4
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 120:
Line 120: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Falsifiability of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 18:17, March 14, 2008
, 18:17, March 14, 2008→Religion bending to science
: "''The good news for freethinkers is that religion will forever be squirming under the glaring light of science, without so much as a scrap of evidence to justify its use of words like "law," "theory," or even "hypothesis" to describe its supernatural explanations for natural but unexplainable phenomena''": You wish! Christianity has nothing to fear from true science, only from atheistic views such as evolution promoted under the guise of being science. And creationists have just as much evidence as evolutionists: the difference is in how that evidence is interpreted. Creationists are free to see whether supernatural design or natural forces formed something. Atheists, if they are to remain atheists, are not free (so much for "''free''thinkers"!) to consider the first possibility, unnecessarily restricting themselves to the second, and thereby closing their minds to even considering a possible explanation.
: "''The good news for freethinkers is that religion will forever be squirming under the glaring light of science, without so much as a scrap of evidence to justify its use of words like "law," "theory," or even "hypothesis" to describe its supernatural explanations for natural but unexplainable phenomena''": You wish! Christianity has nothing to fear from true science, only from atheistic views such as evolution promoted under the guise of being science. And creationists have just as much evidence as evolutionists: the difference is in how that evidence is interpreted. Creationists are free to see whether supernatural design or natural forces formed something. Atheists, if they are to remain atheists, are not free (so much for "''free''thinkers"!) to consider the first possibility, unnecessarily restricting themselves to the second, and thereby closing their minds to even considering a possible explanation.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:47, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:47, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::"''Your example about Joe is interesting, but I don't see how it meaningfully applies to evolution.''"
::I alluded to the relationship, but was perhaps unclear. Just as we can use the example of Joe (with its unfalsifiable but reasonable assumption that he was beaten as a child) to draw a logical inference that applies to the broader question of child abuse, so to can we use the unfalsifiable but reasonable concept of common descent in the broader picture of evolutionary theory.
::"''...natural selection was first described by a creationist.''"
::The kernel of the idea goes back at least as far as ancient Greece. What the overwhelming majority of people are referring to when they say "natural selection" are the ideas as formulated by Darwin. If you prefer some other name, you're welcome to it, but we'll be speaking a different language and on different terms. If you want to argue Darwin's religious beliefs, that's a whole other kettle of fish, but I hope we can agree that to call him a "creationist" would be quite a stretch, whatever his views on "first cause" may have been.
::"''Most early scientific advancement was done ''within Christianity''.''"
::This always makes me laugh. We will never know what people who lived their lives under religious oppression and intolerance actually believed. To be sure, geniuses and artists have always used religion as their outlet, but what choice did they have? Little to none, depending on the times and climes. History is replete with examples of "radical" new ideas being squelched by religion. Please don't insult me with your feigned incredulity on that matter. Also, when you say "some religious groups," I know that you're hiding a "not my sect" card for later. Please don't play that one, OK?
::"''[Biblical Christianity] stays true to the Bible, which doesn't change.''"
::Horse hockey. Christians have abandoned innumerable "customs" of the past. Shall I name a few? I'd rather avoid opening my Bible for quotations, it always depresses me to read about the cruel slaughter and human depravity that it mandates.
::"''The sections of Christianity that are falling by the wayside are the sections that have compromised with the atheistic worldview.''"
::There is no such thing as an atheistic worldview. I say this as a person who agrees with this wiki's understanding that the definition of "atheism" is what some atheists like to call "strong atheism." That is to say, it is more than a mere '''dis'''belief in deities, it is '''un'''belief, which is a somewhat stronger statement. Regardless, there is no common "worldview" among atheists, any more than there is one among people who profess a strong belief that there is no such person as Santa Claus -- one of the few beliefs that I'm sure you and I both share. Common unbelief does not constitute a worldview; common belief, however, ''may'' (or may not), depending how deeply entrenched that belief has become. Islamism would be an example of a common belief taken to such an extreme that it has become the predominant worldview in some cultures. There have been similarly fanatical Christian cultures, but the world is fortunate enough to have had several centuries longer to temper Christianity than Islam. Theists like to claim that atheists have a common worldview in order to make debate more convenient, but I'm sure you will agree that this is unfair (not to mention intellectually lazy), just as it would be unfair of me to presume that all Catholics and Protestants share the same worldview just because they all happen to be Christian.
::"''The sections standing firm against that are growing. And Christianity has been mocked for centuries, yet it is still here and arguably as strong as ever.''""
::Growing by what measure? New church construction has followed a downward trend for many generations now, while the total American population has been rising fast. The various Christian denominations may be unifying as a voice against atheism, in a desperate (and rare) act of solidarity, but that's the most you can claim in regards to Christianity "growing." (I've seen no evidence of this solidarity occurring, but I'll throw you that bone.) As to being mocked for centuries, that is indeed true from without, but not from within. Not until it was safe to do so without being slaughtered by the self-appointed defenders of God's reputation.
::"''...there was very little [burning of books and people] going on, particularly with the Church encouraging and facilitating science.''"
::Again with the comedy. Except this time it's not so funny, because you've mingled it with the disgusting, unthinkable, unforgivable, yet typical Christian behavior of downplaying centuries of documented, well-established, universally-accepted history. Oceans of blood stain the robes of your religion. Its denial of this is not unlike Holocaust-denial, and is equally offensive and infuriating.
::"''Christianity has nothing to fear from true science, only from atheistic views such as evolution promoted under the guise of being science.''"
::Does Christianity not fear being made fools of for believing in a 6,000 year old universe? Oh that's right, most Christians conceded that one long ago. Only a few fringe sects still feel no shame in preaching that nonsense. I know I asked you not to play your "get out of jail" card, but if you wish to distance yourself from the kook fringe, this would be a good place to do it. I guess I can't begrudge you that.
::"''...creationists have just as much evidence as evolutionists...''"
::OK, shoot. I'm listening. Show me your evidence that a supernatural deity named Yahweh created the universe.
::"''...the difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.''"
::Exactly. And whereas evolutionary theory at least ''attempts'' to draw logical inferences for things like common descent, the creationist "interpretation" is to posit fanciful mythologies that any child can see through.
::"''Creationists are free to see whether supernatural design or natural forces formed something.''"
::How convenient! With such freedom, creationists can explain away any problem! When in doubt, "God did it!" That method is certainly much less stressful than trying to piece together the admittedly maddening puzzle using science as a guide. Unfortunately for creationists, it's also much less plausible.
::"''Atheists, if they are to remain atheists, are not free (so much for "''free''thinkers"!) to consider the first possibility, unnecessarily restricting themselves to the second, and thereby closing their minds to even considering a possible explanation.''"
::Something tells me that the word "freethinker" bothers you; I would be quite pleased if that were the case. The word should bother you, as it is a clear rejection of the stifling religious environment that trapped the human mind for centuries. That doesn't make it synonymous with "atheist," however, although the two words are at least cousins, in that freethought will necessarily lead to agnosticism (but not atheism). You are correct that atheists have closed the door on deities, and that if one were to suddenly appear to an atheist, s/he would be forced to reconsider their position. Likewise, if a believer were to be shown similarly irrefutable proof that there were no deities, they would have some 'splaining to do. I don't think either side has anything to worry about.
::Anyway, thanks for not stifling me (it happens a LOT, I assure you). I've enjoyed the discussion so far. :-) [[User:Bicycle|Bicycle]] 14:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
== Evolution Is False ==
== Evolution Is False ==