Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002
|
| Quote (Reed @ April 26 2010,00:45) | | Quote (bjray @ April 25 2010,22:12) |
To summarize many of your posts: I'm ignorant,
|
Clearly demonstrated by your posts. Yes, you are ignorant of evolutionary theory, cosmology and paleontology at a minimum.
|
What's most troubling about BJRay isn't the absolutely typical reliance on culturally-transmitted falsehoods. It's the complete lack of drive to examine any element of his/her own position. E.g., promoting irreducible complexity as an issue without having examined IC or CSI in any detail.
Look down in the comments on this post:
| Quote |
Actually, I think there is something to that claim. I think that the professional antievolutionists and evolution deniers make a livelihood of fostering ignorance of the sort that makes people like Q into stooges, so that when they confidently trot out the “magic bullets” that the professionals peddle, they fall flat on their face.
| Quote |
I tend to think of SciCre argumentation, and even some of the ID argumentation, as a search for a “magic bullet”. By this, I don’t mean it in the sense that Ehrlich did when searching for a cure for syphilis. I mean it in the sense of werewolf movies. There, the magic bullet is simply a silver slug that will destroy the lycanthrope on contact. Those wielding the magic bullet need invest no other effort in dealing with the lycanthrope, are not required to be pure in spirit, and certainly have no need to *understand* lycanthropy in any deep sense. Similarly, the SciCre “professionals” are engaged in the peddling of “magic bullets”, which retain their magic only so long as they aren’t used on real lycanthropes. The magic bullet users, as Scott relates, remain secure in their faith that the evil lycanthropes can be held at bay or vanquished, right up until the time the magic bullet is fired — and is found to have lost its virtue.
Instead of magic bullets like “too little moon dust” or “materialistic philosophy”, more good would come of trying to understand what exactly evolutionary biology is. As it is, creationist belief has tended more and more to resemble evolutionary biology. In little more than a century and a half, we have seen a change from general adherence to the doctrine of special creation to a range of beliefs, at the most different from evolutionary biology, creation of each separate “kind” (which when defined at all, tends to be defined such that the evolutionist term “clade” comes close to fitting the concept), and at the least different, a belief in physical common descent but separate imbuement of spirit.
(Source)
|
I’d modify this previous statement by not quibbling over any difference between SciCre and ID argumentation, since further study has shown those to have a superset/subset relationship.
What does this incident prove? To me, it shows that “level of confidence” does not equal “level of knowledge”. The question was not merely “rambling”; it was deeply incoherent. “Aping” as a term means copying behavior from observation. Q appears to have been “aping” what he thought of as scientific discourse without any apparent understanding of how it actually is conducted.
|
--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
