I occasionally go poking around Conservapedia to see what the crazies have been up to. Tonight I eventually encountered some "Question Evolution" blog with literally dozens of links to articles and posts about how Biblical Christianity is on the rise and atheists' numbers are shrinking, etc.
What strikes me is how silly this all is... do you think it proves you right if more people agree with you? I'm afraid it doesn't. I mean, I doubt the accuracy of your sources as well, but that's beside the point. Even if these all-caps claims of yours are true, so what?
No matter how many people agree with you, it's perfectly possible for everyone to be wrong. Maybe evolution and creationism are both wrong, and some other origin of life is the real fact, but no one has even suggested it yet!
No one is suggesting that Christians aren't the majority in the U.S. No one is suggesting that atheists are not the least-trusted demographic. We all know those things are true. I'm confused as to what you're trying to prove with your numbers.
The LDS church is guilty of this, too. While always carefully pointing out that it doesn't really matter, church leaders love to say "we're 14 million strong!" Like that changes anything about the veracity of your doctrines.
I guess I'm guilty of this stuff too, though. It seems somehow significant to me that an overwhelming majority of anyone who has (actually) studied living things in depth supports the theory of evolution, religious or not. But I should really let the evidence speak for itself, I suppose, and not play the silly numbers game.
Thank you, crazy people, for inspiring this opportunity for self-improvement!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I noticed you did not address the information contained in the Refuting evolution link which was given in the blog post nor did you address the information in the atheism article which was provided in the blog post. Furthermore, you did not satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists which was also provided in the blog post.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, you claim to doubt the sources which were cited about global atheism and global atheism shrinking and creationism being on the rise, but you did not declare why you supposedly had doubt. There is a big difference between doubts and reasonable doubts by the way. Also, you failed to give compelling data that indicates that opposite of what was asserted about global atheism/agnosticism and creationism.
In short, your blog post was symptomatic of atheism/agnosticism/evolutionism are waning in influence and for good reasons.
I think you've missed the point of my post, and (in a way) given me too much credit. I did not intend to rebut your claims, and my doubts are not thoroughly-realized condemnation. I am no evolutionary biologist capable of debating the finest points of the diversity of life with you.
DeleteAll I'm really musing about is that even IF the numbers of evolutionists/atheists are waning, has no bearing either way on the truth of their claims.
I am fully aware that I, too, sometimes make judgments based on the false premise that numbers lend credibility to claims. It's a common fallacy.
There will be plentiful opportunities for the rational/empirical investigation of claims made by both sides. This post was not meant to be such an investigation, it was simply my thoughts on the fallacious arguments used by both sides to promote their philosophies.
I'm glad we cleared up this little misunderstanding.
Actually 15 questions, his post was merely pointing out that whether atheism is declining or not is irrelevant to what the actual "truth" is, but you seem to have completely missed that somehow. 99% of people could believe that the moon is made of cheese, but that wouldn't change the fact that it isn't.
ReplyDeleteGranted that is a pretty standard thing for those working on your website judging by your 15 questions which move goalposts around based on a complete misunderstanding (or, if I was being cynical misrepresentation) of evolution. For example question number 1 about the origin of life, which is an entirely different realm of scientific study to evolution and evolution makes no claim whatsoever on the subject (neither does it need to as evolution can occur no matter how life originated, be it divine or otherwise). Granted there is some evidence to suggest that some of the building blocks of life CAN form through purely naturalistic means, but that has no bearing on Evolution itself.
On top of that you have a tendency to claim that something has not been show to your "satisfaction" because of the ease of moving the goalposts when a divine entity is brought into the picture and a lack of understanding of the scientific method.
As an astrophysicist such willful ignorance on your part (that you seem to celebrate of all things) is slightly disturbing; however it is not my position to tell you how to think, only to hope that such pseudoscience will not get around to penetrating the scientific establishment at large and set our understanding of the Universe back 100s of years.
Perivale
Perivale,
ReplyDeleteI didn't miss anything. It is the author of this blog who failed to address all the information given in the blog post - including anti-atheism and anti-evolution resources which thoroughly debunk atheism and evolutionism.
I see you are fond of the fallacy of exclusion as well. If you could be more logical in the future, I would be indebted to you.
If you want to be the debate partner of the owner of this blog as far as the debate offer above, please let me know. But keep in mind that Creation scientists generally win the creation vs. evolution debates as evolutionism cannot withstand cross-examination.
By the way, are you an atheist? If so, what proof and evidence that atheism is true?
Sincerely,
15 questions for evolutionists
Also, I am gay. If anyone would like to have some sweaty man sex with me, please send a message to the Question Evolution! Blog or drop me a line here: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/mail
ReplyDeleteI like to role play, and I ALWAYS am the "catcher." :) I'll be waiting, boys.
Sincerely,
15 questions for evolutionists
Whenever I see a "healthy debate" like this I have to wonder: Do either of you believe that converting the other will enrich your life? My "spirituality" has taught me to love others as they are. Evolution has taught me to love strong men who actually think about what's important to them and stand up for it. (Not that that one makes too much sense since none of you are currently working on impregnating me.) But I digress. My point is,it's wonderful that you both have something to believe. Who cares if it's the same something!
ReplyDeletePardon: *neither* of you is trying to impregnate me.
ReplyDeleteExcept 15 Questions, he never claims to be talking about the evolution side of your slightly strange argument, merely that the number of people believing in something does not determine whether it is true or not. The rest of your site has no relevance to the topic discussed.
ReplyDeleteWhy exactly would I agree to debate with you (or one of your similarly believing friends)? The 15 questions you present have either been answered but you refuse to accept the scientific evidence/don't understand the scientific evidence (eg. 9 on transitional forms, a proper understanding of the topic at hand would show you that all living beings, past and present, ARE transitional forms according to the theory), have nothing to do with the theory of evolution itself (eg. 1 as I explained in my previous post), have no relevance as to whether a theory is correct (eg. 13, granted there have been scientific breakthroughs due to evolution, but even if there hadn't this wouldn't make the theory any less sound), show a blatant lack of understanding of even what a science is (eg. 14, astrophysics by your bizarre definition isn't a science because it uses observational evidence most of which is billions of years old) and you even suggest that if evolution can't account for morality (which there is some evidence to suggest it can) that it must be wrong as otherwise there's no meaning of life (eg. 11 if there isn't a meaning of life then so be it, scientifically that means absolutely nothing) .
The fact is that your understanding of the subject at hand is extremely limited, but your capability to misinterpret evidence to undereducated individuals is extremely high.
On top of all that even if any of your questions were to prove an issue with evolution as it stands you seem to think that that automatically proves a "creator". In fact you seem to think that that would automatically prove a "biblical creator" despite the fact that introducing such a deity introduces so many assumptions to your hypothesis that are unsupported by the available evidence that it could never be properly falsified nor tested in a scientific manner (ie. it's pseudoscience).
Just because something is not understood does not mean "Goddidit", I am studying gamma rays emitted by distant radio galaxies, these are interesting because previous models have difficulty in explaining why these objects should emit at such high energies. Now by your reasoning, the correct answer to this should therefore be "Goddidit" as we can't explain it yet and take that as a scientific answer. Surprisingly enough I haven't taken that approach and through my PhD I have been able to study potential solutions to this relatively interesting (to me) topic; however, until further data becomes available it will remain impossible to determine, which, if any, of the proposed models are most likely to be correct.
That, 15 questions, is science. What you and the creation "scientist" community do is not. So no, I will not be debating with you as to do so would be utterly ridiculous.
Perivale
PS. No I am not an atheist as I make no strong claims about the existence or non-existence of a god. As a scientist I cannot present a falsifiable hypothesis about the existence of such a creature and so the question is meaningless as the best means by which I have of determining "truth", the scientific method, cannot be used.
Well said, thank you.
DeleteK, the reason I took exception to 15 questions, was the way by which he/she decided to completely ignore what the actual blog post was about (ie. that truth is not defined by the number of people who believe in something) and go off on some sort of "anti-evolution" challenge. Granted I also tend to think that such world-views are dangerous as they seriously mislead people on how science works, but I'm lucky enough to live in the UK where teaching such nonsense is illegal in schools so it's not that much of an issue.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Perivale. I meant no offense. Primarily I agree with the original poster. Convincing another of the falsehood you believe does not make it more true. In a related thought, I've never felt right about the concept of conversion. And finally the people of God who attempt conversion by contention? Well, it's probably best if I just don't get started on that topic. Anyway, I did appreciate your input here.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am also someone that suffers as witness to the 'logic' displayed on that creationist site.
ReplyDeleteHowever, logic is only as useful as far as the other party plays by the same rules of logic as you do; to this end, I offer this insight of Wittgenstein's:
"You may say they reason wrongly.
In certain cases you would say they reason wrongly, meaning they contradict us. In other cases you would say they don't reason at all, or 'It is an entirely different kind of reasoning.' The first you would say in the case in which they reason in a similar way to us, and make something corresponding to our blunders.
Whether a thing is a blunder or not-- it is a blunder in a particular system. Just as something is a blunder in a particular game and not in another....
If you suddenly wrote numbers down on the blackboard, and then said: 'Now, I'm going to add,' and then said: '2 and 21 is 13,' etc. I'd say: 'This is no blunder.'"
This study released by Gallup shows that the global atheist populations is up 3% between 2005-2012. It also has a nation by nation breakdown in Table 4, along with many other interesting statistics.
ReplyDeletehttp://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf
Clearly, that means atheism is 3% more likely to be correct than it was in 2005.
Delete