Rejecting evolution is rejecting science. - Isn't it just as easy to reject this statement by saying "nope"? Evolution is a part of the whole, you can deny part without denying the whole. Its a case where all robins are birds but not all birds are robins, evolution is part of science but not the whole.
Evolution is a fact and is not only demonstrated through fossil finds but by the DNA markers of A-T-G-C related throughout the animal kingdom. It is amazing how closely the DNA markets for chimpanzees and bonobos are to modern humans. The DNA markers in itself has provided indisputable evidence of evolution. - Okay, but this doesn't help the argument that not teaching Evolution is holding science back. It might hold evolution back, but how is it holding everything else back? That would be similar to saying "if you don't teach stoicism you'll hold philosophy back" stoicism is a part of the whole. The argument relies heavily on evolution being a significant cornerstone for the advancement of all sciences, where according to other world views its more like an extra toe, cut it off and you'll be fine.
My background is in philosophy, so what I'm mostly interested in is critical thinking and logic. I'm not satisfied with the claims being made in this instant, so I'm trying to look deeper into them and see if either I'm misunderstanding it, or it really is not a good argument. I don't know if he was trying to make a logical statement or not, but as it stands I don't like it.
I don't care much about philosophical arguments. - Yeah, okay but I'm saying that reason and logic are something of a necessity when defending an argument. There is nothing more irritating than someone agreeing with my points while making horrible, fallacious arguments. Philosophy has been the father of most of the sciences. Before it's a science, there was a philosophy about it. I don't think it's replacing as much as confirming what a philosopher already theorized.
That being said, you never really gave me much of an answer to my question. Basically, I'm telling you to fix your logic, cause right now what you've done is said "Rejecting evolution is rejecting science" which is a conclusion without a premise, and cannot stand on it's own. After that you simply provided evidence for evolution. You aren't trying to convince me that evolution is true, you're trying to convince me that by denying evolution as a science, all other sciences suffer. This isn't only philosophy, this is logic, reason and rationality.
Arrogance on an unstudied subject doesn't mean he's irrational. His argument was airtight throughout, save for the false dichotomy/straw man thing. But what I saw was him saying "Okay, you saw something you can't explain, that doesn't make it extra terrestrial, it just makes it something you can't explain." Which is 100% true. If my background in philosophy taught me anything it's to make a rational argument. Not only that, but the guy could barely get a word in. He was getting interrupted on all sides by the other guys constantly. Saying he's irrational because he's not qualified and is arrogant is ad hominem.
Take a look at this http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ if you haven't already.
I'm not trying to be condescending or come off as imagining myself in some way your teacher or whatever I am developing my own skills here, and trying to keep logical people such as yourself logical and on their toes.
And TSmith: to be honest, I haven't taken a single philosophy class. I study psychology/neuroscience, not philosophy. Like I said, philosophy is great and like you said, before science there was philosophy. But again, I will reaffirm what I believe: philosophy is mostly outdated and doesn't have much usefulness in today's world when we have the scientific method and the demand for empirical evidence away from philosophical arguments and rules.
I will stand by my statement (whether it violates philosophy rules or not since I have not studied philosophy) that rejecting evolution is rejecting science due to the reason that the evidence is so overwhelming (fossil finds in addition to the DNA markers) and to reject evolution is strictly on the basis of religious belief and not rationality, logic, and evidence.
But what I'm saying is the statement (rejecting evolution is rejecting science) simply doesn't stand if a rational, logical person is given such an argument.
Now, saying by rejecting evolution you are rejecting a science, that would stand, but I'm not convinced that is what is being said. In fact, it seems more like the equivocal argument
If evolution is a science and if you reject evolution, then you reject science
Evolution is a science and you reject it
You reject science.
The definition of science changed in this argument from inferring a part (a science) to the whole (science). How does rejecting evolution hold back neuroscience? You need more than evidence for evolution to prove the correlation. Now, if that isn't what is being said please enlighten me, but this is how I read it.
I personally want to apologize for jumping the gun. I don't know why I felt such a disdain for him on an emotional level. That was weird...I know that I felt a disdain for him based on that Larry King interview in the way he was dismissing the claims without knowing the particular details of the cases and just dismissing them as "loony" when the cases made were pretty reputable and convincing cases with high ranking former members of the armed forces; and the way he dismissed them irked me. In addition, I know I had seen him somewhere a couple of years back (I think it was CNN) I forgot which show in which I had watched it live and he was defending the concept of how religion and science don't contradict and how religion should in a way (I'm paraphrasing since I have not been able to locate the exact video) embraced along with science. But saying this, I WAS TOTALLY WRONG AND IGNORANT ON THIS TOPIC and I apologize and if Bill Nye was here would apologize to him too.
I went online and did some searches and found the way he has defended science, evolution, and the like against religious fundamentalists. Religious fundamentalists on their message boards don't like him at all. Some did say that at first they thought he was a "good believer" but gave an example in where he went and spoke in Texas and said that "the moon doesn't produce light" and it comes from the sun and I guess this violates the bible (???) and religious folks got mad and stormed out during his speech...so based on my updated research on him I respect the guy and again apologize for making rush-to-judgement remarks which is usually not like me...and I was ignorant of the topic instead of properly doing research rather than basing my judgements and false perceived notions of who he was..
Join Think Atheist
Welcome toThink Atheist
Get Started Nowor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Started by D L in Small Talk. Last reply by D L Feb 22.
Started by Gregg RThomas in Small Talk Oct 27, 2017.
Started by Violetta Fay in Small Talk. Last reply by Violetta Fay Nov 1, 2017.
Started by Jimmy in Neuroscience, Cognitive Science, Psychology Sep 25, 2017.
Started by D L in Small Talk Sep 19, 2017.
Sunday School May 28th 2017
Sunday School May 21st 2017
Sunday School May 14th 2017
Posted by Muhammad ali on August 5, 2017 at 9:27am
Posted by Brad Snowder on July 9, 2017 at 1:08am
© 2018 Created by Rebel.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.