Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peez · 05-29-2003, 08:21 AM

I have less of a problem with someone who admits that the empirical evidence indicates evolution, but that they do not trust empirical evidence (than I do with the regular run of creationists). There are some obvious problems with that position, but it amounts to saying that evolution is the scientific explanation, but I don't accept science. This is a philosophical argument, which should keep it out of the science classroom. Of course I would not like to live in a society in which that view was dominant, but it seems fairly harmless in small doses. Certainly much less toxic than the usual "scientific creationism" stuff.

Peez

caritas · 05-30-2003, 09:50 PM

peez,
Well put.
Creationists whose rejection of science rests on their dubious denial of the empirical evidence rather than claims of wholesale scientific dishonesty or incompetence seem much less of a threat to the rest of us. It is of course a deeply troubling view; one which must dispose its holders to less curiosity about the natural world. If it became dominant in society I think much of our scientific capability might atrophy due to neglect, albiet benign. But at least it makes no claim for the soul of science. It doesn't seek to substitute an ersatz, biblically literal compatible candidate for real science in our schools.

caritas · 05-30-2003, 09:55 PM

And yes, as a philosophical argument it has no place in the science classroom.

Jet Grind · 05-31-2003, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by caritas
Creationists whose rejection of science rests on their dubious denial of the empirical evidence rather than claims of wholesale scientific dishonesty or incompetence seem much less of a threat to the rest of us. It is of course a deeply troubling view; one which must dispose its holders to less curiosity about the natural world. If it became dominant in society I think much of our scientific capability might atrophy due to neglect, albiet benign. But at least it makes no claim for the soul of science. It doesn't seek to substitute an ersatz, biblically literal compatible candidate for real science in our schools.

Aye, I agree. Creationists such as your sister pose less of a threat to the scientific literacy of our children. However, a view such as hers would still be dangerous nonsense if it ever became popular. I guess as long as she realizes this we're all fine. I would take a world full of creationists like her over the ultra-literal biblical fundamentalist (don't know exactly what distinguishes her from them but whatever) zealots any day.

Sincerely,

Jet Grind

caritas · 05-31-2003, 08:58 PM

But if my sister decided, in her mid 40s, that she had missed her calling and went back to school to become a biology teacher, then I might be worried.

I too would take a world full of creationists like her over the alternative of one full of ultra literalist fundies.
Glad I'm not alone in this view.
As to what really distinguishes creationists like her from real fundamentalists; she has always been my family's one fundy but I have long known her qualifications would be laughed at by the real fundies. She has a dangerous streak of liberalism and tolerance complicating her general conservatism.

Qinopio · 06-08-2003, 06:27 PM

I just had a thought... from the Omphalos viewpoint, stars don't exist. If their existence is not necessary for us to be able to see them (God created the light in transit), then by Occam's Razor it's not beneficial to believe that stars exist.

A Biblical defense of the existence of stars is not really possible, because the Bible clearly says "stars" in places where we now know "stars" would be impossible. Like in Revelation, it says that stars will fall to the earth. We now know that stars are much much huger than the earth, so assuming an inerrant Bible, this isn't what was meant.

caritas · 06-09-2003, 10:42 PM

yes, Quinopio, applying Occam's Razor in the Ompholos view to existance of stars would made it unneccessary for stars to exist. I don't think many creationists of any camp are fond of using Occam's Razor though.

Concerning your second point , I think it is clear the bible writers were not distinguishing betw stars and meteors (probably because they had no reason to know any different) in the examples you refer to. This is one more reason why I, though a Christian, do not think the bible is inerrant.

GunnerJ · 06-10-2003, 06:27 AM

I think some people need to look up what Occam's Razor is.

caritas · 06-12-2003, 01:05 AM

Sometimes I am wrong. Of course, the most straightforward, least convoluted accounting for of light which appears to be coming from a star 100,000 LYs away is that this star really exists at a distance of 100,000 LYs.
Still, within the distorted view of Appearance of Age, where actual dinosaurs were never neccesary--just their fossilized bones-- where accient, long eroded away mountain ranges need never have existed--just the "fossils" of orogenies in metamorphic belts of the Canadian Shield, the least convoluted explanation for stars, at least those older than 10,000 years, might be that God only made the starlight in transit.

A creationist applying this line of reasoning would not, as I understand it , be using Occam's Razor, but isn't it a similar process, albiet used within a field a view fatally limited by self-imposed blinders?

05-29-2003, 08:21 AM	#21
Peez Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 5,504	philosophy or science I have less of a problem with someone who admits that the empirical evidence indicates evolution, but that they do not trust empirical evidence (than I do with the regular run of creationists). There are some obvious problems with that position, but it amounts to saying that evolution is the scientific explanation, but I don't accept science. This is a philosophical argument, which should keep it out of the science classroom. Of course I would not like to live in a society in which that view was dominant, but it seems fairly harmless in small doses. Certainly much less toxic than the usual "scientific creationism" stuff. Peez

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-30-2003, 09:50 PM	#22
caritas Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tacoma, Wa Posts: 43	peez, Well put. Creationists whose rejection of science rests on their dubious denial of the empirical evidence rather than claims of wholesale scientific dishonesty or incompetence seem much less of a threat to the rest of us. It is of course a deeply troubling view; one which must dispose its holders to less curiosity about the natural world. If it became dominant in society I think much of our scientific capability might atrophy due to neglect, albiet benign. But at least it makes no claim for the soul of science. It doesn't seek to substitute an ersatz, biblically literal compatible candidate for real science in our schools.

05-30-2003, 09:55 PM	#23
caritas Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tacoma, Wa Posts: 43	And yes, as a philosophical argument it has no place in the science classroom.

05-31-2003, 08:58 PM	#25
caritas Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tacoma, Wa Posts: 43	But if my sister decided, in her mid 40s, that she had missed her calling and went back to school to become a biology teacher, then I might be worried. I too would take a world full of creationists like her over the alternative of one full of ultra literalist fundies. Glad I'm not alone in this view. As to what really distinguishes creationists like her from real fundamentalists; she has always been my family's one fundy but I have long known her qualifications would be laughed at by the real fundies. She has a dangerous streak of liberalism and tolerance complicating her general conservatism.

06-08-2003, 06:27 PM	#26
Qinopio Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Michigan Posts: 40	I just had a thought... from the Omphalos viewpoint, stars don't exist. If their existence is not necessary for us to be able to see them (God created the light in transit), then by Occam's Razor it's not beneficial to believe that stars exist. A Biblical defense of the existence of stars is not really possible, because the Bible clearly says "stars" in places where we now know "stars" would be impossible. Like in Revelation, it says that stars will fall to the earth. We now know that stars are much much huger than the earth, so assuming an inerrant Bible, this isn't what was meant.

06-09-2003, 10:42 PM	#27
caritas Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tacoma, Wa Posts: 43	yes, Quinopio, applying Occam's Razor in the Ompholos view to existance of stars would made it unneccessary for stars to exist. I don't think many creationists of any camp are fond of using Occam's Razor though. Concerning your second point , I think it is clear the bible writers were not distinguishing betw stars and meteors (probably because they had no reason to know any different) in the examples you refer to. This is one more reason why I, though a Christian, do not think the bible is inerrant.

06-10-2003, 06:27 AM	#28
GunnerJ Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want Posts: 4,871	I think some people need to look up what Occam's Razor is.

06-12-2003, 01:05 AM	#29
caritas Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tacoma, Wa Posts: 43	Sometimes I am wrong. Of course, the most straightforward, least convoluted accounting for of light which appears to be coming from a star 100,000 LYs away is that this star really exists at a distance of 100,000 LYs. Still, within the distorted view of Appearance of Age, where actual dinosaurs were never neccesary--just their fossilized bones-- where accient, long eroded away mountain ranges need never have existed--just the "fossils" of orogenies in metamorphic belts of the Canadian Shield, the least convoluted explanation for stars, at least those older than 10,000 years, might be that God only made the starlight in transit. A creationist applying this line of reasoning would not, as I understand it , be using Occam's Razor, but isn't it a similar process, albiet used within a field a view fatally limited by self-imposed blinders?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.