophical battle as well.

Thanks, guys!

There's hope for WP yet!

Of course, the ad hoc, ersatz, and self-appointed Committee on Philosophical Correctness will disagree ... as soon as they can form a coalition, that is.