Darwin's Doubt, by Stephen Meyer
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-01-2015, 10:18 PM
RE: Darwin's Doubt, by Stephen Meyer
We have to remember that these books aren't written to convert us (or anyone who accepts scientific fact). They are written for those who already believe... People who want to read their own opinion.

Its all about reinforcing the confirmation bias. You believe something, and here's a book that shows you're not alone in your belief, that cites apparently highly educated people as fellow believers.

We might mock them as being idiots, but they're (largely) smart enough to know deep down inside that their beliefs are nothing more than something to help them sleep soundly at night.

In fact, I think many creationists may be more intelligent than moderates. Because they recognize that science and religion really are incompatible. They feel the need to shore up their beliefs with pseudoscience, perhaps because serious doubts would start to creep in if they didn't.

Based on debates I've had with moderates, they seem to come across as being incredibly naive and ignorant of science (much more so than fundies). One in particular flat refused to look at any links or videos I sent him, claiming that he just found scientific or philosophical information confusing. Generally they never consider the implications of Genesis being entirely fictional, and just ignore it. In many ways they are more guilty of the "I can't hear you" tactic.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sam's post
12-01-2015, 09:11 AM
RE: Darwin's Doubt, by Stephen Meyer
(09-01-2015 10:18 PM)Sam Wrote:  We have to remember that these books aren't written to convert us (or anyone who accepts scientific fact). They are written for those who already believe... People who want to read their own opinion.

Its all about reinforcing the confirmation bias. You believe something, and here's a book that shows you're not alone in your belief, that cites apparently highly educated people as fellow believers.

We might mock them as being idiots, but they're (largely) smart enough to know deep down inside that their beliefs are nothing more than something to help them sleep soundly at night.

In fact, I think many creationists may be more intelligent than moderates. Because they recognize that science and religion really are incompatible. They feel the need to shore up their beliefs with pseudoscience, perhaps because serious doubts would start to creep in if they didn't.

Based on debates I've had with moderates, they seem to come across as being incredibly naive and ignorant of science (much more so than fundies). One in particular flat refused to look at any links or videos I sent him, claiming that he just found scientific or philosophical information confusing. Generally they never consider the implications of Genesis being entirely fictional, and just ignore it. In many ways they are more guilty of the "I can't hear you" tactic.

"We have to remember that these books aren't written to convert us (or anyone who accepts scientific fact). They are written for those who already believe... People who want to read their own opinion."

Sadly that isn't entirely true. Books like Meyers' here are written as an attempt at science. He has 2 legit geology degrees that precede his history degree. He seems to genuinely believe (as do his adherents) that this a book and an idea that will convert people and that it contains science. As a matter of fact, he is careful to cite relevant research, so it (at a first approximation) appears scientific. But it's as scientific as anything Deepak Chopra writes about Quantum Physics.


It is an exercise in confirmation bias though, there is little doubt about that. But it has taken on a new and highly deceptive measure, it claims to not make claims about the intelligence it uses in its hypothesis.

Basically it boils down to them thinking that the only thing about they idea that is not scientific is the creator or intelligence part of it, so they try hard to leave it out and then use the rest of their arguments. Of course what they clearly fail to see is that everything they try to reason through follows from an intelligence existing and the intelligence is their mechanism. And if you can't demonstrate the existence of the mechanism or show how it works, everything that follows is subject to being complete rubbish.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-01-2015, 09:50 AM
RE: Darwin's Doubt, by Stephen Meyer
I am going through this sort of thing with my wife at the moment. She has never learned about ID or evolution for that matter so she has very little knowledge about it. As a scientist, ID really pisses me off because the supporters of it are rarely actual people of science and when they manage to get one, either don't know or don't care to learn about the topic they are trying to argue against. These morons who write these books fail to mention that in order for ID to be true, that magic would have to be real. Those folks must first demonstrate magic, THEN we can have a serious discussion on ID.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
12-01-2015, 10:17 AM
RE: Darwin's Doubt, by Stephen Meyer
(12-01-2015 09:50 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  I am going through this sort of thing with my wife at the moment. She has never learned about ID or evolution for that matter so she has very little knowledge about it. As a scientist, ID really pisses me off because the supporters of it are rarely actual people of science and when they manage to get one, either don't know or don't care to learn about the topic they are trying to argue against. These morons who write these books fail to mention that in order for ID to be true, that magic would have to be real. Those folks must first demonstrate magic, THEN we can have a serious discussion on ID.

The issue is not just the people who write these books, but the extreme lengths people go to in order to read and believe them.

We have a deficit of critical thinking skills when it comes to certain topics, and the biggest one is religion.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
12-01-2015, 10:28 AM (This post was last modified: 12-01-2015 10:32 AM by ghostexorcist.)
RE: Darwin's Doubt, by Stephen Meyer
(09-01-2015 03:35 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  2) They want badly for it to not be considered religion. This is why they claim ID makes no claim about the existence of the intelligence behind it (which they fail to realize immediately removes it from consideration as science).

And this simple fact bit them in the ass during the Dover trial. From Judge Jone's ruling on the case:

"…because its basic proposition is that the features of the natural world are produced by a transcendent, immaterial, non-natural being, ID is a religious proposition regardless of whether that religious proposition is given a recognized religious label […] It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition […] The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism."

I mention this and other material in a PowerPoint that I created for my anthropology senior seminar class.

http://www.slideshare.net/ghostexorcist/...-evolution
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ghostexorcist's post
12-01-2015, 10:38 AM
RE: Darwin's Doubt, by Stephen Meyer
(12-01-2015 10:28 AM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  
(09-01-2015 03:35 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  2) They want badly for it to not be considered religion. This is why they claim ID makes no claim about the existence of the intelligence behind it (which they fail to realize immediately removes it from consideration as science).

And this simple fact bit them in the ass during the Dover trial. From Judge Jone's ruling on the case:

"…because its basic proposition is that the features of the natural world are produced by a transcendent, immaterial, non-natural being, ID is a religious proposition regardless of whether that religious proposition is given a recognized religious label […] It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition […] The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism."

I mention this and other material in a PowerPoint that I created for my anthropology senior seminar class.

http://www.slideshare.net/ghostexorcist/...-evolution

They clearly believe that they have a non-religious idea, but their failure to be able to explain how makes it clear that they don't know.

From what I gathered on Meyer's page, the tactic at this point is to simply claim that ID makes no claim about what the intelligence is, and then denies that it has the burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of said intelligence.

It's presuppositionalism wrapped in shifting of the burden of proof and intellectual dishonesty.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-01-2015, 11:37 AM
RE: Darwin's Doubt, by Stephen Meyer
(12-01-2015 10:38 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  They clearly believe that they have a non-religious idea, but their failure to be able to explain how makes it clear that they don't know.

From what I gathered on Meyer's page, the tactic at this point is to simply claim that ID makes no claim about what the intelligence is, and then denies that it has the burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of said intelligence.

It's presuppositionalism wrapped in shifting of the burden of proof and intellectual dishonesty.

They do explain it. It is called a miracle. And miracles are not magic. Oh no! They are special things that happen that are controlled from outside of our universe by a being that is not bound by the natural laws of our universe and we can't possibly understand it or know what it is thinking. Why do you think that toast looks like Jesus? But it's not magic. No, sir. Now let me tell you what this master of the universe is telling you since you are too arrogant to have a personal relationship with it............. Drinking Beverage

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: