Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election is underway and will end on November 16.

Talk:12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Smile[edit]

You all (collectively) make me laugh. I have nothing to add, just that you gave me a smile reading the snark! — Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs

A bit of tidying up needed (I think)[edit]

Some sentences in this one are a bit difficult to digest even after having read through them several times. It's mostly on the scientific side of things. — Unsigned, by: Parogar / talk / contribs

Why Parogar's proposed deletion is bad[edit]

Yes, Parogar, the text you've tried to delete does talk about religion and the bible. As an argumentative strategy, it is an attempt to use the language/concepts of the opponents to show them they are wrong. It doesn't do a thing for you. That's fine. You're part of the "choir" and, thus, little "preaching" is required. This section is aimed at the un-deconverted. It is useful. MarmotHead (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong about this, but fine, have it your way. You're essentially using the bible to argue against the bible. The bible should not be used to argue anything scientific, even if in the context of arguing against itself. Also, that particular piece claims that the bible has something to offer. I am adamantly against the promotion of religion. Claiming that the bible "offers" anything at all is a personal and spiritual matter that should not ever be given footing, equal or otherwise, with anything scientific. In other words, using a fairy tale to defend science is unscientific. Parogar (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Trying to put forth any kind of interpretations of the bible is the real issue I have with this. As you just said: you're aiming it at believers. Trying to say, "Here's a better way of interpreting your faith." What kind of absurd thing is that to do? You're still defending the bible no matter the case. Why would RationalWiki seek to perpetuate existing dogma? Parogar (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Lastly, if we are going to use the bible to argue against the bible, we can't win. Christians will always win any argument that involves bible vs. bible. It's why we should avoid them in the first place. If this is seeking to be a fact-based wiki, and this wiki believes in siding with the evidence, then I guarantee you any Christian theologian will be able to out-bullshit whatever you've written there, because when we use fairy tales and stories of magic to argue against fairy tales and stories of magic, we're unwittingly promoting them and giving them a platform. Parogar (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from and, yes, I don't care for the argument itself, but not everyone gives science the same credit. I know that when I hear "You're completely wrong", I buckle down and resist, but, when I hear something that tries to take my own biases into consideration, I am more persuadable. I'm not saying it's a big bump, but going from 2% persuadable to 4% persuadable is an odds ratio of 2, nothing to sneeze at. For my fundie nephew, telling him "The bible didn't say 6,000 years" is better than, "The earth is billions of years old so the bible is wrong". For the record, I wouldn't have fought this much harder. I just wanted to express the logic and let the more passionate fight it out, as necessary. MarmotHead (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I apologize, Marmot. I was too aggressive and rude in my replies. I have a bias against religion that extends beyond the logical. I'm probably too consumed with abject hatred to really think rationally about this. I apologize, and I was wrong to attack so viciously here. (not hatred at you, the religious, or any individual, but religion as an institution in general is what I meant). Parogar (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Your feelings on religion are like mine on gender roles so I get it! We're cool. MarmotHead (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Obviously, I disagree with the feelings of Parogar. But I will not be upset if the text is removed. Let me just say that I don't see how one should not mention what the Bible says. If one says that the Bible says that the Earth is flat, or that π = 3, would you object that quoting the Bible is unscientific? Is there anything offensive to science to observe that the Bible doesn't say anything about microbes, which are the majority of the variety of life? If the creationists make up stuff and claim that what they make up comes from the Bible, what is there wrong in pointing out that they are just making stuff up and it doesn't come from the Bible? I think that that shows something worth saying about creationism. TomS TDotO (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It was mostly the last thing you wrote that got me a bit heated. Where you basically defended the bible to make an appeal to reason. Which, don't get me wrong, I've done that myself (or I used to). You wrote that the bible cannot be faulted for not being a biology book, because it's a spiritual book. And that's actually a point that many people make in order to recruit sensible Christians. And it does work. I'll give you all those points.
The problem, of course, is that it's not ACTUALLY true. The bible is a book that tries to be a supplement for everything. The bible is a book that wants us to believe the reason women feel pain during childbirth is because a talking snake told a girl to eat an apple. The bible wants us to believe in all of those things. What we're really doing, ultimately, is trying to make people moderate by lying to them. Because, truthfully? Westboro Baptists are the closes things to perfect Christians that can ever exist. They follow the bible better than everyone: and we hate them for it. And we should, because they're sick in the head.
The bible commands that we kill a child if he misbehaves, and that if a woman is raped, she must marry her rapist. Christians often argue that Jesus did away with these laws, but there's actually nothing in the bible that says that. At no point does Jesus say in certain terms that the old testament is voided. The bible is meant to be taken literally, and although it's better that people don't take it literally, I think that the best option in all things is to tell the bluntest, harshest truth no matter how many people it may hurt, because if we all started doing that, things would improve.
The bible is certainly at fault for why people don't believe in evolution, because the bible is anti-evolution, and religion and science are not compatible without picking and choosing. You really have to pick and choose here. So when you wrote that the bible isn't at fault for not being a biology book, I took issue with that because the bible is at fault. Parogar (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Pointing out claims do not come from the bible is actually a good way to get less dogmatic believers to reconsider their rejection of evolution. It is about perspective taking as they are already confident Christianity is true and unlikely to budge on such a major part of their worldview based on so very many ideas and experiences. You will have an easier time getting people to doubt singular points of their worldview than to get a dramatic change in a single argument. The bible might not mesh well with science, but many religious people are willing to hold a form of theistic evolution because they do not see conflicts. It might not be fully rational, but at least they won't support creationism.Arachne1988 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand that. Truly, I see why it is done. My issue with it is that it's not true. The bible does actually make these claims. These and many, many, many more. What we're essentially doing is lying to people instead of telling them the truth: that the bible does make these claims, but it's still wrong anyway. At least we wouldn't be untruthful. Parogar (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's why what is written is untrue[edit]

Take for example this part of it: "the Bible makes no mention of the majority of the variety of life: the microbes, let alone anything about how they came to be."

Actually, it does. The bible says Adam named every single living animal on the planet. Then Noah later finds all of them and somehow stuffs them all onto a boat. This alone makes evolution impossible, because there isn't enough time after Noah to explain the diversity of life we have today. In other words, the bible is simply incorrect. Let's not pretend that the bible doesn't make these assumptions or that the bible doesn't actually say these unscientific things just to recruit people by lying to them.

"The Bible does not suggest how any trait in the world of life came to be"

Yes it does. The first few pages of the bible do nothing BUT that. Every single species of animal we have now, it is implied, was named by Adam personally in the magical garden world of Eden. Parogar (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The majority of the world of life is not animal or plant. The Bible says that Adam named the animals. (For example, he did not name the plants, let alone the bacteria and archaea.) The Bible says that Noah took all of the animals (and enough plant life for food). And to back up a bit, we see that there are days dedicated to the creation of plants; for water animals and flying animals; and to land animals (including humans). No day for bacteria, no day for archaea, no day for the other eukaryotes. (Can we be generous and let fungi in with the plants?)
The fact that the Bible mentions, for example, birds, that does not tell us the least thing about how birds fly. The Bible shows no interest in how that happens to be. Anything, big or small about the world of life, like why penguins or ostriches don't fly, or why giraffes have long necks, or why there is the close similarity of skeletons, and cardiovascular systems, of tetrapods. The exceptions being why the serpent has no legs, the difficulties of childbirth, and some vague remarks on plants and farming.
I suggest that you have been too generous to the creationists, and believe them when they say that the Bible says such-and-such. I suggest that when you hear a creationist say that the sky is blue, take an umbrella. TomS TDotO (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Technically, if we want to get into semantics, the bible does have a few cop-out answers to all of those questions. But let's say for a second that I agree that the bible does not divulge into scientific details, which, for the most cases it does not. Your arguing in support of evolution by using the fact that the bible does not divulge into details as some kind of strength. In actuality, this does not make a logical argument for evolution or even for a Christian to consider evolution a possibility, because the bible's conflict with evolution is no-less strengthened because of it.
To put this further into perspective, imagine if I told you that I believe the universe was created 8 weeks ago by a giant grasshopper, and thus I cannot believe in evolution. And your response was to assure me that the grasshopper could not have been giant. Parogar (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Why not try this[edit]

I'm a secularist by nature. Which is why I suggest rationalWiki instead has a separate article entirely for theological critiques of creationism so as to preserve the flow of this article, because honestly throwing that bit about the bible in is so ... out of place.

If in fact the consensus here is for the implementation of moderate beliefs as opposed to creationist extremism, then there should be an article just for that alone, where the bible can be used to argue against the bible, and those biblical arguments can be contested as such. I don't see the merits here of presenting a theological argument alongside its scientific counterpart. Parogar (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought that my comments were in response to the topic raised by the creationist in Argument 6 (my paraphrase): The Bible has a better treatment of biology. To which I replied (paraphrase): The Bible has next to nothing about biology. I will plea guilty to the charge of being long-winded. But whether there is biogeography or bacteriology in the Bible does not seem to be a theological critique. If the consensus is against including my comments, I will not be offended. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)