Quote:
Originally Posted by parallaxicality
I'm thinking of writing an article on creationism,
|
For money, I hope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by parallaxicality
it seems, looking over alt.origins, that the claims and counterclaims could fill an encyclopedia. So, let's say I was setting down for an interview with a creationist. What rhetorts should I expect?
|
From a "serious" one - an encyclopaedia-full. You could rebut one false statement. You won't have time to rebut a hundred.
It's my impression that leading creationists know enough science to understand that all of these arguments are bunk, but that isn't the point. The point is to shout down by plurality the real science arguments, some of which are truly tentative anyway, the best of which still retain the name of "theory" (just in case). The justification:
(1) they "know" the truth even if they cannot find evidence to prove it and/or
(2) they make a nice living by doing this.
The rank-and-file believer probably has fewer rhetorical darts in their arsenal, and under pressure is likely to retreat. A fruitful meeting of minds may come of not making a fight of it, not setting out directly to attempt to overthrow their religious faith by argument.
There's also again the question of "why" take the trouble yourself. Socrates, already mentioned, and the subject of this podcast BBC radio programme >
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/...20070927.shtml , argued that immorality is caused by ignorance, and this is ignorance. On the other hand, he wasn't very interested in cosmology. I suppose he was underwhelmed by state of the art.