I don't tend to engage in arguments that are staged as 'creationism vs. evolution' because I don't see the two views being at all comparable. The creation myth is simply that - a myth. When someone demands proof for evolution, I often suggest they start by reading The Origin of Species - a 150 year old book which conceptualizes the idea, and then continue research with the knowledge in mind that this idea has become as solid a scientific theory as that of gravity. The 'softer' argument that seems to pop up in regard to evolution is the 'it's just a theory' BS. Angie the Anti-Theist is having a grand old time staving off the logical fallacies of one such person and I chimed in and what happened - I was accused of being Angie and my questions were entirely ignored. Typical.
I feel like the issues with debating regarding evolution are ones of scientific illiteracy. A theory to the layman is nothing more than an idea. A theory as its established in science is far more conclusive. To attribute the layman's understanding of what a theory is to the scientific classification of evolution as a theory is a mistake that many uneducated people tend to make and refuse to correct. What exactly is the point of debate with someone who stubbornly refuses to understand the way basic science works?
To say that proponents of evolution are asking for people to accept facts on faith is ridiculous as well. This to me is just another way of saying 'your explanation is complicated and I don't immediately understand it, therefore it must be your explanation that is faulty.' No. Life and the universe are complicated subjects which require complicated explanations. A person's unwillingness to take the time and dedication to learn does not in any way make the complicated explanation any less true. Even more interesting is that as you learn about science, the explanation of complex ideas becomes far less confusing and difficult to understand because science builds on itself.
I feel for Angie - conversations like the one she finds herself in are the reason even my mother understands the term 'head/desk'.
Logging you in...
Posts
AngieAntiTheist 86p · 816 weeks ago
I *was* an ignorant fundy, and a willfully ignorant one at that. I was really terrified of science because I'd been taught to fear it, that it was a threat to my faith. Of course, my faith is gone and now I love science so I can see why I was indoctrinated against science. But once I realized how arrogant I had been to assume that I knew better than scientists how to interpret Lucy or the age of the earth or the (complete lack of) evidence for a global flood, I've been pretty humble. I admit that I was wrong (really really wrong) and now I'm trying my damndest to catch up.
It's pretty embarrassing going on a kid's science website with my 3-year-old and learning right along with him, but it's better than remaining ignorant any longer.
Bill 69p · 815 weeks ago
Unfortunately, being correct -- particularly with regards to complex positions, which means damned near anything of any importance -- does not make a position more influential to those who are unwilling or unable to grasp complexity or subtlety. Therein lies the rub, because the factions (ala Madison) that rightfully (from their selfish perspective) hate science are quite good at influencing emotions.
My own background makes me a bit fanatical about maintaining a strong connection between my thoughts and objective reality, so I really don't understand those who are satisfied with a severely attenuated grasp of reality (such as those you mention who use "theory" in the colloquial sense during a scientific discussion.) But they are dangerous.