So, Michael thinks I'm naive (see comment on Don't Play Sports & I Just Can't Make the Evolutionary Leap). I love it! Well everyone (all 2 people who read this blog), welcome to middle school. This is precisely what happens when people are unwilling to engage in an educated dialogue. This is precisely what happens when people adhere strictly to their doctrines without question. Let's be fair. This happens on both sides of the spectrum: from those who cling to the doctrine of Darwinism just because they don't believe in God - to those who believe in God just because "the Bible tells me so."
I would prefer it if Mike told me why he thought I was missing the mark rather than dismissing me as naive. But the issue Michael seems to be dealing with here is that he has no idea how something as complex as the human body could possibly evolve and survive while it was evolving. So, he resorts to name calling or dismissing the questions and the person in favor of his doctrine. He simply can't deal with the gaping holes in Darwinism and the thousands of unanswered questions about evolution. He is not willing to dialogue. So, what does he do? He chooses to silence or ridicule those with whom he disagrees. Most of the time this is done out of fear of what might actually be discovered.
But what is truly sad is that we can't have a dialogue that might be productive. We aren't aloud to ask questions without being vilified and the old adage that "no question is a dumb question" isn't true. And if this isn't true it means that all learning and discovery must stop.
What's interesting is that at this very moment a major documentary called "Expelled" is hitting the big screen and it discusses the very issue Michael has unwittingly raised by his comment. The issue is that Darwinists are unwilling to dialogue about the problems with their religion and theories and because they are unwilling to dialogue they are doing everything in their power to silence the dialogue, the questions and especially the people who ask the questions. The tactics are the same and they are scary.
What are people afraid of? Are we so afraid of finding the truth that we have devolved (thanks Devo-an 80's rock band for those who don't know) to middle schoolish name calling? Sad.
Of course, I could have completely misread the comment and Michael might have really been talking about my naivety concerning women and sports (which was all tongue and cheek). And if that is the case I agree with him. I admit it. When it comes to women, I am a bit naive. Peace.
Explore the Expelled Movie here. And please remember that the movie is about the issue of silencing free speech and those we don't agree with.
Posts
4 comments:
Albert,
In my defense, you never asked for discussion. You did, however, tell me to call you naive (“Call me naive but it's really confusing to me. “). In your defense, it was probably just as rhetorical as any question you asked in the blog posting.
You made some assumptions about me that were incorrect. You know what they say about assuming, right? Only, you haven’t made an ass out of me, because I don’t care. Really just yourself. I doubt it matters much as you admit to only having two readers. Three, unless you counted me in there. Let me address some of these unfounded assumptions.
You said I was unwilling to engage in an educated dialogue. This is categorically false. I am always willing to engage in an educated dialogue. What did you want to talk about?
You also used the term Darwinism. Nobody I know (other than my Christian friends) uses that term. It was made up by Christians to make it seem like people who believed in biological evolution (as originally expounded by Darwin) were actually following some kind of doctrine. The idea behind it is that if you apply a person’s name to it, it seems like we’re following something (See: Christianity, Buddhism, Marxism).
You might not have meant me with the statement “those who cling to the doctrine of Darwinism just because they don't believe in God”, but I don’t believe in God for a number of reasons. My belief or disbelief in God is completely independent from any other beliefs or disbeliefs I have (except for the natural corollaries like the Holy Trinity, angels, purgatory, and ID). I don’t feel that God is necessary as a lens in which to view the world. You can save that for the religious. It’s humorous, but I couldn’t help of the old adage about the finger pointing and the three pointing back the entire time I was reading this post. I do, however, agree with you that it is as detestable to believe in “Darwinism” just because you don’t believe in God as it is to just believe in God “because the Bible tells you so.” Where we differ is that I believe that there is no other reason to believe in God than “because the Bible tells you so.” Whereas biological evolution is independent of any belief (or disbelief) in God. It is just a tried and tested explanation for events that occur in reality.
You also said that my problem was that I have “no idea how something as complex as the human body could possibly evolve and survive while it was evolving.” No, see, that was your problem. I have no trouble doing such. In fact, I might suggest that something as complex as the human body survived because it was evolving. I say it was your problem based on your entire sixth paragraph from the previous post (the one where you asked me to call you naive).
It’s not that I “can't deal with the gaping holes in Darwinism and the thousands of unanswered questions about evolution,” it’s that I don’t know of any. Perhaps you could share some of these with me and we could discuss them. I’m not sure I’d know the answers, but I could probably find them. I imagine it’ll be something along the lines of irreducible complexity or the like.
You also make several claims that I have attempted in someway to silence you or abridge anyone’s First Amendment rights. Was that because I called you naive? I mean I did so in your own blog, presumably where you will continue to write and admit your ignorance for years to come. I would do nothing to shut this down or stop you from saying anything. Just as you would have the right to say something like “Intelligent Design is science.” It’s not, and to say so is intellectually dishonest and delinquent. But I would never, ever try to stop you from saying it. I’ve already said that I haven’t tried to silence you, but you also say that I would do so because I’m afraid of what would be discovered. I tell you now, and in writing, that I have no fear whatsoever of what will be discovered. Because my mind is rational and because I understand how science works, I am always ready to change my mind whenever new evidence should present itself.
I, too, am excited to see this new Ben Stein documentary. I fully expect it was made to reinforce beliefs for it’s intended audience (not me) and will do so to the utmost. I’ll even add to the coffer and buy a ticket, in spite of the controversy that several interviewees were misled as to the nature of their interview so that Stein and his producer Mathis could bait them for answers that would reaffirm the hypothesis Stein is trying to prove.
It’s interesting to see the tables turned for once, if indeed they are. I’m sure you’re aware that science and medicine have progressed as far as they have in spite of religion for so many years. I find humor in the Intelligent Design argument, if only because it is just one more example of the church’s (always) eventual “if you can’t beat them, join them” reactions to science and scientific development. Only ID is not science. It’s not theory. (Quick definition, lest I be drug through the terminally dull “but it’s only ‘theory’” argument.) Theory, in this case (as it is when someone says “the theory of evolution”), is a “mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.” An important part of any theory is that it has the possibility of being proven wrong. The reason ID isn’t theory is that it isn’t testable (I would go one step further and say it’s also not observable or logical, but not being testable is enough to make it NOT science.) and can never be proven wrong. It’s important to note that just because you can’t prove something wrong doesn’t make it true. Try disproving the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or my invisible pet elephant. ID not being taught in the science class rooms of this nation isn’t a Free Speech issue, it’s an issue of it being ridiculous to teach something other than science in a science classroom. The great thing about evolution is that it could be proven wrong at anytime, and a large population of scientists would go about readjusting the known thinking and working on a new explanation. But even if evolution were proven wrong, I am incapable of imagining new evidence that would make an “intelligent designer” the next logical leap. I want to be careful not to call myself stupid as you did, so when I say “incapable of imagining new evidence,” I mean that evidence of that sort would have probably been found a long time ago, based on the determination of the religious to find such evidence. Although I can’t imagine it today, if it does exist, I’d welcome it openly and readjust my understanding for the new evidence. Which, is something religion cannot afford to do and very rarely and reluctantly does.
You also say it’s sad that we can’t have intelligent, productive discourse. I think the only reason we couldn’t is because you’ve already called yourself too stupid to understand. And maybe you’re right about that. But you’ve been wrong before.
Look forward to hearing more from you.
Sincerely,
Michael
Michael,
First, let's not get defensive. I will say, "Touche" on the naive part. However, I would like to point out that it was a literary device to point out that the complexity of my shoulder as shown by the MRI I received begs the question - How is this explained. I merely used it to point out that evolution or darwinian theory does not sufficiently explain how something as complex as a shoulder could evolve by random chance or out of necessity. I was not really asking you to call me naive.
Second, a blog with comments freely taken, by its very nature, invites dialogue. So, dialogue is welcome on the Mission Dog (may he rest in peace) Blog. I have tried to go to your blog to see what thoughts you might be espousing but it is blocked.
Third, thanks for increasing my blog readership by one third. This is an exceptional growth rate by any standard.
Fourth, I don't remember ever calling myself stupid as implied near the end of your comment. If I ever called myself stupid, I would like to officially apologize to myself. Thank you. Apology accepted. Thank you.
Now that all the formalities are done, I will blog and ask some simple questions that have been raise by the fact that I got an MRI that reveals the complexity of the human shoulder.
Also, thank you for not being a person who would silence dialogue with those who don't believe as you do. You are to be commended for that.
What did you think of Ben's movie?
Albert,
I haven't seen the movie yet. I wasn't planning on going opening weekend. I'm going to give it a little while and let the theaters clear out a bit. Being part of an atheist minority in a crowd of religious folks can be a bit unnerving, considering the history of violence against free thinkers the religious carry with them.
I don't know that I should be commended for not wanting to silence people who have differing beliefs. If you branch out a bit more, you'll find that there aren't a whole lot of atheists who would do such a thing. It's really just a common courtesy, but also part of the "do unto others" mentality we don't seem to share with religion, the proponents of which have worked tirelessly for millenniums to silence people with differing beliefs.
I guess I did say "in my defense," but I wasn't actually feeling all that defensive. I could see what you were trying to do. Your church's blog had already written an entry promoting the new Stein movie and you just wanted to the same thing here. The method was kind of shameful, but I don't actually believe you were attacking me. Instead, you just made up a character who was everything you thought the movie was trying to attack and attributed those characteristics to me. Little shortsighted, I suppose, being as you only had two words of my writing to base all of that on. It's no wonder you were wrong point after tedious point.
I've taken some time to answer your questions. So, there you go. In all fairness a couple of google searches and you could have had your own answers. Like I said, I might not know the answers, but I'd know where to find them. But these weren't even tricky.
Michael
"Being part of an atheist minority in a crowd of religious folks can be a bit unnerving, considering the history of violence against free thinkers the religious carry with them."
Michael--
Great point! I regularly leave church on Sundays arm-in-arm with other torch bearers just looking for some atheists to skewer. We're a dangerous crowd, we Methodists.
Post a Comment