This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← WEIT review: Kevin Padian sucks me back into into the religion/science quagmire

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Jump to comment 23 by rod-the-farmer

What I have been doing is referring to it as the fact of evolution, and the theory being the Natural Selection part. I am trying to move past the point of arguing about evolution. I regard it as a done deal. The fundies who absolutely refuse to consider evolution is true, will likely never be convinced, they will just have to die off. I think it is useful to ask them what would convince them creationism is false, while I lay out what will convince me evolution is false. Typically, they cannot state anything will ever convince them. An unbiased observer may well think I won at least that versus evidence.

As for NOMA, I often describe my small Ford car as getting 175 miles per gallon, then ask people if they believe me. No ? If I offer no evidence, why should they ? Yet this is a simple claim, much more so than virgin births, raising the dead, etc. What was "evidence" 2000 years ago would not convince anyone these days, in the skeptical world we live in. Accepting my mileage claim without proof is akin to a NOMA issue. Outside the scope of science. Sure.

A local church has a sign, which I did not get a chance to read clearly, but it said something like "Atheists Welcome". I am tempted to drop by and see what that is all about.

EDIT to add

A major part of their creationism belief versus evolution is the scope of the time available. We humans simply cannot grasp the idea of that much time. I have said this before, but let me express it in slightly different terms. Proof of the time scale is more a hard science, as opposed to biology, IMHO. Geology, plate tectonics etc. CAN be understood by the average person with a high school education or less. We can SEE the evidence of folded strata, sea shells up high in the mountains, the continental shelves of S. America and Africa, etc. It doesn't take much to work from that, that the earth is older than 6,000 years. A lot older. Once THAT concept is firmly imbedded in the minds of the great unwashed, I think it will be much easier to propose evolution as able to change one species into a quite different one. We already have evidence of changes driven my man (domesticated animals) and by forced isolation (those lizards on the Adriatic island). If changes such as these can be observed in less than one human lifespan, how hard can it be to imagine much larger changes over the age of the earth ?

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:06:00 UTC | #342615