|
|
Due to spam and off-topic content, these forums are being phased out and replaced with new great books forums. Please join us!
Posted by Craig62 on August 17, 19100 at 22:51:36:
In Reply to: Re: Name Calling posted by Joseph on August 16, 19100 at 22:17:21:
You raise some interesting points and it reminds me of the story Niles Eldredge tells in his book "The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism" in which a statement he made was misquoted and taken out of context by a creationists and published. The creationism movement is not a scientific one but rather a political one. "People never do evil so cheerfully and completely as when they do so from religious conviction" I forget who this quote is attributed to. But quoting scientists out of context is unethical and unfortunately common in the creationists camps.
So here we have a situation in which scientists are concerned about the quality and integrity of scientific education, while others view it as some sort of holy war to rid the world of the "evils" they perceive evolution to represent.
This is not scientific rather political.
From a scientific and intellectual point of view evolution is triumphant, and contrary to your claim, it is a proven fact with overwhelming evidence to support it. One does not need to and does not overstate the evidence.
That is all for now.
Craig62
====================================================================================================
: ...: nt...
: In reading this site, I find the name calling on both sides very depressing. I am well aware that the objective interchange of ideas on the subject of evolution and origins has long since been poisoned on both sides. This is sad. It is even sadder to see it in day to day practice as seems to occur on this site, and every other such site I have looked over on the internet.
: On the creationist side, I have several issues. If you are supposed to be proponents of Christ's love, you sure don't show it very well. Not everyone who doesn't hold to your viewpoint is some type of infidel. It also seems like your own faith is rather weak, if it is dependant to the degree it seems to be with you guys, on the ebb and flow of scientific discoveries.
: On the Darwinist side, although you are not a religion in your obvious contempt and even hatred toward Creationism, you often act like you are. We are reaching the point where any dissent from this overriding paradigm must somehow be squelched. (a point of view expressed without shame here recently).
: Besides being unscientific in this aspect, you also overstate your evidence. The earth is a sample set of 1. Until independent biota are discovered, you cannot state with the certainty that you do, that your theory is "fact, fact, fact". This is especially true in view of the lack of any real progress in origin of life experiments since Miller-Urey in 1953. The most important facts you need are at the highest levels of life (phlya on up), not the species, genus, etc levels at the bottom that you love to use so much.
: This latter point is the main reason I maintain my neutrality on this subject. Darwinian arguments often remind me of a pyramid stood on its head. You have to set up your foundation first. But as Shapiro has showed, Darwinian arguments at life origin levels are NOT compelling. Creationists shouldn't crow about this, because neither are their arguments.
: Less name calling and more research are in order me thinks.