Saturday, October 01, 2005

We want our cake and eat it too!


Does anyone but me find it curios that the religious right “scientists” have only taken issue with one theory in all of science? I guess they are ok with the laws of electromagnetism, gravity, genetics (to a point), the law of equal proportions, levers, the periodic table, gas laws, orbits, laws of motion, Boyles Law, Charles Law, Lenz’ Law …and so on. These are all fine. But the one theory that needs a little tweaking is evolution. Curious. All other fields of science are ok but not this one. This alone demonstrates the non-science of this approach. You can’t just pick a law and then start picking it apart to suit your own political aims. The attempt to invent something called ‘creation science’ is so transparent and laughable that luckily, intelligent people can just ignore this like they ignore palm reading and tarot cards.


Then there’s Iowa


And the President


Hey maybe this isn’t so funny!


While we’d like to just make fun and poke giant holes in the arguments from the religious right we have to remember to do just that. If they want to make a stand on scientific grounds then let them do it scientifically and not with some ad hoc argument that presupposes the existence of a superior being. They will continually lose on this battle field because there is no experiment that can be done to support the existence of a superior being. People have been trying to prove the existence or non-existence of god for centuries. You can’t do either. Here’s why

For the atheist you can never prove a negative. I can’t prove that you didn’t see monkeys playing cards in your back yard. Similarly, I can’t prove that there is NOT a god pulling strings. On the other hand the proof is not on the skeptic. If someone has a claim as to the existence of a superior being, the onus of proof is on them. Not up to me to prove that the premise is false.

For the theist you have an impossible task. You believe there is an invisible god in the universe who operates by magic. What I mean is he works outside the normal laws of physics, chemistry, and the other sciences. Water changes into wine. Dead people rise up. Direct communication via prayer. Things like that. Here’s where you want your cake and eat it too! If you want to believe that there is magical operations in the universe then you should challenge ALL of science, math and logic itself not just evolution. You should eschew all things that come from such logical endeavors such as electricity, cars, and modern medicine. Maybe that’s a little inconvenient though. We do like our modern marvels -cake- but we want to pretend there is a big guy taking care of us as well –yum!

Let’s take the ‘creation science’ deal for what it is. It is a thinly veiled attempt by very insecure people to put Christian prayer back into the public schools. It is a political movement plain and simple and has virtually nothing to do with science at all.

2 comments:

Tom G said...

Religious persons' interest in evolution is not as surprising as you indicate. It is the only area of science that is built on the question, "How could all this be possible without a God?" This is the main research question in evolutionary science, after all.

It's also begging a question: it assumes there is no God, and allows no answer or even inquiry that suggests there might be. Thus it concludes there is no God: by ruling Him out from the start.

So I find it odd that you find it odd that evolution receives special focus from believers.

"If they want to make a stand on scientific grounds then let them do it scientifically and not with some ad hoc argument that presupposes the existence of a superior being."

Intelligent design theorists ask the same thing of evolutionists. There is an awful lot of ad hoc argumentation in evolution that presupposes the nonexistence of a superior being. ID's leaders want to make their case on scientific grounds. It is ID opponents like yourself who continually try to put religion in the agenda.

Scott said...

Tom-
Ah, the argument of incredulity. Nice try. How could all of this be possible...IT'S ALREADY HERE so it is apparently very possible. Why on earth would I begin a logical investigation by presupposing magical beings?

What on earth suggests that their might be a god? There might be Yeti too but why would I bring them into an argument unneeded.