Mine are based on facts and hold together logically; theirs are pure fantasy, logically incoherent and based only on lies & delusions.
Not everything is a matter of opinion. We are here speaking of an issue where one side has overwhelming amounts of evidence, and the other is making claims that are contradicted by the evidence.
A religious preference is a little like a preference in flavors, or regarding music. I like chocolate more than vanilla. Nobody can say I’m wrong about it. The Christian says “God is triune.” The Jew says “God is unitary.” Faith, either way, and so tdn’s equivalence principle is valid.
A scientific idea can be tested against actual evidence. This has been done, only a zillion times, and since the 1840s, the evidence for some kind of “descent with modification” has been unanswerable. The “equivalence principle” fails utterly. It’s as if someone were to try to say that chocolate is poisonous, but vanilla brings the dead back to life.
(Actually, both are very slightly toxic…)
I see where you’re coming from, but treating them with respect just encourages them. You know, give them an inch and they’ll walk all over you. There are a lot of people out there, not religious zealous, just ignorant impressionable people, that are convinced that various scientific facts are a “controversy”. The only reason things like evolution are controversial is because the media is obsessed with being balanced, so they portray the side of “believing” in evolution as equal in footing with the denialists. They see this “debate” taking place, and conclude that must be two equally valid sides to choose from. It’s portrayed as a matter of opinion, like a debate on the death penalty or tax policy.
If creationism were instead portrayed by the media as the ludicrous fantasy that it really is, the religious zealots would still preach about it, but many others would probably not be swayed by it. Most other scientific discoveries are accepted without question by the general public, it’s only certain ones that they doubt. They doubt them because there’s a lot of media attention given to the fanatics, and that makes the delusion seem legitimate.
100% correct.
Yeah, I can definitely picture a creationist saying those exact words. I’m sure that it’s happened.
Let’s try a different tack.
Is it easier to convince a friend or an enemy?
Would you rather see creationists die in a horrible fiery torturous death, or have them see things our way and lead good lives of science and reason? Be honest.
[QUOTE=SDMBKL]
For example, to accept “intelligent design”, one must question, "who is this intelligent agent, anyway? What is the importance about it? Can learning about it be beneficial to mankind? How can it be useful? How can one test intelligent agents in the laboratory? How can one observe intelligent agents in nature?
[/QUOTE]
Lets see there is a super being who created everything, and you suggest we use our deductive skills to find him/her? You got to be kidding me, that makes no sense.
The way you find such a being is to simple call out, 'Creator can you reveal yourself to me, I’d like to meet you. ’ It is up to Him/Her to make theirself known on their terms not ours.
Creationism (and religious fundamentalism) is just a tactic, a way of symbolically fighting back against social and cultural change (and pretending to themselves that it is not inevitable).
The goal is to get us back (as they see it) to world in which white, English-speaking, middle and upper class, middle aged and elderly, straight men ruled the world, and women, queers, youngsters, darkies and other foreigners knew their (much lower) place.
I say this a white, straight, English speaking, middle class (by birth, anyway), elderly man, who would almost certainly be doing much better for himself in that world than in this one. However, I know that it is not going to happen, and that, from the broader perspective, it is a very good thing that it is not going to happen. Deep in their hearts, creationists and other “conservatives” (reactionaries really) may know it too, but they dare not admit it to themselves.
I’d rather you didn’t make up ridiculous scenarios that have absolutely nothing to do with reality, actually. Nobody here is proposing anything near seeing “creationists die in a horrible fiery torturous death”.
I do wish you’d drop this “I bet they say the same thing” line-the two sides are nowhere close when it comes to the amount of evidence available to back up their claims, so this false equivalence “let’s try to meet in the middle” junk just doesn’t fly, and its like asking someone to meet cancer halfway rather than fight it all the way. Drop it.
BTW, for many years scientists tried the friendly routine when it came to dealing with creationists…and got stabbed in the back for it. Debates turned into stacked fiascoes, and concessions grudgingly made were totally ignored the next time they came up, as I’ve said before.
Except of course they’d be wrong. The facts are what they are.
They are irrational and are my enemy whether I want them to be or not. Most of them would I’m sure be overjoyed if I suffered a “horrible fiery torturous death”, and in fact no doubt expect me to suffer a “horrible fiery torturous” eternity in the afterlife.
It makes plenty of sense. It’s just after all such attempts have failed miserably, the believers have come up with the bizarre justification for that failure of claiming that there’s some sort of superiority in a god that hides away from the universe, and that there’s some sort of virtue in blind faith. Plenty of believers thought that proving their god’s existence and understanding him by science were perfectly reasonable - until science kept showing no evidence whatsoever of any gods, and in fact physics has ruled them out. Only then did they decide that science (conveniently) didn’t apply to their pet myth.
Creationism isn’t a different way of looking at facts.
Creationism is a refutation of facts.
The “compromise” must stop.
So if Der Trihs says these words out loud, it will definitely work? Are there any other conditions you haven’t mentioned?
tdn-
Compare them to flat-earthers. Or perhaps birthers, truthers, anti-vaxers, or moon-landing-hoaxers. Can common ground be found with them? Are you opposed to ridiculing and mocking their beliefs?
To me, creationists are in the same category. Their ideas have the same evidence (ie- none) that any of those other groups do. They (the ideas) should all be treated the same.
There is no fact in religion and there is no moral in science. What ever shall we do?
Ah, but there’s the difference. They are not their beliefs, any more than you are yours. Yes, of course I can ridicule and mock their beliefs. That does not make them themselves my enemies. I’m not at war with them. I don’t see them as a cancer that needs to be 100% eradicated.
And of course I can find common ground with them. I can find common ground with anyone. So can you.
They talk fantasy and misuse science, and when confronted with facts they deny them-please enlighten us as to how you reach a middle ground with those who believe in and push ignorance. And once again, you misstate the goal of those opposing them: NOBODY is talking about “eradicating” Creationists, just like NOBODY is talking about “seeing creationists die in a horrible fiery torturous death”.
OK, let’s take a step back.
Do you believe that there is a distinction between a person and a person’s belief?
If a big chunk of America (say, 30%) were flat-earthers, and insisted that “the earth is flat” be taught alongside “the earth is round” in science class, and they had made headway in some states’ educational systems, then I would think that they are a cancer on America’s education system, and a serious threat to our country’s future.
That’s what creationists want to do. The people don’t need to be eradicated, but their influence on education does.
It depends on how much a persons’s belief influences how they behave…and this is getting far too off topic, in my opinion. Let’s get back to the OP, o.k.?
I think the ultimate goal of creationists is to replace scientific method with religious dogma in the public schools, and I can’t see any possible way to compromise with people that propose this, Please tell me how you can meet people with this goal halfway-tell me what compromises you willingly make in the way of science and reason to make room for religion and fantasy.
Hastur! Hastur! Hastur!
<urk>
If you want to get back on topic, then that does change my opinion a little.
But how’s this for a compromise? We teach science in the classroom, and they espouse their fanciful ideas in church.