One reason three-way controversies are rare is that it is strategically profitable for two sides to combine forces against the third side. There have been relatively few three-way wars, and it is also fairly rare for there to be long periods of stable three-way political divisions. When a third party becomes big enough to be meaningful, one of the other two parties will usually cut a deal with it and absorb it.
That said…Viva Seven-Up!
Hear, hear! A refreshing third alternative.
I’m so sorry that you had trouble understanding the words we posted and had to resort to changing them to words you had a rebuttal for. Speaking for myself, I’ll try to use smaller words next time we [del]converse[/del]talk.
[del]I would very much appreciate that, yes.[/del]
Thank you.
And I really, really appreciate this comment. It means that someone else out there does understand what I was trying to get at – and expressed it better than I was able to.
I don’t mind if der trihs and Czarcasm disagree with me; that freedom to hold and defend our own opinion is something I value.
But to know that other people understand that there may be alternatives to our dualistic reasoning is refreshing.
The facts of evolution are established. The present evolutionary theory that fits those facts, like any theory, is a provisional scientific model until more data and more lateral thinking produces an even more robust scientific model.
Religious explanations of scientific data are just not relevant to science.
But you are only proposing one alternative. Why not a thousand different alternatives, one for every god, all equally as likely as the next? In fact, If evolution had the assistance of a god, another alternative would be that a god had the assistance of Santa Claus or Aslan. Please explain why your particular alternative was the only one to spring to your mind? Is it any more likely than the others I’ve brought to the table?
There you go: a thought allowing for alternative ideas that you yourself do not believe. That is being objective! And that is all I am asking for. Again, thank you.
Now, if what you are really asking me to do, is to jump into the debate for or against the existence of God, I respectfully decline, as that argument has been and is being waged elsewhere by others, non-stop. Those who are interested in discussing that, please do.
In the meantime, it is an argument which remains unsettled. Therefore, God is still allowed to be a part of some people’s viewpoints. As is Santa, Aslan, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other deity of your choice.
There aren’t just two ways here anyway - because neither side is a singular entity. Evolution isn’t one thing - it’s a collection of scientific theories for a very broad range of evidence etc - It’s quite possible that two different scientists might give you quite different descriptions of what evolution means in the context of their work (granted, it would probably be consistent with a central theory).
And creationism certainly isn’t one thing. Creationism espoused by a single person isn’t even always one thing - because (for example) one minute it’ll be how there’s copious evidence for a young earth, then the next it’ll be how a created earth shouldn’t be expected to look young. Those aren’t even the same idea.
1 Hey guys, I’ve got a great new idea!
2 Why don’t we all just agree that sometimes things are quite complicated!!
3 ???
4 Jesus!!!l!!1!!!
Which god are you referring to?
“You know, if angels did exist, the idea that the planets stay in the orbits that they do because angels push them around may not be something that I personally believe, but, crazy as it sounds, sure, I guess that planetary motion could be attributable to angels, and not really just that theory of gravity. There’s no reason you have to take the dogmatic course and declare that planets can go around all by themselves without angels!”
How’d I do?
Not bad. While we’re at it, what about the idea that rocks are afraid of heights, and that is why they rush to the ground when you let go of them?
Pfft. “Afraid of heights”? How ridiculous! Everybody knows they long for reunification with their natural material sphere.
I’m open-minded enough to consider both possibilities.
Wrong. Look, on abortion, either we put women in prison for having abortions or we don’t. We either put doctors in prison for performing abortions or we don’t.
If you don’t agree, explain what your “third way” would be, exactly. Because changing attitudes toward abortion, or trying to convince people not to have abortions, is totally consistent with being pro-choice.
“The important thing is that you’ve found a way to feel superior to both.”
So what you’re really saying is “Why aren’t more people vehemently agreeing with me and my excellent in between position”? For the three examples you mention it’s because, as has been presented already, just not the way I prefer:
If you agree with evolution, you agree with evolution. Stipulating planning and guidance from a god may satisfy your religious urges, but the stipulation is completely irrelevant to the evolution-creationism debate. It’s a position containing no arguments against creationism that aren’t contained in the scientific position of “Evolution is a fact”, and unless you foolishly use it to argue against or for parts of evolutionary theory, it’s a stipulation completely irrelevant to the veracity of the scientific standpoint.
If you accept abortion in some cases, you’re pro-choice. You may get lumped in with the pro-lifers by your opponents if, in a debate on the limits on abortion, you think more restrictions are in order, but that’s just the effect of the importance and dominance of the overarching legal/illegal debate, much in the way you appear to exclude people supporting “lovingly helping each person involved to understand all of the options before making a decision either way” from the pro-choice side.
Liberal-Conservative polarization is a consequence of the US two-party system, but even so there already exists varied labels here. Moderate conservatives, extreme liberals, libertarians, communists.
It’s more simple than that. There is an unavoidable dualism in every matter of opinion: agreement with me vs being wrong.