Posted on 07/24/2003 1:55:39 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
I was just lisening to Medved debating Creationism with Athiests on the air. I found it interesting that while Medved argued his side quite effectively from the standpoint of faith, his opponents resorted to condescension and beliitled him with statements like, "when it rains, is that God crying?" I was reminded of the best (at least most amusing)debate that I have ever heard on the subject of Creationism vs Evolution, albeit a fictional setting. It occurred on the show, Friends of all places between the characters Pheobe (The Hippy) and Ross (The Paleontologist). It went like this...
Pheebs: Okay...it's very faint, but I can still sense him in the building...GO INTO THE LIGHT MR. HECKLES!!
Ross: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, uh, you don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: Nah. Not really. Ross: You don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: I don't know. It's just, ya know, monkeys, Darwin, ya know, it's a, it's a nice story. I just think it's a little too easy.
Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact. Like, like, the air we breathe, like gravity... Pheebs: Uh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.
Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity? Pheebs: Well, it's not so much that ya know, like I don't *believe* in it, ya know. It's just...I don't know. Lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down, as I am being pushed.
Ross: How can you NOT BELIEVE in evolution? Pheebs: [shrugs] I unh-huh...Look at this funky shirt!!
Ross: Well, there ya go. Pheebs: Huh. So now, the REAL question is: who put those fossils there, and why...?
Ross: OPPOSABLE THUMBS!! Without evolution, how do YOU explain OPPOSABLE THUMBS?!? Pheebs: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts!
Pheebs: Uh-oh! Scary Scientist Man!
Pheebs: Okay, Ross? Could you just open your mind like, *this* much?? Okay? Now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the Earth was flat? And up until what, like, fifty years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess o' crap came out! Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny, tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?!?
Pheebs: I can't believe you caved. Ross: What? Pheebs: You just ABANDONED your whole belief system! I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. Ross: But uh.. Pheebs: Yeah...how...how are you gonna go in to work tomorrow? How...how are you gonna face the other science guys? How...how are you gonna face yourself? Oh! [Ross runs away dejected] Pheebs: That was fun. So who's hungry?
Relax. It's a desperate attempt to assert a moral equivalence, where none exists.
I think this is correct. The thugs do the dirty work, so the philosophers can keep their dainty mitts clean.
This has, however, been a useful exchange. Any qualms I had about generalizing about the hoodlum-like behavior of Christian fundamentalists on this site are gone.
From -->http://www.nps.gov/badl/newspaper/03Preamble.pdf
"Many cultures have their own unique story on how the earth was created. Scientists use fossils to interpret earth history and plant and animal evolution. These scientific concepts often conflict with many creation beliefs. The study of fossils and evolution is not a belief system. It is a scientific theory of what we observe in the natural world.
The National Park Service provides interpretation of paleontological resources based solely on current evolutionary theory because we are obligated by the First Amendment to the Constitution against promoting a particular religious view. "
Theories are the 'scientific' way of stating: "We BELIEVE thus......"
(are NOT conclusions made?)
What say you about the "hoodlum-like" behavior of your scientist/evo-buddies? Or is it that you just prefer to complain about Fundamentalist Christians (who seem to get in the way of your politics).
Meanwhile, the really long thread goes on. I just lurked a bit and saw a rather lengthy technical discussion progressing without the usual sideshow.
If you wish to engage in speculation into the temporal co-existence of primitive and modern varieties of homo sapiens. I suggest you read Crichton's "Eaters of the Dead." If your desire is to debate Darwin's concepts, you will need to engage one of his defenders. I can only personally attest to evidence of human habitation stretching back 10,000 years from the digs that I have participated in and reported on in Central, South, and West Texas. Beyond that, I am no expert and do not pretend to be. Evidence suggests that 2 varieties of terrestrial bi-peds branched off from one another millions of years ago. One of those branches did indeed evolve to contemporary monkeys, just as a manatee-like mammal evolved to dogs, and teosinte grass became corn. In the case of Corn, the transformation based entirely on human intervention took less than 8,000 years.
As for man? Your guess so far is as good as mine, I'd say.
The very definition of a disruptor is someone who is motivated by a desire to stop a debate or turn it aside from it's original topic.
Looking first at motivation, are there any people here who believe these discussions do not belong on FR and have openly expressed this opinion? Are there any people here who believe that people holding specific opinions in the realm of science cannot be conservatives or cannot be Christians, and who have openly expressed this opinion?
Now, regarding tactics, are there any people here who post frequently without addressing the topic? Are there people obsessed with "winning" as opposed to learning from others? Is there any pattern to this? For example, when these people are absent, is there a period during which the thread returns to its original topic?
Next there is the issue of style and content. These threads attract only a handful of practicing scientists, and only a few are biologists, so most of us are arguing, at best, from an educated layman's point of view. So the next question is, are there people who attempt to bring professional facts and opinions to the table? People who attempt to read and understand the points being made by others, and who attempt to probe and counter these points?
This post is loaded. Obviously I have a point of view. It's easy for me to see the mote in other's eyes. But I occasionaly take breaks from these threads, come back, and look at the tone of threads. It is quite easy to identify several groups of people: those who are always polite, those who are polite when the thread is on topic, and those whose presence is always associated with flame wars.
I have more to say, but this is already too long.
Still clueless? I see that RWP has confirmed the incident, and that C-Jen has given you the flavor of how she and ALS have been representing your side for months now. A rather startling admission on her part, including where she screamed abuse in RWP's face.
You've been unaware of all this? Before I waste a lot of time on what posts of ALS's are still on the FR public record (threads that haven't been pulled yet), what were you even talking about when you complained about the climate for discussion on these threads? I'm very curious to know what's getting through your Morton's Demon filters, really.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.