Posted by Tom on September 20, 1999 at 09:03:53:
In Reply to: Re: rpcman & Robert vs. Tom posted by Boje on September 17, 1999 at 17:34:44:
: The reason that you guys in the creation vs. evolution debate always resort to ad hominem attacks, is that that is the crux of your disagreement with each other. Both sides of the debate have the ulterior motive of rejection of the premises of the other side, despite the apparent attempts to discuss individual aspects of the larger question on their own merits.
: You have both dismissed the negative potential outcome of your debate out of hand – from the start.
: You have each also predefined the only valid method of determining success from two different directions – one a priori, the other a posteriori; thereby nullifying, before the debate, the claims of the other side.
: Compromise is therefore logically impossible.
: Yet, both sides insist that they are open to counter-proofs from the other. Just a little disingenuous, I’d say.
What you say about the "disingenuous" character of our discussions
could be true, but I would assume that both Robert and I assume that we
are open to refutation. That does not forestall the posibility that we actually
are not at some deeper level. Many evolutionists (William Provine most notably) insist
that there is no free will. Of course if he's right then people cannot truly be open
to counterarguments. (You would think, given the denial of free will by strict Darwinists,
that they would be more tolerant of creationist--who, after all, could not have any choice in the matter.)
The assumption of free will seems to pose a problem for evolutionist belief. If even our thoughts
are deterministic products of natural selection or genetic determination, what confidence can we have
that our Neo-Darwinian convictions are true. The postmodernists who embrace a posture of radical
skepticism are the more consistent Darwinists. Like Nietzsche they recognize that evolution undermines
science as well as religion. Seems paradoxical to draw this conclusion, as Nietzsche did, from a scientific theory.
I suspect that this is what caused science to dry up in antiquity. A too narrow rationalism always leads to skepticism, and that
in turn to solipsism--witness the anti-scientific tencencies of the
ancient sophists. The philosophers who embraced a theistic rationalism--Plato and Aristotle--
maintained the scientific faith.
: I do think that, for unbiased observers, this adversarial process is a pretty good method of seeing ideas presented for the purpose of evaluation. The passions that lead to extreme views are useful in pointing out the weaknesses of both viewpoints.
: That says very little, however, for the sincerity of the debaters’ stated purposes of discovering truth.
: Boje