Philosophical evidence for evolution?

[TriPolar]

@Mangetout

Perhaps we can meet in the middle. I take your point that someone such as a child, accepting creationism because it’s all they know, isn’t really a creationist in the sense commonly used - certainly the term implies some sort of active and wilful participation - I just think it’s still a broad enough category of folks to include some people who will listen to reason, but are just labouring (perhaps quite fervently) under a wrong impression about the world.
(Of course, the category also includes folks at the other extreme, who do exactly fit the special definition - and will never be swayed, because they are determined never to be swayed. Interestingly, in my experience, these people seem to float to the top)

Sounds like we are close enough to agreement to make arguing pointless. I guess I could add a qualifier to my original statement, something like ‘confirmed creationist’ maybe. But I’m not backing down on those Last Wednesday heretics.

[Imago]

@Smeghead

Like a cockroach. Or a naked mole rat. Or a slug. All of which have been produced through hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Like everything else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooaGhYFHIzg

To be fair, I’m sure the cockroaches are beautiful to other cockroaches if they have the level of cognition required to think something’s pretty.

[BrainGlutton]

A few years ago I saw a GD or Pit thread about creationists – Young-Earth creationists – setting up their own alternative museum near the Grand Canyon, with exhibits demonstrating how it was possible for soil erosion to dig the canyon in only 6000 years.

Why should a YEC feel obliged to come up with alternative geological theories to account for the Grand Canyon or anything else? Wouldn’t it be more parsimonious, in terms of the belief-system, simply to assume that God made the Grand Canyon in the beginning, more or less as it is now, for esthetic reasons? (What is God if not an artist?)

[TriPolar]

@BrainGlutton

A few years ago I saw a GD or Pit thread about creationists – Young-Earth creationists – setting up their own alternative museum near the Grand Canyon, with exhibits demonstrating how it was possible for soil erosion to dig the canyon in only 6000 years.

Why should a YEC feel obliged to come up with alternative geological theories to account for the Grand Canyon or anything else? Wouldn’t it be more parsimonious, in terms of the belief-system, simply to assume that God made the Grand Canyon in the beginning, more or less as it is now, for esthetic reasons? (What is God if not an artist?)

Now those are the kind of people I think of as creationists.

[Voyager]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

Not all Xtians believe that we are inherently sinful in the way you’re suggesting. I know a Congregational minister who’d say that the point of Christ’s sacrifice was to free us of the illusion that we are so wretched that God cannot love us.

I trust that Christians who believe this don’t waste money sending out missionaries, because, what’s the point? They might as well be Jewish. Look, gefilte fish is not at all bad when you get used to it, especially with the right type of horseradish.

[Voyager]

@BrainGlutton

Why should a YEC feel obliged to come up with alternative geological theories to account for the Grand Canyon or anything else? Wouldn’t it be more parsimonious, in terms of the belief-system, simply to assume that God made the Grand Canyon in the beginning, more or less as it is now, for esthetic reasons? (What is God if not an artist?)

Because if they used the “goddidit” argument - which at least can’t be falsified - they can’t even pretend that creationism can be taught in schools. Call it creation science and they thought they had a chance.

[BrainGlutton]

@Voyager

Look, gefilte fish is not at all bad when you get used to it, especially with the right type of horseradish.

Hm. Never knew “horseradish” is Yiddish for “vodka.”

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@BrainGlutton

I think the problem is that it makes Christ unnecessary. No Fall in Eden, no Original Sin, no need for a substituted sacrificial sin-redeemer.

I think the appeal of Jesus for the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived is not that he absolves us of the collective guilt earned by Adam and Eve by disobeying God and eating of the tree “in the midst of the garden.” The appeal is that Jesus is an attractive figure who points to us the way to Heaven.

The meaning of the crucifixion is not that Jesus died for our sins, but that in his suffering we can find sustenance in our own.

The appeal and the meaning do not loose significance if one believes in evolution. Oblivion continues to frighten. Suffering continues to happen.

[Mangetout]

@BrainGlutton

A few years ago I saw a GD or Pit thread about creationists – Young-Earth creationists – setting up their own alternative museum near the Grand Canyon, with exhibits demonstrating how it was possible for soil erosion to dig the canyon in only 6000 years.

Why should a YEC feel obliged to come up with alternative geological theories to account for the Grand Canyon or anything else? Wouldn’t it be more parsimonious, in terms of the belief-system, simply to assume that God made the Grand Canyon in the beginning, more or less as it is now, for esthetic reasons? (What is God if not an artist?)

Fossils are part of the problem - if you’ve got them in the strata at the bottom, then they either have to be the remains of living creatures (and thus evidence that the layers of rock on top have been laid down after the appearance of life on Earth, or you have to adopt an Omphalos argument and accept that God faked the fossils.

Despite what their opponents may think, most creationists are actually quite reluctant to say that God made fake fossils, so instead, they have to try to construct a model that describes the sedimentary rocks of the Grand Canyon being laid down, and subsequently eroded all within the last 10K years or so.
Of course, it’s an incredibly flimsy argument, but it works because of the tenacity and aggression of those promoting it.