Futile

[poliphilo]

I've been on a message board where Darwinists and Creationists were slugging it out. Ouch, ouch, ouch!

Such dogmatism- on both sides.  But, as one of the posters pointed out, Darwinism is a scientific theory and Intelligent Design is a philosophical theory. They belong in different disciplines. 

It's as if one team turned up for the match in football strip and the other team in cricket whites.

Comments

[red-girl-42.livejournal.com]

I hate the term "Darwinist." It implies (as the creationists are trying to do) that it's just a belief system. I'm not a "Darwinist." I'm a rational human being who has looked at the scientifice evidence and determined that it overwhelmingly supports evolution. Therefore, I will accept evolution until the evidence overwhelmingly convinces me otherwise.

Since the "evidence" put forth by creationists is not and never has been scientifically sound, I'm pretty sure I will be supporting evolution for the rest of my days.

[pickwick.livejournal.com]

Totally agree with this. We don't call people who believe in gravity "Newtonists".

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

But don't you think that Evolutionary theory is propounded a little like a religion? To question it is to invite contempt. I'm not a Biblical fundamentalist (I'm not any sort of religious believer) but I have a nagging feeling that Evolution isn't the whole story, that there's more to find out...

[frsimon.livejournal.com]

Nobody denies there is 'more to find out'. Indeed, a hallmark of a good scientific theory is openness to future discovery.

But, to be honest, I think the heated propounding of evolution issues from (understandable) exasperation. You'd probably see something similar from physicists if a well-founded group started agitating against relativity.

I exempt the fool Dawkins from this empathy.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Ah, Dawkins....

I'm thinking I should perhaps read his book. My feeling is he undermines his position by his stridency, but I've only read him in excerpts and seem him on the telly.

[red-girl-42.livejournal.com]

I think that some people treat evolutionary theory like a religion, sure. Just like some Christians are bigoted rabid fundamentalists. But if you refer to all Christians as "fundies" then you're going to piss off the many Christians who don't fall into that category. And if you refer to everyone who accepts evolution as a "Darwinist," then you're implying that everyone who accepts evolution believes in it with religious fervor.

And I would say that only a very small minority of people who accept evolution treat it like a religion. The fact is, the vast majority of scientists (and people who accept evolution overall) also believe in God or some other higher power. Clearly they think, like you, that evolution isn't the whole story. But evolution is almost certainly a part of the story. I don't think most evolution scientists are contemptuous of those who ask, "But couldn't there still be a higher power?" I think that they are contemptuous of those who say that evolution never happened at all, and then present a bunch of completely bogus and unsupportable "evidence" as "proof" of their beliefs. They are contemptuous of people who try to present a set of religious beliefs as scientific fact in order to trick people into accepting them. And frankly, those kinds of people deserve contempt, IMO.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you're right.

The moral is don't read message boards. The intemperance and sneery condescension shown by the people (on both sides of the argument)who were posting on this one left me feeling jaundiced.

I don't feel contempt for Creationists. Sorry for them, perhaps. Also rather cross. But I know from experience what it feels like to be one of the "Saved"
and how hard it is escape from that culture and mindset.

[red-girl-42.livejournal.com]

The moral is don't read message boards

I think, when it comes down to it, that this is the moral for just about everything.