Thanks!
I should also mention that I earlier voiced some suspicions that shagadelicmysteryman might be a troll. It looks now as though he is, in fact, reading through the talk.origins archive and trying to learn about evolution. SDMM, I really must apologize for my earlier comments. I misread you, I made criticisms that were unwarranted and untrue, and let me say that I appreciate your genuine interest in educating yourself about the C/E debate so that you can form an informed opinion.
-Ben
Abe, to wit:
There’s no reason to bristle. I have stated repeatedly what my point is, but I’ll say it again. You choose to mix a subjective belief–based on a series of myths–with an objective discipline–based on observation, prediction, verification, etc. That is one of the typical creationist (and others) positions and arguments frequently broadcast to the public. It is not valid and it is not meaningful, but the public buys an awful lot of it: it’s pseudoscience. Once again, your beliefs are not being attacked here, but rather the resulting pseudoscience.
In what way my beliefs are not valid nor meaningful, or that of the creationist, as opposed to yours? Now I am begining to see your point. You think that the world view bias of the person presenting the facts should be irrelevant to the facts being presented and the interpretation of the facts, and that no faith bias should be present in proper conclusions of science. I think that knowing the world view bias of the presenter, in any subject, including science, is very relevant to the arguments presented, especially when that person seeks not just have me and others understand his conclusions based on the facts she presents, but wishes me to break down my bias in favor of hers. It becomes especially relevant if her bias gets broken down by her new discoveries. And, to be fair, I did this line of questioning to my Jehovah’s Witness teacher as well.
Unfortunately, in my view, world view bias in people tends to manipulate the logic, when it should be the other way around. I can almost tell what a person will argue based on what I know is his world view. Only with a change of, and eventually freedom from, world view biases can people change.
I am not questioning that you would want me to take a different view of life and the universe from time to time, and in so doing it get out of my rut eminating from my biases. In fact, I demand that you should. Don’t say you are not when you are.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen. EVERYone is biased in some way. But the ones who know what their biases are have an advantage over those who do not know what their biases are. I’m biased against religion; it makes it difficult for me to take seriously anyone who attributes everything to divine intervention. (I’m not thinking of any particular person.) I’m trying to get over this, but it ain’t easy.
Capacitor, I admit I did not understand your last post, but perhaps you could explain your point again. I re-read it a few times, but I am not sure what your position is here, nor did I understand what you meant with your closing.
I will limit my comments to this:
Pseudoscience is never meaningful. Like Jab1 said, prejudice plays a very strong role in all our beliefs. That’s why in science it is well to stick to the facts and not the beliefs. Do otherwise and you have pseudoscience, which, considering that the majority of the public are unable to tell the difference between fact and opinion, is usually harmful.
Please substitute “anything” for “everything”.