Posted by Robert on September 20, 1999 at 08:48:51:
In Reply to: Ad hominem "attacks" posted by Boje on September 19, 1999 at 02:42:00:
: I think that both sides of this debate are equally informed of the status quo of the debate on the larger scale. What we are witnessing on this board is a restatement of elements of a larger debate, which has already occurred. Both sides of this particular exchange are well aware of that exchange.
: Ad hominem “attacks”, are debaters’ techniques for redirecting the focus of the discussion from the issue at hand to other related topics, such as the motives for the assertions of one’s opponent.
: Those motives are usually founded on the premises of the opponent’s arguments.
: These “attacks” are undertaken as a last resort when an impasse is reached in the logical consideration of each successive point \ counterpoint exchange.
: Those stalemates often occur as a result of incongruous logical principles, such as diametrically opposed premises, or incompatible logical progressions.
: While that appears to be the case here, I think that it is only apparently so.
: Boje
Robert: The focus of the discussion is that evolution is based on science, the scientific method, physical evidence, experimentation, observation, and is falsifiable. In short, it is a scientific theory (and fact).
Creationism, as described by its most vocal adherents, is none of these, and it is not falsifiable. In short, creationism is religious thought.
If believers wish to follow and accept their religious doctrine of literal biblical Genesis, and have religious faith that it is true, I have no problem with that. I may feel that they are incorrect, but it is their right to believe their religion.
The problem comes in when these believers find their faith in their religious thought somehow so unfullfilling that they go to great lengths to convince themselves and others that their creationism is based on science. Even the majority of christians who believe that the universe was created by a supreme being, reject both the idea of a literal bible and that of young earth creationism. Why is there this persistence to label their religious beliefs as science when there is little to nothing about it that is science? Is their faith in their god really that weak?