Question about evolution

[Evil Doer]

Alas, we of a skeptical (or secular) bent are required to read both "for" and "against", lest we become as biased as our "opposition".

Yes and no.

There's a danger of legitimizing ID when we read it in a "for and against" way.

I think the bigger problem is that it portrays skepticism/science/logic as a process of hearing arguments for and against. The reason why this is a bigger problem is because evolution is so much more complicated than ID that you simply cannot be able to fairly judge ID vs evolution.

Understanding what we already know about evolution is a huge task in itself. It's also a hell of a lot more interesting.

[ozogg]

Sorry Evil Doer,

I don't understand your proposition.

Are you suggesting:

1. NOT reading "the enemy's propaganda", aka "ignorance is better than knowledge"; or, as Mao said: "know your enemy, as well as yourself, in order to defeat him".
2. Reading it in some other "kind of way" - (how would anyone know how we read it, even when we're debating them) ? How many ways are there of reading?
3. Something else ?

I'm not baiting you here, I'm just trying to understand exactly what you're proposing.

Cheers,
'im, aka ozogg.

______________ reply separator ______________

Originally Posted by Evil Doer

Yes and no.

There's a danger of legitimizing ID when we read it in a "for and against" way.

I think the bigger problem is that it portrays skepticism/science/logic as a process of hearing arguments for and against. The reason why this is a bigger problem is because evolution is so much more complicated than ID that you simply cannot be able to fairly judge ID vs evolution.

Understanding what we already know about evolution is a huge task in itself. It's also a hell of a lot more interesting.

[davo]

have to agree .. Dawkins puts it well here :

http://richarddawkins.net/article,11...ichard-Dawkins

Creationism is after any legitimacy it can get.

There's nothing wrong with being biased in your opinion against something that is just totally naive and incorrect in it's base premise. Just by reading detailed material on creationism does not make it any more factual, or change your bias in any way (and yes I have read quite a bit on creationist thought) I am still biased toward science, there is no credibility in creationism and thus no need to look in depth into it and legitimise it by doing so. The simplest premises of the concept are both false in their basis and not scientific in their approach, yet claim that stance.

PS: there is no need to debate creationists, it is not a science, it is a belief and an incorrect one. By debating creationism we are lending credence to something where there is absolutely no argument, and playing right into their hands.

[Chasly]

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference between a creationist and a theist?
They both believe in a god....so why would an athiest debate one but not the other?

[davo]

Originally Posted by Chasly

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference between a creationist and a theist?
They both believe in a god....so why would an athiest debate one but not the other?

A creationist not only believes in a god, but is actively putting forward, against massive evidence, that creationism is a science (creation 'science') they also usually believe in the old testament as being historically accurate.

Many theists believe in evolution, catholicism for instance has no problem with it (theistic evolution). Deists are another ..

ref if interested :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...atholic_Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

[davo]

oh well that's it they convinced me with peanut butter

[GUDLUSS]

Wait wait wait....he DOES realise that you STERILISE food cans before you put food IN them, right? This is to make sure that ANY life in there is killed, which is why life can only grow in there if it's contaminated by a foreign life form. And that evolution takes MILLIONS of years to happen, and that the first life forms were simple and INVISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE. I would go on but this is just too mind-bogglingly stupid and my head's been buggered for now.
Maybe he should research evolution a bit more before he starts pointing out that there is no life in peanut butter....

[davo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs

http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaurs

the creation wiki references this page, a MUST read for lulz :

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...-and-the-bible

[GUDLUSS]

This made me wonder...how did God intend to kill fish with the Great Flood?

[Evil Doer]

Originally Posted by ozogg

Sorry Evil Doer,

I don't understand your proposition.

Are you suggesting:

1. NOT reading "the enemy's propaganda", aka "ignorance is better than knowledge"; or, as Mao said: "know your enemy, as well as yourself, in order to defeat him".

Mao lifted his stuff from Sunzi.

And the emphasis is on knowing Yourself. Seriously, how many people actually know the ins and outs of current theories in evolution?

I've read most of Richard Dawkin's books and many articles in the Talk.Origins Archive and yet after recently reading "Ancestor's Tales" (also by Dawkins), I realize I STILL don't know much about evolution.

Most people don't know evolution well enough to mount any sort of resistance (other than repeating canned responses to which IDists also have canned responses) successfully counter creationist arguments.

2. Reading it in some other "kind of way" - (how would anyone know how we read it, even when we're debating them) ? How many ways are there of reading?

I'm saying you shouldn't read books on evolution and ID just to get "arguments" and "counter arguments". Very much like boxing, you don't learn specific hits and counters to them so much as get a wider understanding of tactics in hand to hand combat.

Like I said, most people don't know evolution well enough and canning the usual responses is insufficient.

3. Something else ?

I'm not baiting you here, I'm just trying to understand exactly what you're proposing.

Ultimately, if you understand evolution theories well enough, you can counter any sort of creationist lie without needing to be acquainted with their arguments. What is worse is if, without and understanding of the theories to generate specific responses, it will look really bad when someone posits a question for which you have no prepared answer for.