zzang

Why is it that most of you here religiously defend evolution as if it was your mother? Does it hurt your ego when someone disbelieves or attacks evolution? Some of you seem too attached and emotional about your belief in evolution. It really isn't important if people don't believe it you know.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: zzang ]</p>

LianaLi

If people bothered to understand the concepts behind evolution, like speciation and natural selection, maybe we wouldn't get so worked up over the utter ignorance it takes to come to the wrong conclusion.

My two cents.

-Liana

Doubting Didymus

We just don't like to see religious zealots trying to undermine the hard won progress of scientific knowliedge. Defending evolution is only disproportionate compared to defending other scientific theories because religion has stopped fighting against round earthism and helicentrism, and has a new favourite antichrist.

We would defend the theory of gravity just as quickly, if it were ever attacked. As for it 'not mattering' whether you believe it, I agree so long as you also find no problem with not believing in gravity. However, if someone wants to also remove it from the science curriculum, or teach some mad creation myth by its side, then we will point out the facts in its defense, which is not unreasonable.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Doubting Didymus ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

A note about the emotional heat of the debate.

To loosely (very loosely) quote Richard Dawkins:

"Imagine yourself, a classical roman scholar. You have devoted your professional life to understanding and studying ancient roman culture. Now someone comes along with a degree in marine engineering or some such, and tries to argue that the romans never existed. Wouldn't you feel the need to defend the truth as you know it? And wouldn't that look a bit like arrogance?"

I would add to this that the roman scholar in the example has not just one roman history denyer, but a constant onslaught of them making equally insane and stupid arguments for years on end. His patience is sure to fray sooner or later.

Doubting Didymus

I do not know if you believe in god or not, but allow me to reverse the situation to a theist perspective. How would you feel if atheists demanded that religion be banned from religion classes, and metaphysical naturalism forced on your children instead? Would you even care?

It is not a matter of being accepting of other peoples beliefs or disbeliefs, it is a matter of overturning science worldwide.

Bane

Uh, that's what most young earth creationists think is being done. To them evolution=metaphysical naturalism.

Doubting Didymus

Aha! but I specified religion classes.

To argue against evolution in science class is to argue against science itself.

Bane

I understood that. But kids still have to take science, and to the fundy yec this is forcing metaphysical naturalism on them.

Biblical literalists will never accept evolution as science.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Bane ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

Yes they will, silly. The church got over round earthism and heliocentrism, didn't they? Yet they in their times were persecuted and vehemently regected just as badly, or worse, than evolution.

My example of metaphysical naturalism in religion class was just an example for zzang, of how people react when what they think is true is challenged on its own turf. They react, not neccessarily irrationally, but certainly with promptness and vigor. In fact, the creationist backlash against evolution in schools is a good example of this effect.

Anyway, this debate is fairly pointless, as zzang is quite probably just trolling, after being so soundly thrashed in other threads. After his challenges became so much dust in his mouth, he feels the need to critisise his critics for being too good at defending evolution.

Valentine Pontifex

Because creationism is the most dangerous nonsense around today. This is mainly because of the its followers, unlike astrologers, etc., are effective at pushing their crap in schools, etc. They want to try to cut off money to anything evolutionary which is basically the whole of biology, etc.

If creationism's threat to science disappears and the people who say that PK is real, demand it be taught in schools, and that physics dollars be spent on it, that it get equal or balanced time, etc. then I will forget about the creationists and concentrate on PK.

But then again I do rail against other pseudosciences, etc. Hey, polygraphs don't work. Why does are government use them? They have done a great job at hurting innocent people and have never been used to get one spy. And of course since the beaurcrats think that devise is protecting them let their guard down that the traiters have a much easier time.

Remember Heaven's Gate. I though the bit about a spacecraft the size of Saturn (if memmory serves) was ammusing. Only latter was the consequence of that pseudoscience discovered.

No theater ever flashed "Drike Coke; eat popcorn" in its screen resulting in a giant increase in sales.

It not really limited to pseudoscience either. There are lots of false facts and ideas in other ideas as well. Winston Churchill did not allow Coventry to be bombed by the Germans to keep the breaking of the German codes a secret. Makes a great story, but it is not true.

But in the end a false story of how Conventry got firebombed is not nearly as dangerous as creationism which denies a great deal of practical science including biology, geology, astronomy, physics, etc. (It aslo denies history as well.)

I oppose creationism because I am a patriot.

I am a patriot for the human race. Things that impede science are not good for humanity.

I am a patriot for the United States of America. And creationism can harm the U.S. with respect to the other nations if it allows the U.S.'s lead in science to be harmed. The U.S. has a lot of warts, but it is still a great nation and the lack of respect for truth is not a way to keep a nation great.