Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
I hope, after all these replies, in detail, to your silly questions and sillier arguments you can see how arguing for creationism from a scientific basis is frankly, stupid.
|
Huh? I had thought that Onyx was playing the devil's advocate, or maybe trolling.
Some of her points are well founded: if we accept evolution without thinking critically about it, then what difference is there (to the lay man) between science and religion? The scientists, sure, many of them are thinking critically about the basic concepts they hold dear, and they test them experimentally, with controlled testing and reviewed critically by their peers. The person that does not understand evolution and how it works, who cannot test it, who cannot do the math -- they have to take it on faith.
Unfortunately, many people do not understand even how the scientific community operates. I have occasionally visited a Hare Krishna cafe down the street, and the most inflammatory line that I've ever read in their literature went along the lines of: "I have met scientists who did not accept evolution. The scientists disagree amongst themselves, but they project a (falsely) unified front. However, all of the cultists that I've brainwashed believe wholly in the idea that all life came from our God. There is no dissent among us. Therefore, because every one of us agrees, we must be right."
Unfortunately, most of the debate over whether or not evolution is valid takes place at the behest of the religious loyalists of the old model, who believe that an superman formed of absolutes -- knowing everthing, capable of anything and everything, etc -- simply placed us here. Most of the examples used in the debate are ones picked up by the faithful after they saw that the scientists had already disproven them. Please, please, stop trotting out the fucking moths! Most of the debate is based in the narrowness of minds and our concept of time. Can we accept that slight changes, over thousands to millions of years and over millions to billions of iterations, can accumulate into substantial and significant changes? Most of the debate is based on the nobility of our origins. Can we accept that In The Beginning, instead of paradise, instead of the good old days, instead of a rib and a snake, there was pond scum being thrown against the rocks by the crashing waves?