Ben Stein
- Thread starter Einherjar86
- Start date
AchrisK
Weakling
This video segment from the other thread deals with exactly this issue. I really can't be bothered to get into this argument again because we've been over this probably dozens of times by now in the various religion/creationism/ID threads but AchrisK, you can't rightfully critise anyone here for "using the same arguments over and over again" (maybe that is because they are sound arguments) when you are doing exactly the same thing. You are right back to page one of whichever one of those threads was started first when you start comparing the concept of evolution to faith and saying that it is "just a theory".
You're quite simply wrong. And I know you refuse to accept that. So I'm not going to spend any more words on this. If you want my detailed point of view then it'll be in one of the previous threads.
Last edited by a moderator:
AchrisK
Weakling
The "same argument" thing is more based on attempts to make counter-points which are not actually addressing the original point, and thus not counter-points, but mere distractions or tactics.
I understand that as we discuss the same issues, that the same argument will arise. Sorry if I was unclear.
You are right, we have beat this horse. It just baffles me that people just accept evolution as fact with so little proof. I understand that much research has been done, and evolution is the scientific theory which currently best fits the observations regarding the origin of species, sans creator. But this leap to "fact" is the big problem I have. I don't mean to belittle evolution by asserting that it is "just" a theory, but when a theory gets to jump straight to fact with so little proof, it's warrented.
To me, calling evolution fact is, in and of itself, a tactic.
I understand that as we discuss the same issues, that the same argument will arise. Sorry if I was unclear.
You are right, we have beat this horse. It just baffles me that people just accept evolution as fact with so little proof. I understand that much research has been done, and evolution is the scientific theory which currently best fits the observations regarding the origin of species, sans creator. But this leap to "fact" is the big problem I have. I don't mean to belittle evolution by asserting that it is "just" a theory, but when a theory gets to jump straight to fact with so little proof, it's warrented.
To me, calling evolution fact is, in and of itself, a tactic.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
You simply don't fucking know enough about evolution, and that is the problem that you're having with addressing the theory of evolution as a fact. If you knew more, and realized just how astounding the body of evidence really is that supports the idea of evolution, then perhaps you wouldn't be so weary about the fact that evolution is referred to as fact by people who actually are informed on the subject. As Darwin says in the above video, evolution is a fact in the same sense that it is to say that a table is a table.
AchrisK
Weakling
Don't insult me by interchanging the fact of evolution with the "fact" of macroevolution being the method by which all living organisms and species came to exist. We all know what we are discussing.
I gave all of you plenty of chances to show me how evolution is fact, and you couldn't show me anything besides for saying I was ridiculous for opposing a whole scientific community which is very smart and all say it is a fact. That may be good enough for you, but not for me. I looked into it for myself to a degree (http://www.talkorigins.org/), and found nothing to convince myself. I gained some respect for the science and grew to understand that "much research has been done, and evolution is the scientific theory which currently best fits the observations regarding the origin of species, sans creator".
I gave all of you plenty of chances to show me how evolution is fact, and you couldn't show me anything besides for saying I was ridiculous for opposing a whole scientific community which is very smart and all say it is a fact. That may be good enough for you, but not for me. I looked into it for myself to a degree (http://www.talkorigins.org/), and found nothing to convince myself. I gained some respect for the science and grew to understand that "much research has been done, and evolution is the scientific theory which currently best fits the observations regarding the origin of species, sans creator".
anonymousnick2001
World's Greatest Vocalist
AchrisK
Weakling
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Melodeath
Moonbow
I must have missed the part where people were supposed to prove evolution, but I believe it's impossible to prove anything. If you can't even prove that you exist, or that anything you see is "real," how the fuck can you prove anything.
Anyway, "proof" of something like evolution in a creature like humans is basically impossible unless you could live for millions of years as an observer. We just have evidence of creatures having existed that got progressively more and more like humans.
To religious fanatics though, their "fairy tales" are the truth. That argument is invalid, because it's based purely on a subjective view.
I'm not against teaching intelligent design in schools, but it should be taught with the utmost level of skepticism and inquisition. It must be shown and made clear that it is a theory/philosophy that is based on no evidence; purely a belief system. Now, when these two theories are placed next to each other, it seems obvious that most people will see the reason in evolution. However, refusing to teach every possible theory is just ignorant, even if that theory is intelligent design. People should be able to choose, based on an objective and even distribution of the facts. Intelligent design lacks in this respect, because there are no facts to support its case.
I'm not against teaching intelligent design in schools, but it should be taught with the utmost level of skepticism and inquisition. It must be shown and made clear that it is a theory/philosophy that is based on no evidence; purely a belief system. Now, when these two theories are placed next to each other, it seems obvious that most people will see the reason in evolution. However, refusing to teach every possible theory is just ignorant, even if that theory is intelligent design. People should be able to choose, based on an objective and even distribution of the facts. Intelligent design lacks in this respect, because there are no facts to support its case.
Melodeath
Moonbow
Do you really think if "ID" will be/is continued to be taught in schools, it is/will be taught in appropriate manner (i.e. as you said, with utmost skepticism)?
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
Intelligent Design cannot be taught in a biology, chemistry or any other science course. Teach it in philosophy classes.
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
Judging from the title it looks like this movie is going to be more of this 'playing the victim' shit that intelligent design advocates like to engage in these days. FUCK BEN STEIN. The guy is intellectually irrelevant but the sad fact is that a lot of people in this country will lap this shit up as somebody already mentioned.
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
It used to be considered a worthy topic of discussion within philosophy hundreds of years ago, but then this one guy named David Hume sufficiently cast doubt on this theory even before Darwin came along (Hume even anticipated Darwinism himself). Also, I think almost no high schools in this country offer philosophy courses, which is extremely unfortunate in my opinion. We teach kids in this country about fucking polynomials but we don't teach them how to think critically about some of the most pressing and important questions of our fucking existence? What the fuck is up with that?
Melodeath
Moonbow
My high school (one of top 50 high schools in U.S. ftw) had a philosophy course. I almost took it but took psychology instead.
Btw, I agree with Necuratul. ID doesn't fit in any class, which quite frankly, is both good and entirely fitting. Would you seriously expect such a topic to fit in classes about science?
Btw, I agree with Necuratul. ID doesn't fit in any class, which quite frankly, is both good and entirely fitting. Would you seriously expect such a topic to fit in classes about science?
Similar threads
