No, I'm saying that while some degree of dogmatism is a possible component of belief in a truth like intelligent design, it is a necessary component of belief in a lie such as human evolution.
Ask your stereotypical fundy why he thinks homosexuality is wrong, and he'll say, "Because the Bible says so." Ask him why he thinks the Bible is the final authority on moral issues, and he's stuck for an answer.
Ask the stereotypical evolutionist why he believes humans evolved from other primates, and eventually he'll end up citing "scientific consensus". Ask him what makes that authoritative, and he changes the subject.
What it boils down to is that people who believe lies, or who believe the truth for the wrong reason, can't think for themselves.
32 comments
Uh, I think evidence in favor of a theory inherently makes it superior over non-truths like ID and creationism. Science is not dogma at all, if you could bring forth some evidence to disprove evolution, we wouldn't mind one bit.
The problem is, you haven't found it yet.
"No, I'm saying that while some degree of dogmatism is a possible component of belief in a truth like intelligent design, it is a necessary component of belief in a lie such as human evolution."
The necessary component of believing in ID, is a (dogmatic) belief in a (unprovable) creator deity. No such requirement is involved in accepting the fact of evolution. Which is why both atheists and (non-fundie) theists accept it.
"Ask the stereotypical evolutionist why he believes humans evolved from other primates, and eventually he'll end up citing "scientific consensus".
Actually, I would say the evidence strongly supports that conclusion and only that conclusion.
Ask the stereotypical evolutionist why he believes humans evolved from other primates, and eventually he'll end up citing "scientific consensus". Ask him what makes that authoritative, and he changes the subject.
It is authoritative on the very fact that it is a consensus. The majority of the people who have dedicated their educations and their lives to studying this particular field have come to roughly the same conclusion. Long story short, the experts agree. What more authority do you want?
"Ask the stereotypical evolutionist why he believes humans evolved from other primates, and eventually he'll end up citing "scientific consensus". Ask him what makes that authoritative, and he changes the subject."
He doesn't change the subject, you are just too dumb to understand the answer.
Ask the stereotypical evolutionist why he believes humans evolved from other primates, and eventually he'll end up citing "scientific consensus". Ask him what makes that authoritative, and he changes the subject.
Actually, I'd say because the mechanism as described makes sense and is plausible (try claiming that about the fucking trinity!), has been successfully reproduced both in simulation and short-term experiments, and made predictions about the fossil record that have been confirmed by the discovery of new fossils consistent with those predictions.
Ask him what makes that authoritative, and he changes the subject.
He changes the subject because your question reveals your total ignorance of the subject matter. Scientific concensus carries weight in scientific fields because theories submitted to academic journals are ripped up one side and down the other in merciless peer reviews. The data and any formulae in the paper are gone over with a fine toothed comb; all experiements listed are repeated over and over to determine whether or not they were performed under proper conditions.
No this is what would happen:
Evolutionist: *cites real, scientific evidence for evolution*
Creationist: All that is a trick placed by Satan.
Evolutionist: What does that even mean? You're an idiot.
Creationist: You insulted me, that means I win! hahahahahhahahaha!
[Ask the stereotypical evolutionist why he believes humans evolved from other primates, and eventually he'll end up citing "scientific consensus". Ask him what makes that authoritative, and he changes the subject.]
I'm willing to bet that you haven't actually asked an "evolutionist" any such thing. Or, if you have, that you didn't understand the answer.
"What it boils down to is that people who believe lies, or who believe the truth for the wrong reason, can't think for themselves."
Well, that much, at least, is certain.
Ask the stereotypical evolutionist why he believes humans evolved from other primates, and eventually he'll end up citing "scientific consensus". Ask him what makes that authoritative, and he changes the subject.
Fossils, vestigial structures, and chromosome 2.
I would have said striking physical appearance, DNA similarities, vestigial features that suggest we came from apes...
Sorry, most people who argue for evolution will pick up a few facts on the way.
And the fundie would go on to say the Bible is the unerring word of God, because it says so.
Let's see, endogenous retroviruses, observed speciation, human chromosome 2, chromosome c, the fossil record, commonality in DNA, vestigial organs. Nope, no evidence for evolution. None at all.
Why is an appeal to scientific consensus wrong?
I don't insist on reasoning out for myself whether my neighbor has cancer. I just go with what the doctors say. I don't have to see every piece of evidence in favor of the cancer theory in order to dismiss the possibility that little hairy mermaids are living in his liver. Supernaturalism < Experts.
On medicine, listen to the doctors. On biology, listen to biologists.
But we can show you the evidence for evolution, millions of bits of evidence.
Now you do the same for the bible.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.