Replies

"The theories of evolution have been used by non scientist socialist types to justify their monstrous activities over the past 150 years or so."

I'll grant you that such justifications have occurred from time to time in the last 150 years or so, if you'll grant me that religions have been used to justify equally monstrous activities for the last 5000 years of recorded human history. There is no religious belief or scientific principle that is "stain free" with regards to people wanting to subjugate and abuse their fellow man. To claim that a belief or theory or scientific principle is false because people mis-use it falls flat, because EVERY belief or scientific principle has been so abused, therefore EVERYTHING must be false.

Science and Religion are not democracies. Appealling to numbers is a flawed argument. If I get a thousand scientists to agree with me, it does not make me right. If I have a thousand followers of my religion, it does not make it true. Saying a thousand people did something bad with this thing does not make the thing bad, it makes the thousand people bad. This same argument is used against GUN CONTROL LAWS.

You imply that these threads serve to as a springboard for discussions of morality. That is not what these threads do here, if you read them critically. What DOES happen is that someone (in the case of this thread, GGG) posts an article claiming to disprove some aspect of the SCIENTIFIC basis for evolutionary theory. Usually, the sources lead back to such places as "Answers in Genesis" or others with the pre-determined answer of Creationism as their starting point. Proponents of SCIENTIFIC investigation respond to these threads by saying such sources are academically irrelevant, and have no credibility.

The thread then "devolves" if you will into variations of the following 'dialog', if you want to call it that:

"I just know ALL eviloutionists are fact distorting LIARS!"

"I just know ALL YEC's are fact distorting LIARS!"

"AMEN! Preach it, Brother!"

"Your [fill in the blank] Expert is a FRAUD!"

"Your [fill in the blank] citation is a HOAX!"

Now, that does not sound like a discussion on the foundations of morality.

"True reason can be likened to a virgin that would never prostitute itself with a priori bias; the a priori biased thinkers would never like her anyway...she forces them to be intellectually honest with themselves!"

Since you bring up "intellectual honesty", here is probably what sticks in the craw of most of the people here on the "SCIENCE" side of the argument, and that is the lack of intellectual honesty on the part of most YEC proponents on this fundamental issue:

BY DEFINITION the process of SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION starts with a QUESTION, then derives ANSWERS based on where the EVIDENCE best leads. This is why science will end up revising and refining man's understanding as it progresses. That is also why an argument that some scientist from 150 years ago did not get EVERYTHING right the first go-around does not carriy much weight.

BY DEFINITION DOGMATIC BELIEF STARTS with the answer then cherry picks or discards evidence to fit the desired result. This is why the YEC's answer NEVER changes, NO MATTER WHAT evidence you put before them.

This is America, and you can BELIEVE what you want. But if you are a YEC, your Bible should inform you to have the INTELLECTUAL HONESTY to admit that what you are practicing DOES NOT FIT THE DEFINITION OF "SCIENCE". When you get "lectured" on morality from someone who refuses to admit, or is intellectually incapable of understanding this, it carries a lot less weight.

Let’s remember that you asked a question whether or not evo questioners should be raising religious questions on what is a political commentary site. My response was that the politicization of evolutionary science, principally by non scientist socialist types who were using evolution a a means to justify the destruction of bed-rock American principles, was very much valid topic of discussion.

I do agree with you that the arguements get a bit ad hominem on both sides of the arguement. I certainly agree that self honesty about personal motives and beliefs must be above board.

I also was not attacking or supporting evolution or change theories in any way shape or fashion. I was argueing about how the politicians and certain members of the “chattering class” always misuse science and try to fashion social policies based on theories and discoveries that have been “tortured and twisted” to fit an anti-American or anti chrisitan agenda. That is where a lot of Christians show concern. It’s not so much the science, but where evil men will try to take the science. A humourous line from a Tom Lehrer song illustrates the point; it has von Braun stating...”vonce da rockets go up, who carehhs vheres dey goes down...that’s not my depahhhrtment, says Verner von Braun”