Good critique of creation science

[phildonnia]

Run your own logic from the viewpoint of materialism/atheism and see if you can find the possibility -- no matter how minute -- that one exists and you are no longer a materialist/atheist. At best (maybe, worst) you can be a dualist.

Sorry, I thought we were critiquing the critique, not talking about my own beliefs, which are irrelevant to this discussion. But if it makes you feel better, ok sure, there may be a God. Now that that's out of the way, back to the question. Where in the original post does it claim that God does not exist?

Yeah, I know scientists/materialists/atheists hate to divulge the assumptions all else they aver requires.

What assumption did I make?
You claimed that the the evolution was being used as a proof that God does not exist. Since it says nothing of the sort in the original post (or in any honest presentation of current theories) then you must have pulled this out of your a$$.

Yeah, nihilism, solipsism, "tricky-god", all the same.

Not all the same, but all more or less outside the reach of science.

You are right. No scientist/materialist/atheist recognizes anything superior to his own ego.

Okaaay, that's a rather untenable statement since it is the nature of science to remove ego from the pursuit of knowledge, and materialism generally considers ego an emergent phenomenon of no import.

If I can find one example of a scientist/materialist/atheist recognizing something superior to his own ego, that would mean that you are wrong, agreed? Just to make it fair, suppose I could find five. In that case would you stop making ridiculous statements like this?

 

[hammegk]

Okaaay, that's a rather untenable statement since it is the nature of science to remove ego from the pursuit of knowledge, and materialism generally considers ego an emergent phenomenon of no import.

LOFL. Fine, ego never enters "science" (only scientists, mmmkay?).

If I can find one example of a scientist/materialist/atheist recognizing something superior to his own ego, that would mean that you are wrong, agreed? Just to make it fair, suppose I could find five. In that case would you stop making ridiculous statements like this?

Waste your time all you want, I'll just No True Scotsman ya.


If you think "creation science" offers anything worth critiqueing, go for it. I'm outta here, and apologise to all for screwing up this thread.

 

[specious_reasons]

I just got into a debate with an Xtian friend about "intelligent design." (It started when I asked him if he had any familiarity with the "Bananas - an Atheist's Nightmare" author.) As it turns out, what you quoted reflected my opinions in a more clear manner, so I forwarded it on. Thanks for the reference.

He had mentioned the "macro vs. micro" evolution consession. i.e. - It has been shown that "small" evolutionary changes can occur, but there is no proof that this works on the scale described by evolution.

It irked me because the argument escaped me when I needed it.

Interestingly enough, we were both willing to acknowledge that evolution (as defined today) does not preclude the existence of God. However, the point I was trying to make was that it does not require the existence of God. For some reason, he had a bit of trouble with that.

 

[phildonnia]

I just got into a debate with an Xtian friend about "intelligent design." (It started when I asked him if he had any familiarity with the "Bananas - an Atheist's Nightmare" author.)

Something's always troubled me about bananas. I look at one, and I feel deep down as though a collection of ancient fables might be true. But then I consider the durian fruit; truly, intelligent-design's greatest nightmare.