![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
1000 scientists called Steve affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. EDIT via Hoyden about Town
I will now rant because I am feeling ranty.
1) There are times when an non-expert in a given subject disagrees with an expert, and the non-expert is right. Sometimes even the consensus of experts is wrong. But if you can't find any expert who agrees with you? You are almost certainly wrong on such a deep level there's no chance you could be right.
Any time creationists trot out "scientists" who favour creationism, their background is in mechanical engineering or some such. Having done a Phd in science, there is such a huge gap in understanding between people who have a Phd in that subject and those who don't (whether or not they're an expert in something else) that the latter are almost never in a position to argue with them.
2) I do not have a Phd or any tertiary training in biology. I find the subject interesting, but don't understand it very deeply. I think people like me should avoid biological arguments about creationism, we'll just make mistakes and bring the side down. It also plays into the idea that science is a democracy and every opinion is equal. My response to such arguments is to say "Find me a convincing argument by a creationist with a Phd in biology and maybe I'll listen".
3) This is not a science vs religion thing. It's a science vs anti-science thing, with religious people on both sides. Heck, there are anti-science atheists (see Soviet Russia) I think atheist organisations should get involved to the extent that it's also a separation-of-church-and-state thing, but the argument should, again, be "Our society trusts the consensus of scientists to decide school curriculum, and scientists say evolution is right", it's not our job to get into the biology of it.
Individual non-bioloigists (atheist or not) who want to take the workload off biologists by helping explain/defend evolution to creationists can do so, but I don't think atheist organisations should encourage it in an official capacity.
EDIT 3b) If your religious faith says that creationism is true, I actually don't have a problem with that. You can believe it, and you can teach it in your churches etc. But the logical response to scientific opinion disagreeing with your faith is to either shrug and say "Well, science changes, you'll realise we're right in the end" or become a scientist and prove them wrong scientifically. It is not to use bad science and pretend it's good science. That does a disservice to both science and religion.
Opinion 3 caused me a certain amount of strife on the Brights forum.
I will now rant because I am feeling ranty.
1) There are times when an non-expert in a given subject disagrees with an expert, and the non-expert is right. Sometimes even the consensus of experts is wrong. But if you can't find any expert who agrees with you? You are almost certainly wrong on such a deep level there's no chance you could be right.
Any time creationists trot out "scientists" who favour creationism, their background is in mechanical engineering or some such. Having done a Phd in science, there is such a huge gap in understanding between people who have a Phd in that subject and those who don't (whether or not they're an expert in something else) that the latter are almost never in a position to argue with them.
2) I do not have a Phd or any tertiary training in biology. I find the subject interesting, but don't understand it very deeply. I think people like me should avoid biological arguments about creationism, we'll just make mistakes and bring the side down. It also plays into the idea that science is a democracy and every opinion is equal. My response to such arguments is to say "Find me a convincing argument by a creationist with a Phd in biology and maybe I'll listen".
3) This is not a science vs religion thing. It's a science vs anti-science thing, with religious people on both sides. Heck, there are anti-science atheists (see Soviet Russia) I think atheist organisations should get involved to the extent that it's also a separation-of-church-and-state thing, but the argument should, again, be "Our society trusts the consensus of scientists to decide school curriculum, and scientists say evolution is right", it's not our job to get into the biology of it.
Individual non-bioloigists (atheist or not) who want to take the workload off biologists by helping explain/defend evolution to creationists can do so, but I don't think atheist organisations should encourage it in an official capacity.
EDIT 3b) If your religious faith says that creationism is true, I actually don't have a problem with that. You can believe it, and you can teach it in your churches etc. But the logical response to scientific opinion disagreeing with your faith is to either shrug and say "Well, science changes, you'll realise we're right in the end" or become a scientist and prove them wrong scientifically. It is not to use bad science and pretend it's good science. That does a disservice to both science and religion.
Opinion 3 caused me a certain amount of strife on the Brights forum.
no subject
So it's okay for you to take quantum mechanics on faith - as long as you don't try to argue whether or not it accurately describes the way the universe works. And if you want to argue that the laws of motion from classical mechanics are correct, then you must understand the evidence that caused us to revise those laws in the first place.
The question is "why are humans here?" Creationists choose to put faith in religious texts which say that we're here because an omnipotent being put us here. Some people put faith in scientists who say that we're here because we evolved from monkeys (to simplify it somewhat). None of these people can say they are informed on the subject, and there's nothing wrong with that.
However, some creationists choose to argue with those who have considered the evidence and choose to believe in evolution because they think it fits the evidence better (ie. most scientists), even though those creationists refuse to consider the same evidence. That's what's wrong - not accepting something on faith, but arguing with those who are going on more than just faith.
no subject
Well, you can as long as you admit that you're arguing from a position of faith ie a creationist christian trying to convince a scientist christian by appealing to their shared faith in the existence of God and the truth of the Bible. Of course if the person you're arguing with doesn't share your faith then you're reduced to "If you realised God existed you'd realise I'm right!"
But when they (a) pretend to be arguing based on scientific evidence or (b) Admit it's based on faith but think public policy should be based on faith, then I get narky.