Skip to comments.Evolutionary Explanations Assume Evolution Explains
Posted on 12/06/2009 7:20:24 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
>>I still need to post about the creationist got-ya games.<<
No need, I am familiar with them.
But unfortunately I read atheist evolutionists like Dawkins say evolution is a scientific fact. Others too. This just 1) sets off the creationists worst suspicions, 2) Gives them fuel to promote their political movement.
Then Dawkins writes things like “evolution proves there is no God”. Obviously this guys religion is atheism . So these creationists respond with every trick in the book, misquoting being the most frequent.
>> But unfortunately I read atheist evolutionists like Dawkins say evolution is a scientific fact. Others too. This just 1) sets off the creationists worst suspicions, 2) Gives them fuel to promote their political movement.<<
One is not the same as the other. Sadly, scientists get sloppy. The term “scientific fact” is shorthand for “the science is so overwhelming that there is little point in pursuing alternatives.” That is NOT what most people think of as “scientific fact.” And, the same loose colloquialism has hung me out to dry on things like “the theory of multiverses” (there is no such Scientific Theory).
>>Then Dawkins writes things like evolution proves there is no God. Obviously this guys religion is atheism . So these creationists respond with every trick in the book, misquoting being the most frequent.<<
Dawkins is flat out wrong and has made it difficult as you note. The fact is, science is SILENT on God, since theology is a different domain of though. In that statement, Dawkins walks into that alternate realm, where he is overmatched.
But, the effect of Gravity is not analogous to TToE. The TToG is and it is much less understood or settled than TToG.
Rather than repeat their example here, I remember a Chris Mathews got-ya he uses frequently: “Do you think gays were born that way?”. If you answer no, then 1) you are ill informed (your opinion is invalid) and 2) He demands you prove how you know that. If you answer yes then since they were born with a sexual desire, basic human rights demand we allow them to act it out. For very few things liberals use this assumption.
But this is what creationists call scientific debate. Heads I win, tails you lose.
I read that years ago in a book countering creationism. I also took a course in college called “The philosophy of science” that taught about scientific paradigms.
Yes, evolution is unlikely to be replaced with anything better. And contrary to atheists and creationist it is not a fact (provable.)
Fair enough — thanks for the perspective.
Time to call it a night — buenos noches.