Debate discussion
Religion
>
People who reject the theory of evolution should be placed on a level with Holocaust deniers
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Rachel (aka. Kaiserin Sisi)
(new)
Jul 12, 2010 09:24PM
There's a difference between denying a well-supported scientific fact and denying a truly horrific event that cost the lives of nearly 10 million people and emotionally scarred countless others.
reply
|
flag
There's a difference between denying a well-supported scientific fact and denying a truly horrific event that cost the lives of nearly 10 million people and emotionally scarred countless others.No there isn't. Whether or not you accept something as fact or deny it should have nothing to do with the emotional impact of the event. I could invent an event 1000 times worse than the Holocaust, but the emotional and moral severity of that event would have no bearing on whether or not it actually happened. That evolution has occurred and that the Holocaust occurred are both "well-supported scientific facts." To deny either one is to do the same thing: to ignore a mountain of incontrovertible evidence.
Mod
lol This is exactly the sort of people who deny evolution, because these are also the sorts who would shoot abortion doctors like the Dr. Tiller case/exist in the Westboro Baptist Church and use fear and hate to terrify people into doing what they want.
I think holocaust deniers are worse.Holocaust deniers may be "worse" in the sense that they're probably very anti-Semitic, which is quite frowned upon in the West, but in terms of the logical error being made, the complete failure of rational thought, they are both doing the same thing.
they're the most dangerous of the deniers, i think. This raises an interesting question: what in particular (or most) makes any of these deniers dangerous. Is it the specific bias (e.g. anti-Semitism) underlying the logical error, or is it the logical error itself? On the one hand, certain strong prejudices have motivated some very heinous crimes. But I think that the failure of basic reason is more dangerous, the idea that you can invent your own reality and disregard facts of which you do not approve. A person who is prejudiced but rational is rarely dangerous, because acting on these prejudices, at least in "dangerous" ways, is usually irrational. However, an irrational person is dangerous because there's no telling what he/she will do, or believe.
Rachel (aka. Kaiserin Sisi) wrote: "There's a difference between denying a well-supported scientific fact and denying a truly horrific event that cost the lives of nearly 10 million people and emotionally scarred countless others."I agree. We know that the Holocaust happened, as there are people who were there when it was happening, and remember what happened. However, there are no people to see what happened during evolution. Not all of the facts are there- we can't be 100% certain. We can be pretty sure, but not entirely.
Mod
You can see evolution. Take something like fruit flies, a new generation every day. You can see thousands of fruit fly generations in your lifetime. And the mutations that occur, and how they add up, and you could theoretically create two different species of fruit flies if you used your entire life to do it.
Dan wrote: "But I think that the failure of basic reason is more dangerous, the idea that you can invent your own reality and disregard facts of which you do not approve."This is the main reason why I disagree with those who claim faith(belief without evidence) is a good thing.
Nathan wrote: "With anything else, you must look at the evidence and see what is most likely true based on it. Invisible man in the sky? Not very likely. "
Just to add: That some people lied? Very likely.
Lindsay wrote: "how can anyone reject evolution? its pure fact that its true."It's not a fact. Essentially nothing can proven fact in science.
Mod
Well, science says as a human, you have a brain, so I guess science can be wrong sometimes.
Do you know what a fact is? Or to prove? Or science?
I'll throw my hat into the ring.It absolutely beggars belief to deny evolution, those who deny it must walk round with their eyes sealed as closed as their minds. There is an old saying, an empty vessel makes the most noise, never was anything so true as this when applied to religion. You only have to take a quick look at current events. Almost all the grief is caused by DOGMATIC religion, 'the I am right, therefore every one else is wrong' crowd. Despite their claims to the contrary these are very insecure in their beliefs, they feel the constant need to shout it from the roof tops, ram it into any passing face. To me they are pitiful creatures deserving of our sympathy. I am comfortable with my beliefs which are right for me, while I don't go around pushing my beliefs I can also accept my beliefs may not be right for others. It is not a question of right or wrong, just different. What is wrong is to force a particular view onto others, especially kids. The answer is to teach them about all the different faiths and let THEM decide which is right for them.
The average human is a frail, transient being in the greater scheme of things, and I can tell you, first hand, the bravest, toughest men, and ladies, when in a tight corner need that indefinable 'faith' to hang onto, what ever their beliefs. It is part of the human psyche, the need to believe in something greater, how ever intangible.
Evolution doesn't come into this as it is tangible, all around us, all you need is a little basic knowledge of a living thing and eyes which SEE rather than just look at something.
All the best Paul Rix [oldgeezer]
DianaTheDinosaur wrote: "Lindsay wrote: "how can anyone reject evolution? its pure fact that its true."It's not a fact. Essentially nothing can proven fact in science."
This isn't exactly true. The observation of natural phenomena is not usually in question for science. What is in question is the overarching theory, and the point where there is a contention is whether the theory FULLY explains every little detail.
We have observed speciation in nature. That IS a fact. We have observed commonalities in DNA, that is a fact. The explanation that ties it all together in the Theory of Evolution is not a fact in technically the same sense. The Theory of Evolution is by far the best model to explain what we observe in nature in terms of the speciation process. The only way to really "outdo" evolution is come up with a theory that is more elegant and explains MORE about the observations. This is what silly people like Ken Ham try to do, but usually their ideas are so fraught with error that they're riddled with nonsense. Not to mention they never bother to really do any math or collect any data.
The problem with trying to attack Evolution is that it is so well formed and it explains everything so perfectly that to deny something on the basis that there is a very slight probability it could be wrong is just idiocy. It's one of the most complete Theories in science today next to the Theory of Electromagnetism. Even gravity is not understood as well as Evolution.
Then again most people that attack evolution argue 19th century evolution or just attack Darwin and Darwin didn't have enough data to develop a full blown all encompassing theory at the time. There's even a section in "The Origin of the Species" about the problems there are with it. In the 20th century we fixed a lot of problems we had with it and we also had a far better fossil record than even Darwin did!
Mod
But faith has so many connotations. People want to think something, yes, but that doesn't mean it has to be religion.
Hi Lauren,I'm not disagreeing with what you said, I can't because it's true. But where does a faith become a religion, or vise-versa?
All the best Paul Rix [oldgeezer]
Mod
Hi Lauren,I'd never thought of it like that! Yeah, nice definition.
All the best Paul Rix [oldgeezer]
Hi Lauren,it's nice to see a little gem of common sense in a crazy world.
All the best Paul Rix [oldgeezer]
Just catching up on this interesting thread. I am a virtually lifelong atheist - science is amazing and can answer most everything - but humans do need something to unify to contemplate - science deals with topics too huge for the human psyche - this is where religion filled a void - we need an athesit church!
Rael wrote: "Just catching up on this interesting thread. I am a virtually lifelong atheist - science is amazing and can answer most everything - but humans do need something to unify to contemplate - science d..."No we don't. That's a terrible idea. The last thing Atheism needs is something that correlates it with religion directly. Religious believers already think science is a "faith" and Atheism is a "religion"... you would only be confirming their erroneous ideas.
Mod
It is a very sad history... and it blows my mind how crazy some people really are.
Mod
I haven't even gotten started, I have senioristis and I'm only a junior.
Lauren wrote: "New pro pic yo. I haven't even gotten started, I have senioristis and I'm only a junior."
I am a senior (again) and I have super senioritis... I have a paper to write for my Quantum Mechanics class on Superconductivity... I'm not too far into it : (
