Skip to main content

View Diary: Many Critics of Creationism are Stupid, Hypocritical, Intellectually Inconsistent, or all Three (20 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I can see your point, but there is a difference (0+ / 0-)

    between by-authority dogmatism and using one's authority to advantage.

    The simple question that needs to be asked is simply: What do you propose happened then?

    There is no need to accept the burden of proof.  If you do so the deniers will throw out an endless barrage of garbage and you will be on the defensive and the mushball middle that respect science, but don't get it will buy into the narrative more.

    Any time you decided to shoot down an objection it is necessary to remind people how many times they have attempted to dislodge the theory. It is important to remind them that this is the accepted theory, that it has withstood every conceivable objection, that its explanatory power is vast that any objection that they raise that fails to present a real challenge the theory only further establishes and that the bottom line is that they have no other explanation.

    One can introduce points using the authority of established science without abusing that authority, and appealing to it blindly.

    I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Oh, yeah, and Ronald Reagan was an idiot and a lousy president.

    by journeyman on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 08:44:06 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Why are you engaging with the deniers at all? (0+ / 0-)
      The simple question that needs to be asked is simply: What do you propose happened then?

      The deniers have a simple answer to this question. Granted, it's an answer that has no evidence to support it. But what you'll get is either:
      A) God designed life through multiple little miracles.
      B) God created life in its current forms.

      There is no need to accept the burden of proof.

      It's not a matter of burden of proof. It's about addressing key misconceptions about the nature of science, and the evidence for a given scientific theory. And you can address both of those without getting technical.

      Arguments from authority don't work when your audience is already biased against that authority.

      •  We'll have to agree to disagree. (0+ / 0-)

        You seem not to distinguish between the effective use of authority and its abuse.

        I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Oh, yeah, and Ronald Reagan was an idiot and a lousy president.

        by journeyman on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 09:10:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (156)
  • Community (71)
  • Elections (44)
  • Environment (42)
  • Bernie Sanders (42)
  • 2016 (40)
  • Hillary Clinton (35)
  • Spam (34)
  • Culture (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Climate Change (31)
  • Media (31)
  • Civil Rights (27)
  • Labor (27)
  • Congress (24)
  • Science (24)
  • Education (24)
  • Law (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site