In the argument between scientists and creationists, the scientists, and we rationalists who trust their intellectual honesty, are at a severe disadvantage
( Read more... )
You could lie. "Evolution is true. God told me. He said he never made the world."
I still think it's ignorance rather than active malice. There's a letter in today's SMH: "Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life."
No. It doesn't. Nor is it meant to. It's about the development of life. There are theories about the origin of life, of course, though AFAIK most of them are in the category of "broad guesswork" rather than "solid theory".
Solidly pro-evolution. (hint: malaria resistance in the form of sicle-cell anemia although I probably mis-spelled that).
however I look at it I can't defend creationists. About as close as I get is: Coyote? Sic 'em!
at least being shaped from clay by a mischievious spirit explains a great deal about humanity. But then so does the Norse creation myths, ...
tell ya what : the day a creationist (of whatever mythos) can defend their viewpoint with solid, reliable, repeatable and analyzable (and defendably doctorate-challengeable outsite of either theology, philosophy or psychology) proof is the day I start considering their argument.
until then they're a bunch of flakes. The evolutionists have already done the previous (and resulted in theories which bear little resemblance to Darwin's apparently) to anyone's reasonably secure means.
(and resulted in theories which bear little resemblance to Darwin's apparently)
Pet hate: creationists who consider discrediting Darwin discredits evolution. For heck's sake, discrediting other people's theories is what science is all about! It's how it works! :)
Just a minor nitpick: "Evolutionists" only exist in the minds of creationists. The word you're after is either "materialist", "rationalist" or just "scientist".
When you accept their terminology, you start to lose the battle, since words are their only weapon.
Oh, and I don't think anyone's come up with anything to beat natural selection as the method of evolution. Darwin's theory has been refined, not replaced, over the last hundred plus years.
you win this one flat out. "evolutionist" is a dead end term too.
Actually I think it was more Mendellson rather than Darwin that refined how the theory actually was enacted - Darwin seemed to imply considerably faster change and more extreme forms (I've heard quotes referring to dolphins and wolves becoming eachother under appropriate pressures - but it wasn't precisely a reliable source). Mind you I haven't read his works directly (unlike some of Mendellson's actually) and hence am not able to defend properly. However the underlying concept "natural selection" is a solid and nicely sustained theory.
I just found the perfect quote for this-curufeaOctober 25 2005, 10:42:20 UTC
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." ~ Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), British philosopher, logician, essayist, and renowned peace advocate.
Comments 18
Dr. Pinder Schloss: ...The human spirit, it is a hard thing to kill.
Granny: Even with a chainsaw.
Reply
Reply
I still think it's ignorance rather than active malice. There's a letter in today's SMH:
"Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life."
No. It doesn't. Nor is it meant to. It's about the development of life. There are theories about the origin of life, of course, though AFAIK most of them are in the category of "broad guesswork" rather than "solid theory".
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
however I look at it I can't defend creationists. About as close as I get is:
Coyote? Sic 'em!
at least being shaped from clay by a mischievious spirit explains a great deal about humanity. But then so does the Norse creation myths, ...
tell ya what : the day a creationist (of whatever mythos) can defend their viewpoint with solid, reliable, repeatable and analyzable (and defendably doctorate-challengeable outsite of either theology, philosophy or psychology) proof is the day I start considering their argument.
until then they're a bunch of flakes. The evolutionists have already done the previous (and resulted in theories which bear little resemblance to Darwin's apparently) to anyone's reasonably secure means.
Reply
Pet hate: creationists who consider discrediting Darwin discredits evolution. For heck's sake, discrediting other people's theories is what science is all about! It's how it works! :)
Reply
When you accept their terminology, you start to lose the battle, since words are their only weapon.
Oh, and I don't think anyone's come up with anything to beat natural selection as the method of evolution. Darwin's theory has been refined, not replaced, over the last hundred plus years.
Reply
"evolutionist" is a dead end term too.
Actually I think it was more Mendellson rather than Darwin that refined how the theory actually was enacted - Darwin seemed to imply considerably faster change and more extreme forms (I've heard quotes referring to dolphins and wolves becoming eachother under appropriate pressures - but it wasn't precisely a reliable source). Mind you I haven't read his works directly (unlike some of Mendellson's actually) and hence am not able to defend properly. However the underlying concept "natural selection" is a solid and nicely sustained theory.
Reply
~ Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), British philosopher, logician, essayist, and renowned peace advocate.
Reply
Leave a comment