Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: fr_freak
However, how many people out there, who unquestioningly accept Evolution as the answer to our existence, really understand the nature of the theory? Even Darwin's theory is not generally taught in any great depth in high school or college (undergraduate level), and the modern theory of evolution is different from Darwin's original theories by leaps and bounds. Therefore, most fervent supporters of evolution, lacking any real understanding of what current evolutionary theory is, are accepting the theory on a basis that resembles faith rather than a true understanding of science. Why, then, are they so disdainful of those who accept creationism based on faith?

This is just the inverse of Asimov's Argument by General Consent. If there are people that accept the theory of evolution without understanding it, it is no reflection upon the 'Theory' or the 'Science' that supports it. Anymore than if some people think Doug Henning performs actual magic.

You are 'Equivocating' the meaning of the word 'faith' based upon the misconception or misunderstanding of some person's understanding of evolution. Which is why I said it was the inverse of Asimov's argument.

The assertion that "accepting the theory on a basis that resembles faith rather than a true understanding of science" is no reflection upon the theory itself and the idea that it 'resembles faith' is just an opinion. And one which, seen strictly from a scientific point of view, is wrong.

60 posted on 02/15/2003 5:38:44 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]


To: LogicWings
You are 'Equivocating' the meaning of the word 'faith' based upon the misconception or misunderstanding of some person's understanding of evolution. Which is why I said it was the inverse of Asimov's argument.

The assertion that "accepting the theory on a basis that resembles faith rather than a true understanding of science" is no reflection upon the theory itself and the idea that it 'resembles faith' is just an opinion. And one which, seen strictly from a scientific point of view, is wrong.


Well, I think you may have misinterpreted my statement. I don't mean to say that because there are people out there who except the theory of Evolution on faith that it is therefore equivalent to Creationism, because I am fully aware that there are many scientists (and enthusiasts)who have a full understanding of modern evolutionary theory and whose belief is a result of careful study and thought.

What I am saying is that, by far, the majority of the supporters of Evolutionary theory are those who probably don't even understand the basics; they simply know that they have a choice between Evolution and Creationism and have chosen the former. The basis for that choice is less scientific reason than faith, simply because scientific reason requires subject knowledge. This especially applies to those who administer education at the high school, and perhaps, undergraduate level, where most of the Evolution vs. Creationism battles are fought.

So, what I am questioning is not the soundness of the theory itself, based on the motives of its true believers, but the tendency of its less-educated supporters to dismiss Creationists' beliefs as ridiculous solely because they are faith-based, while exhibiting all the signs of faith-based belief themselves. In that sense, Asimov's Argument from General Consent applies to these supporters of Evolution because they seem to have thrown their faith toward Evolution only because everyone else is, rather than having been won over by their own study.
178 posted on 02/16/2003 3:00:35 AM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson