Am I A Metaphysical Bigot?

International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology ^ | February 15, 2005 | Clifford Sosis

[dan1123]

This seemed to be a fairly well-balanced take on the metaphysical underpinnings of the creattion-evolution debate. Since evolution debates on this forum usually do not address this issue, I think this is worth reading.

[metmom]

Getting out the popcorn.....

[Kevmo]

B4L8r

[Red Badger]

If an ape falls in the forest, did it evolve?.........

[Hi Heels]

5 seconds until the “Christians are all idiots” faux intellectual rhetoric begins anew...... 4... 3.... 2.... 1..... and.....

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

I understand that most of us want to say much more than this, but then again, most of us are not enlightened: "To let understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment. Those who cannot do it will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven."

[TexasCajun]

The coefficient of gravity's internal coherence that we are aware of makes us enlightened and distinguishes us from ordinary metaphysical bigots.

Creationists maybe justifiable but we are comfortable & uneasy with accepting that it is unjustified at the speed of light, except in the precense of Black Energy.

[JamesP81]

it seems as if they begin with different metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality.

That's actually true. The reason the two sides can't debate is because the two sides hold views of the universe that are entirely different and mutually exclusive.

We recognize that our unjustified commitment to naturalism has determined our answer to these questions.

IOW, he has faith that his side is right. Much the way I have faith that my side is right. In short, evolutionism is essentially a religious belief.

[D_Idaho]

You took the words right out of my mouth.
Thanks

[stylin19a]

Perfessor Corey ? Is that you ? metaphysically ?

[mjp]

If asked whether or not our world-view is “true” we can say, “Yes, in a sense, but only against my theoretical or metaphysical background.” If asked whether or not creationism is “true” we can say “No, in a sense, against my theoretical or metaphysical background.”

Or just be a pragmatist and say that there is no objective truth.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Clifford Sosis

[dan1123]

Or just be a pragmatist and say that there is no objective truth.

It's one thing to recognize the limits of discerning truth under one set of metaphysical assumptions, but entirely another to deny that one set of metaphysical assumptions might ultimately be correct.

[r9etb]

How handy ... this is the abstract, and according to the link you provided, the full text is not available.

As a result, we do not know how the author "will define creationism," and thus we cannot discuss what he has to say about it.

Sorry, Dan, but your post is nothing more than an invitation to ignorant finger-flapping.

[wow]

Before I lived in the Bible belt, I was firmly convinced that man had evolved from the apes. Now I am of the opinion that the degree of evolution is too small to waste time in argument.

Paraphrasing Descartes, I think, therefor I am evolving.

[11th Commandment]

I am intrigued at the idea the Naturalism “evolved” from Theist thinking.

[11th Commandment]

I am intrigued at the idea that Naturalism “evolved” from Theist thinking.

[metmom]

Evolutionists never seem to fail to make the debate between the evolutionists and *Bible literalists*.

I wonder why they never seem to be willing to just make it *creationists* instead instead of forcing it into such a narrowly defined segment that few indeed (if any) fall into it?

[blowfish]

I wonder why they never seem to be willing to just make it *creationists* instead instead of forcing it into such a narrowly defined segment that few indeed (if any) fall into it?

Who are the "non-biblical" creationists?

[RightWhale]

The science of metaphysics was completely developed and resolved about 1780.