Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant?

Hi Slevesque,I sympathise with much of what you have to say. I realise that, for a creationist, participating in this forum must be something of a trial. I do have to take issue with this though; But what else can we think? Given that I am convinced that evolution is very clearly true, what explanation can I have for any given creationist's failure to see that? In truth, there are only so many possibilities.He could be wicked, deliberately lying.He could be insane.He could simply be an imbecile.I don't think that those are true though, not in most cases. Most creationists are honest enough in what they believe. Few are insane (although some clearly are). Most are not idiots (although in my view, more than usual are).But what of those honest creationists who are not insane idiots? What could explain their apparent inability to see sense?Well, charitably, I would not like to assume that they are lying, or that they are mad, or stupid. It seems much kinder to assume;a) That they are simply ignorant of the information needed to see through creationism's falsehoods, or;
b) They are deluded, having fallen for the cheap charms of some very bad arguments.Please don't think that to call someone ignorant or deluded is some kind of cheap insult here. In this context, it is the most charitable assumption, After all, we are all ignorant of something. Human knowledge is vast, we can't know it all and we are all ignorant of the majority of what is known collectively. Similarly, we are all operating under our own personal delusions, it's nothing particularly shameful.Of course it could be;c) I am wrong, evolution is false and creationism is true;but I do not think that likely. Certainly I think it less likely than the idea that some people are ignorant and deluded and if I gave the possibility of my being wrong very much weight, I would, after all, be forced to switch sides... But, assuming that I am correct and evolution is real, what you describe above would fall within the category of delusion. You looked at the evidence, but came to the wrong conclusion. That would count as a delusion. There's nothing shameful about it, but delusion it is.Further, you must think the same of me.Why do I deny the Christian God? Why do I embrace the false doctrine of evolution? Why do I criticise the Bible? What explanation can you give for my perverse attitudes? Surely, if you are right, then I must be mad, bad, ignorant, idiotic, insane or merely deluded.Do you have another option?Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

HI GDR, When they get their paws off the schools, I'll ignore them. However, for as long as creationists seek to interfere with science education, they need to be persuaded away from creationism, or failing that, opposed.Some creationists, the ones with whom one stands a chance of having a reasonable conversation, I seek to persuade. Others though - and there are a couple on this thread - they are beyond reaching.Mutate and Survive

Oh absolutely. From that point of view, it's imperative that they evangelise me. My eternal soul is at stake after all. Which only makes it harder to see why so many creationists act like boorish belligerent assholes. And from my perspective that might actually be one of the few good things about creationism; it's so blatantly silly that it may well put a lot of people off Christianity altogether. A shame from your perspective, but a bit of a bonus as far as I'm concerned. But that assumes that there exists a chance of making headway with them. For some, that's just not true. I mean, how much headway do you think it's possible to make with, say, Robert Byers? None I'd say. the only thing left to do with such creationists is to roundly humiliate them in front of an audience, with the purpose of showing everyone else just how silly creationism really is.Mutate and Survive

Well when one comes along, be sure to let me know.Oh wait. You meant yourself didn't you. Oh.Oh you poor man. Nothing at all. That would be a Theistic Evolutionist's position.However, if that were your position, you would not need to spend so much time artlessly attempting to blow holes in the ToE. Egad! The mind boggles.Are you really suggesting that creationism, a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God, has nothing to do with religion? Really? If so, you're even more far gone than I thought.Mutate and Survive

Hi Buz, Yes, science has its evil claws deeply embedded in... science class. Nasty, nasty scientists! Don't play dumb Buz. You know perfectly well that many creationist groups are seeking to influence school science curricula. The Louisiana "Science Education" Act is one example. there are countless more. Just because most of these attempts get (justly) skewered, doesn't mean that science-minded folks are going to declare victory and give up the fight. We know all to well that if we are not vigilant, creo lobby groups will be in there like a shot, polluting children's educations with garbage.Mutate and Survive

Hi BD, People could do that if they liked. But they'd kinda be stealing my shtick. That's not my day job.a) It's more of a hobby really.
b) It pleases my Dark Lord more to do it at night. Plus it's easier to catch the cats.Mutate and Survive

Bolders, I have a nice, sensible creationist with whom I might have a discussion, so I'm even less interested than usual in your little pissing contests. If your rant had some actual connection to what was being discussed, that might be one thing. But as far as I can tell it was just a random outpouring of bile.Mutate and Survive

Double post.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Hi GDR,Sorry for the delayed reply, but as you've probably noticed, I've had my hands full with Aaron's whale thread. From any point of view. Christians claim a moral authority from God. On that basis anyone would expect them to be held to a higher standard. Maybe. Maybe not. I don't think that the Bible, being a work of disparate parts, can be said to have any single correct way of approaching it. There must have been multiple intents by the multiple authors. Some of what creationists and literalist take as being literal probably was intended as a literal statement of fact. Some of it they are taking out of context.I think the biggest single mistake made by Christians interpreting the Bible is the idea that it forms a cohesive whole. I don't think it does. Sure there are themes that come up repeatedly, but there are big departures as well, especially between Old and New Testaments. Really? Do you think so? I wouldn't have thought so, but then, i am in Britain, where the moderate Church of England is the biggest player. Round my way the Muslims are probably the biggest creationist group! Yeah, how's your attempt to reason with Bolder-Dash going?Mutate and Survive

Hi Slevesque,Again, sorry for the delay in replying. I think that you are overstating the importance of Popperian tentativity and understating the number of situations where the evidence leaves us minimal room for interpretation or doubt. You speak as though all evidence could, with equal logical validity, be interpreted in different ways. You seem to think that we should be universal agnostics, doubting everything equally. That is not how tentativity is supposed to work. Usually, evidence points one way or another. There is room for interpretation perhaps, but not as much as you are suggesting. But only one of them is right.You can talk about world-view and interpretative frameworks all you like, but, even if we rule out stupidity, dishonesty, etc., there still remain only a limited number of possibilities;

1. Detective A is right. His "world-view" led him to the correct explanation. Detective B's "world-view" led him astray, led him to the wrong conclusion. A is correct, whilst B is deluded.
2. Detective B is right. His "world-view" led him to the correct explanation. Detective A's "world-view" led him astray, led him to the wrong conclusion. B is correct, whilst A is deluded.
3. Both A and B are deluded.

I do not see any other option. Either God is fictional and I you are deluded to believe in him or God is real and I am the deluded one. What else can we call a person who believes something which is not true other than deluded?All that Dawkins seems to mean when he talks about people being deluded in this context is that they have been induced, by whatever means, to believe something that is not true. That is not the insult that you seem to think it is. In fact, if you believe that you are correct about any issue that anyone else disagrees with, then you are, by necessity, saying that those people are deluded. it is a matter of logical necessity. For one person to be right, all those with mutually exclusive ideas are wrong. It's that simple. That is irrelevant. Only the conclusion matters. How one gets there does not. You may have been led by your paradigm, but if your conclusion is wrong, then you are still just wrong. Just because one is led to a false conclusion by a paradigm does not matter. All it means is that one's paradigm may well be at fault. Yes. He is an honest man who just happens to be labouring under an honest delusion.Look, I think that evolution is real. You think that it is false. Those two opinions are mutually exclusive. Therefore one of us must hold an opinion about reality that does not match reality. thus, one of us is deluded. There is no other option and your attempts to create one only revolve around being slightly more polite about calling someone deluded.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

I know that you hold that opinion, but in my view, you could say that about all religious discourse. If you took the Bible, old and new, all the associated works and apocrypha, then threw in the Quran, the Vedas, the Guru Granth, ect., you would still be able to draw a meta-narrative. The themes you cite are common to all religion, or certainly all modern ones.If you want to spin this off into another thread, you're welcome, but my time is limited right now, both on and off this board. we should probably give this a rest here though. Wouldn't want to derail Bolder-dash's very interesting and important whine debate.Mutate and Survive