Response to "eworkhard".
I am replying to a comment left by a creationist on one of my entries.
I have often heard of Dawkins as being arrogant. After reading his piece in (I believe TIME) on Science vs. Creation, I came to believe that myself. What is the guys mission? Motivation? He is not simply an evolutionist. It is almost as if he has a hate against God/Bible.
When you say he is not simpily an evolutionist. It is almost as if he has a hate against God/Bible, I got the idea that you meant this as a critisism. I got the idea that you thought it was bad that Dawkins wasn't just talking about Biology. However, it would be fucking stupid for you to ignore the fact that many theologins and Christians have tried to explain things outside their field (an example being, oh let me think, science?). I don't see them suffer as much critisism as when Dawkins moves into philosophy...
Do not say that he is simply showing that the Bible is wrong. If that was the case he would also be raving against such books as Harry potter.
What? The difference between Harry Potter and the Bible is that Harry Potter isn't followed (in terms of morality and pratice). However, the Bible still influences and controls billions of people. Stop using fucking straw-man arguments against Harry Potter. It does not "entice" people into praticing witchcraft, it does not "corrupt the minds" of people, and it most certainly does not damn their souls forever. It's a straw-man argument, pure and simple...
Also he is not trying to show that the Creation view is wrong. The only way to do that is to actually PROVE the THEORY of evolution. To do that he must make something of nothing. There every theory runs into a roadblock.
What is he trying to do then? Contempory science (and empirical evidence) leans heavily towards the theory of the big bang, evolution, and the wacky idea that the Grand Canyon was not designed by Noah's flood, as creationists would like you to believe. Creationism is not science, because if it was, the creationist theory would have been discarded many years ago. Instead we have creation scientists constantly adding ad-hoc hypothesises to prevent the data being falsified. These ad-hocs often conatin theories which are not inderpendently testable, so they can never be disproved. The only reason that creationism is constantly bought back is that Christians (who believe in a literal Bible) believe that it has to be taught in schools and whatnot. Also, thay believe some wacky things, such as the teaching of evolution as being the cause of racism, rape etc.
You use the word "theory" in a way that would suggest that scientists are still unsure of whether or not evolution actually happened. But then again, I suppose evolution is a theory, in the same way gravity is. When you say "something of nothing", I assume you're saying that the non-creationist theories can be falsified because the "flaw" with the theories is that we haven't (yet) discovered how the universe coming around to be, with you suggesting it spontaniously came out of nothing. Of course, I could ask you how your God came into extistence. I'm assuming that if you believe in creationism, you believe in a diety from a Judaistic religion, which pretty much says that God is the alpha and the omega. But that doesn't really answer my question, so what created God, and how?
I would genuinly like to take this discussion further, as it is very interesting. Please continue to comment...
I have often heard of Dawkins as being arrogant. After reading his piece in (I believe TIME) on Science vs. Creation, I came to believe that myself. What is the guys mission? Motivation? He is not simply an evolutionist. It is almost as if he has a hate against God/Bible.
When you say he is not simpily an evolutionist. It is almost as if he has a hate against God/Bible, I got the idea that you meant this as a critisism. I got the idea that you thought it was bad that Dawkins wasn't just talking about Biology. However, it would be fucking stupid for you to ignore the fact that many theologins and Christians have tried to explain things outside their field (an example being, oh let me think, science?). I don't see them suffer as much critisism as when Dawkins moves into philosophy...
Do not say that he is simply showing that the Bible is wrong. If that was the case he would also be raving against such books as Harry potter.
What? The difference between Harry Potter and the Bible is that Harry Potter isn't followed (in terms of morality and pratice). However, the Bible still influences and controls billions of people. Stop using fucking straw-man arguments against Harry Potter. It does not "entice" people into praticing witchcraft, it does not "corrupt the minds" of people, and it most certainly does not damn their souls forever. It's a straw-man argument, pure and simple...
Also he is not trying to show that the Creation view is wrong. The only way to do that is to actually PROVE the THEORY of evolution. To do that he must make something of nothing. There every theory runs into a roadblock.
What is he trying to do then? Contempory science (and empirical evidence) leans heavily towards the theory of the big bang, evolution, and the wacky idea that the Grand Canyon was not designed by Noah's flood, as creationists would like you to believe. Creationism is not science, because if it was, the creationist theory would have been discarded many years ago. Instead we have creation scientists constantly adding ad-hoc hypothesises to prevent the data being falsified. These ad-hocs often conatin theories which are not inderpendently testable, so they can never be disproved. The only reason that creationism is constantly bought back is that Christians (who believe in a literal Bible) believe that it has to be taught in schools and whatnot. Also, thay believe some wacky things, such as the teaching of evolution as being the cause of racism, rape etc.
You use the word "theory" in a way that would suggest that scientists are still unsure of whether or not evolution actually happened. But then again, I suppose evolution is a theory, in the same way gravity is. When you say "something of nothing", I assume you're saying that the non-creationist theories can be falsified because the "flaw" with the theories is that we haven't (yet) discovered how the universe coming around to be, with you suggesting it spontaniously came out of nothing. Of course, I could ask you how your God came into extistence. I'm assuming that if you believe in creationism, you believe in a diety from a Judaistic religion, which pretty much says that God is the alpha and the omega. But that doesn't really answer my question, so what created God, and how?
I would genuinly like to take this discussion further, as it is very interesting. Please continue to comment...
Labels: Creationism, Creationist, Discussion
posted by Joe Mc'Lynch @ 4:42 PM
1 Comments:
At 20 December, 2006 17:28,
eworkhard said…
My reply to Joseph Lynch.
I have started a blog showing the weaknesses of evolution. It is located at www.creation-evolution.blogspot.com
No, the problem that I have with Dawkins is that he says evolution is the only way, period. This is incorrect. Evolution is a theory. As such it should be available to criticisms. However, this would not be the case if Dawkins had his way.
No, science does not lean heavily toward evolution. However, the current INTERPRETATION by many scientists leans toward evolution. Now, all data is made to fit evolution, the same way that 150 years ago, everything was interpreted toward creation. That is dangerous, period. Whenever people lean toward a theory and do not keep an open mind it will broadside them. It happened to creationists once, and it will happen to evolutionists.
Again I reiterate, no theory can explain how something came of nothing. It is a matter of faith. Do you believe in creation or evolution? Therefore, despite all of the blustering of evolutionists, evolution is a belief system. I believe that nothing created God. Yet you must believe that certain gases (or whatever produced the big bang) always existed.
As for ad hoc analysis to keep data from being falsified, that is a joke. Data cannot be falsified. Experiments can be conducted in ways that allow for error, but DATA cannot be falsified. Every experiment must be done several times. Other scientists must be able to repeat an experiment. Data from an experiment cannot be falsified.
Gravity is not a theory. It is a fact of life. However, postulates and theories cover most of science. However, some theories simply are used since a majority of scientists believe that is how that something occurred. Looking back on many of these theories, they have been proven incorrect after some years.
Yes, Harry Potter is followed in morality and practice. People do go around in a fantasy world that was created in those books. Harry Potter does control many people. I hate to say this but I believe that Harry Potter’s influence is far and bad. It teaches people to devalue life. That is why we live in a society that punishes animal abusers MORE than murderers.
I do not know anyone who believes evolution is a cause of racism and rape, or any other societal malady. A simple construction of cause/result analyses will show that.
Post a Comment
<< Home