Yes, the ultimate put down when all else fails. When legitimate questions about evolution are asked and evolution cannot answer them, the questions must be labeled pseudo science and the questioners little more than idiotic buffoons.
Why not have a category specifically designated for evolutionary discussion.
What's being discussed is science vs. pseudoscience. We have a subforum specifically intended for this.
What I hear you saying, skinwalker, is that any criticism of evolution, any non supportive facta, any non supportive opinion is automatically pseudo science. And, apparently, so are responses to such questions. Am I correct that, in your opinion, there is absolutely no legitimate criticism of the theory of evolution, that there are no legitimate scientific questions which can be raised?
Your particular criticism wasn't science-based but creationist-based. Like creationists, you offer no natural solutions (i.e. scientific solutions) to the alleged problems you raise. The alternatives you're implying are creationist, therefore pseudoscientific.
The pseudoscience subforum is where the intersection of science and pseudoscience is discussed. It unfortunate that you see this as some sort of slight to you. But the critical discussion of pseudoscientific concepts like creationism is a very important dialog that those interested in furthering science and science-education should be having.
Which is not a judgement on the truth of the proposition- it's just that logically, if there's a supernatural explanation for something, it's a non-scientific explanation. Science can only describe the testable, the observable. Supernatural events, by definition, are at least partially non-testable. The creationist proposition might be entirely correct, but it is not fully testable and so it is not science.Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Creationists want to wield the credibility, the argument winning power, that they perceive that science has. So being labelled as anything other than science, whatever the logic of it, is a threat. I'm afraid there's not much we can do about the public perception of pseudoscience, though creationists and their various allies are of course working on that.
OK, so I understand why skinwalker prefers to use the term pseudoscience as a pajoritive to cast ridicule upon anything he finds too challenging to respond to. And I also agree with TheBiologista that no matter how much such ridicule is cast upon an idea, the truth or of the idea is not thus rendered to be invalid.
Heck, we have our pajoritive terms, too, such as scientistic as a reference to a person who we think has adopted a world view that is so science oriented that it cannot find significance in other studies such as history, philosophy, religion and the like. We call the overall movement scientism. I think evolutionist may be considered a pajoritive term by some and can, perhaps be used that way, but it is generally just a combining shorthand to reference evolution enthusiasts. I suppose of someone were actually talking, it would be much easier to tell how they were using the word although context may also be some indication.
My approach was to challenge the math of the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian paradigm of "many incremental changes over long periods of time." This is a paradigm which hides its problem behind the complete meaninglessness of terms such as "many" and "long periods." My point was (and remains) that when you try to turn those into meaningful information such as "how many" changes and "how long" the periods of time, this paradigm runs into serious math problems when compared to the amount of time science says life has existed. At no time did I offer any so called creationist alternative explanations. I am not advocating for creationism, but rather questioning the usefulness of such terms as "many" and a "long time."
But rather than to attempt to show that my estimates are outside the ballpark or try to show the math incorrect, skinwalker, summarily dismissed this approach as merely the rantings of creationist thinking. This is, of course, what you must do when you cannot refute the argument -- you attack the source rather than the argument. My feeling is that any difficult to handle challenge to evolution would be categorically labeled creationist based pseudoscience even if it were advanced by a reknown scientist. I assume that Michael Behe is considered a pseudoscientist because he does not follow the evolutionist agenda.
And this is what evolutionists (as a pajoritive) do consistently when faced with current valid challeges to the science of evolution. The render it as non-scientific even though science cannot provide adequate answers. So, it appears, under this standard the only real test of a matter is whether science can provide an answer. If not, it is not science.
I agree that the creationist alternative is implicit in such challeges if only because it is the only other explanation dealing with these issues. However, I am of the belief that evolution does not really have the science to back up all its premises. Evolution will stand or fall on its own merits not in the face of pro-creationism. Creationism will stand only as the default alternative. I do not think creationism can win by attempting to use the Bible as an alternative explantion of the timing or mechanism of changes on Earth. It only credits these changes as being meaningful and purposeful and the result of rational decisions by a creative agent.
| « Where has my thread gone? | Is SkinWalker's Photo Caption Really Necessary? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
