A conversation with a friend (atheist) horrified me a few days ago when I asked him about his purpose for living. He said that he was here to further the evolutionary process. He then started attacking the church for supporting laws that inhibited this process such as euthanasia and abortion. He went on to share his ideas on killing the sick and deformed to cleanse the gene pool (probably not taking the 'veil of ignorance' very seriously). He classified these statements by saying that he would never agree to it unless it was socially acceptable but that this is the direction he believes we should be working towards.
I have known this guy for almost 2 years and I never imagined his core beliefs were such. I asked him if he would read some papers on the material evidence for creation and he laughed at me. He said that God was created just after WW2 (absolutely no idea how he got this) so that people would have values and behave in a socially cohesive manner. When I asked him where he had heard this he claimed, 'on an SBS documentary'. He said he had no time to look into the fabricated 'evidence' for a myth and left it at that.
Since that conversation I have spent hours raking the net looking for proof of evolution. I know that it's impossible for me to convince the reader of the unbiased approach I took in doing this research however so that you can follow my thought process, I had decided that I would rather be fully convinced of evolution than unsure either way.
What I found was an endless debate between every evolutionist with access to the net and the AiG (Answers in Genesis) team. Once you waded through the steady stream of abuse (towards young earth creationists), there were some rather level headed arguments from both sides.
I think the reason this debate is not being settled is because it is based on the wrong field of expertise. If we want to know what happened in the past, don't we look at history? And when history is limited shouldn't science only be used to present a hypothesis?
The problem that creationists face in arguing their point is that evolutionists only accept 'material' evidence. Why is this a problem? Because material evidence can say whatever you want it to, depending on your initial framework.
For example, there is a claim on absolutely every evolution website that says that there are four times as many scientists that reject the account of the holocaust than there are who reject evolution. (I am yet to find the original publication or indication of an actual survey.) They claim that this proves that evolution must be true because the majority of learned people believe so. A creationist could argue that this in fact proves that scientists are not thoroughly intelligent when it comes to topics outside their field of expertise. (May i also point out that my atheist friend who believes God was created after WW2 is probably the smartest engineering student that UTAS will ever get.) There are also problems of adverse selection within a scientific institution. (Its like advertising a job for women only and being surprised that only a few men turn up.)
So if neither party are able to convince the other of their beliefs then what is to be done?
4 comments:
One side should claim that they are right. They should teach their beliefs as fact to the next generation and outlaw any other opinions. They should ridicule and abuse anybody who says otherwise rejecting their opinions as ludicrous and absurd without any interest in looking into any other ideas on the cause of life.
Then they should force the consequences of their worldview on society.
This is whats best for the evolution of mankind...
Wow I that's amazing!!
It's hard to believe somebody could believe what your friend believes, although I guess at least he has thought his atheist/evolutionist beliefs through to their logical conclusion (however ignorant and wrong they may be). A lot of atheists would deny that their beliefs lead to this the conclusion your friend offered because it is clearly void of conscience of moral thought, so at least he is honest.
As for what can be done, I don't really think a lot more than what is being done. There will always be people on both sides who will be unwilling to dialogue, just as there will be those who are willing. The main thing for true truth seekers and scientists is to keep the debate going, with biases aside if possible, and to let the facts speak for themselves without theories getting in the way.
Just because someone says they support the theory of evolution, doesn't mean they do, nor that their other views corroborate it.
Also, trying to argue the truth or falsity of an idea based on who says what, or how many believe it, are both logical fallacies (argumentum ad populam, argumentum ad verecundiam). Neither are relevant. What matters is the idea's validity and internal coherence.
As to the theory of evolution, it is simply a scientific expression of the logical principle of causality. The evolution of life can be understood in terms of chemical interactions. If this is hard to understand, research the chemical structure of an amino acid and why each molecule (e.g. carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc.) can link up with the others. It is not hard to comprehend this.
Just because someone says they support the theory of evolution, doesn't mean they do, nor that their other views corroborate it.
Euthanasia is a merciful principle that allows a person in chronic physical suffering to have someone assist them to commit suicide, without the assistant being arrested and gaoled for murder. Refusing such a principle to become legal has horrendous consequences, like forcing a paralysed person to starve themselves to death over months.
As to eugenics, it is practised all the time in animal husbandry, and no one blinks an eye. We prefer culling sick, diseased, undesireable animals and plants, because it wastes resources and is therefore inefficient. Look at the converse situation if 99% of humans were grossly retarded, and just 1% had to support them. Do you think that is an intelligent or even sustainable situation?
Also, trying to argue the truth or falsity of an idea based on who says what, or how many believe it, are both logical fallacies (argumentum ad populam, argumentum ad verecundiam). Neither are relevant. What matters is the idea's validity and internal coherence.
As to the theory of evolution, it is simply a scientific expression of the logical principle of causality. The evolution of life can be understood in terms of chemical interactions. If this is hard to understand, research the chemical structure of an amino acid and why each molecule (e.g. carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc.) can link up with the others. It is not hard to comprehend this.
Post a Comment