Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution

[PerritoBites]

This site makes me want to kick some creationist in the face: Creation Science Evangelism - Creation, Evolution, Dinosaurs, and the Bible.

Making claims like:

"Notice the life is in the blood, which plants do not have."

"Standing at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and concluding that the multiple bands that line the canyon walls are products of millions of years of sedimentation is just plain stupid."

[Duppin]

Originally Posted by Lyenae

Begging the question is to assume the truth of what one seeks to prove, in the effort to prove it. That's a definition straight from a Copi & Cohen Logic book.

Her argument is worthless.

Keep pretending you got a handle on logic.

The argument was a poor one, but it quite assuredly wasn't an example of begging the question.

You might want to dial down the condescension a bit until you have a better grip on the subject matter.

Dabamf was right when he said that the thing you quoted originally was a circular argument.

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by Lejina Bloodbath

Millie already gave a pretty good explanation of this (post # 152), so you may be best to just go there. She's better a writer than I am and I would pretty much just rehash the same ideas anyway. But shortly put, humans fear the unknown (is there a stronger, more visceral and universal emotion than fear?) and to create explanations for the unknown, even if they are complete fairy tales, is comforting and makes us feel better.

Right, and I don't object to it per se, but I think limiting it to fear is really reductionist. The traditional territory of religion is faith, hope and love, which, incidentally enough, are emotions capable of being stronger than fear.

Any who, people are going to run off cliffs without parachutes whether its for religious reasons or secular reasons; dunno why I'm so predisposed to apologizing for the former.

[Lyenae]

Originally Posted by Duppin

Dabamf was right when he said that the thing you quoted originally was a circular argument.

Whether I call it begging the question, or Dabamf calls it a circular argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether that argument has any worth.

Talk about 'going nowhere.' ...

[Calamity]

Originally Posted by Lyenae

Whether I call it begging the question, or Dabamf calls it a circular argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether that argument has any worth.

Talk about 'going nowhere.' ...

So so far Mille shot down about 70 of your arguments to your maybe 1. Way to fucking go dude, pat yourself on teh back. You still havent responded to any of her points

[Dabamf]

I'm enjoying the taste of my foot right now. Odd, I remember my philosophy teacher explaining "begging the question" exactly as I described it. A couple of my other classes also went over fallacies for various reasons, and that impression was never disconfirmed.

Well, I made a good argument for always checking wiki before arguing a definition or concept.

Regardless, I got another beef. The real definition is way too close to that of circular reasoning. I motion to change it to my definition, which currently (I believe) has no term associated with it. Tell the authorities.

I also misunderstood millie's point probably because I didn't read everything. I'm not quite convinced it's circular though, but at this point it doesn't matter.

I stand by my opinion on the rickshaw.

[EmiliaEQ]

Half the people on this planet have a religion shoved down their throat. (See Missonaries in Africa).
In the end, its just brainwashing which results in a complete loss of objectivity.
A kid coming out of "Camp Jesus" is no different from a 13 year old "Arian Brotherhood" in 1942.
They were told what to believe.

The biggest catch with (most religion) is what they sell as Millie said :
Do as you are told ? Heaven / 72 Virgins / Karma
Also since everything can be explained, there are no flaws.

The creationism/evolutism debate itself is pointless, because it is impossible to "convince" a creationist of anything.
Since "God" start it all, everything that happens is his will. Thus no need for explanation.
Religion is flawless. Thats why its worthless to try reason/argue.

[Cynno]

You can't prove God exists.

You can't prove God doesn't exist.

This whole argument is fucking retarded.

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by Dabamf

I'm enjoying the taste of my foot right now. Odd, I remember my philosophy teacher explaining "begging the question" exactly as I described it. A couple of my other classes also went over fallacies for various reasons, and that impression was never disconfirmed.

Well, I made a good argument for always checking wiki before arguing a definition or concept.

Regardless, I got another beef. The real definition is way too close to that of circular reasoning. I motion to change it to my definition, which currently (I believe) has no term associated with it. Tell the authorities.

I also misunderstood millie's point probably because I didn't read everything. I'm not quite convinced it's circular though, but at this point it doesn't matter.

I stand by my opinion on the rickshaw.

Begging the question isn't just close to circular reasoning it is circular reasoning. Whenever in doubt just go straight to the horse's mouth, my main man, Aristotle.

Τὸ δ᾽ ἐν ἀρχῆι αἰτεῖσθαι καὶ λαμβάνειν ἐστὶ μέν, ὡςἐν γένει λαβεῖν, ἐν τῶι μὴ ἀποδεικνύναι τὸ προκείμενον, τοῦτο δὲ συμβαίνει πολλαχῶς· καὶ γὰρ εἰ ὅλως μὴ συλλο-γίζεται, καὶ εἰ δι᾽ ἀγνωστοτέρων ἢ ὁμοίως ἀγνώστων, καὶ εἰ διὰ τῶν ὑστέρων τὸ πρότερον· ἡ γὰρ ἀπόδειξις ἐκ πιστοτέ-ρων τε καὶ προτέρων ἐστίν. τούτων μὲν οὖν οὐδέν ἐστι τὸ αἰτεῖ-σθαι τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς· ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ τὰ μὲν δι᾽ αὑτῶν πέφυκε γνωρίζεσθαι τὰ δὲ δι᾽ ἄλλων (αἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀρχαὶ δι᾽ αὑ-τῶν, τὰ δ᾽ ὑπὸ τὰς ἀρχὰς δι᾽ ἄλλων), ὅταν μὴ τὸ δι᾽ αὑτοῦ γνωστὸν δι᾽ αὑτοῦ τις ἐπιχειρῆι δεικνύναι, τότ᾽ αἰτεῖται τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς. τοῦτο δ᾽ ἔστι μὲν οὕτω ποιεῖν ὥστ᾽ εὐθὺς ἀξιῶ-σαι τὸ προκείμενον, ἐνδέχεται δὲ καὶ μεταβάντας ἐπ᾽ ἄλλα ἄττα τῶν πεφυκότων δι᾽ ἐκείνου δείκνυσθαι διὰ τούτων

...

Εἰ οὖν ἐστι τὸ ἐν ἀρχῆι αἰτεῖσθαι τὸ δι᾽ αὑτοῦ δεικνύναι τὸ μὴ δι᾽ αὑτοῦ δῆλον, τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶ τὸ μὴ δεικνύναι, ὅταν ὁμοίως ἀδήλων ὄντων τοῦ δεικνυμένου καὶ δι᾽ οὗ δείκνυσιν ἢ τῶι ταὐτὰ τῶι αὐτῶι ἢ τῶι ταὐτὸν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὑπάρχειν, ἐν
μὲν τῶι μέσωι σχήματι καὶ τρίτωι ἀμφοτέρως ἂν ἐνδέχοιτο τὸ ἐν ἀρχῆι αἰτεῖσθαι, ἐν δὲ κατηγορικῶι συλλογισμῶι ἔν τε τῶι τρίτωι καὶ τῶι πρώτωι. ὅταν δ᾽ ἀποφατικῶς, ὅταν τὰ αὐτὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ· καὶ οὐχ ὁμοίως ἀμφότεραι αἱ προτάσεις (ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἐν τῶι μέσωι), διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀντιστρέφειν

τοὺς ὅρους κατὰ τοὺς ἀποφατικοὺς συλλογισμούς. ἔστι δὲ τὸ ἐν ἀρχῆι αἰτεῖσθαι ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἀποδείξεσι τὰ κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν οὕτως ἔχοντα, ἐν δὲ τοῖς διαλεκτικοῖς τὰ κατὰ δόξαν.

[Marduk]

Science is bad at explaining, but good at describing. There is a difference. When explaining something you focus on the question why. Why is this happening? Why do we exist? Why shouldn't you covet your neighbours wife? When describing something you focus on the questios how and what. How do bacteria react when introduced to a hostile enviroment? What happens when energy propelled from the Sun enters the earths athmosphere?

My favorite example for explaining the difference is gravity. Science has developed good models for describing to the smallest detail how two entities with mass interact with each other. Using mathematical models you can predict with an insane accuracy what will happen. However what it doesn't explain is why things with mass effect each other at all. Why is the universe organized in this way and not some other way? Why are there even things with mass? You can't present the mathematical formulas to answer these questions.

To be fully satisfied with an scientific explanation of how the world functions you would have to ignore these kinds of questions. Cause they are not something that can be explained by trial and error. And generally scientists avoid them as the plague and sometimes say that in the future science will be so developed that it can explain why. Many people have no problem with this, but I think one of the reasons a group of people embrace religion or other "mystical" explanations is because they offer something that science lacks: meaning. It gives answers with meaning. I think that fills a void in what many people need from the world. Gives a sense of purpose to why they are here that science never could give them.

That being said I see no reason to doubt evolution, but then again I am one of those people who has no problem with sciences inadequacies

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Jedah

A better way of putting it is, I guess: why should any idea of the "divine" exist in the first place?

Because the weak have always needed a crutch.

[Lusiphur]

Originally Posted by Sean

Because the weak have always needed a crutch.

Emotionally I agree with this Sean but Jedah makes a valid point in that the "divine" does seem to fill a need that a lot of people have. Especially on this board we probably shouldn't go around characterising satisfying needs as weak

Some people require the feeling that some form of higher order is guiding and helping them. Other people prefer to instill that order for themselves. The two viewpoints seem antagonistic but realistically the antagonism only occurs when people try to impose their viewpoint on each other. In an ideal world everyone would mind their own damn bidness ! Be pretty boring though

[Rezz]

^^^

More or less.

Weak being people unsure of the unknown, and crutch being a more palatable response than "don't know, lets wait till we figure out what it is."

But you know, on the topic of republicans not jiving with evolution, it's sort of a "duh" type deal. What would be far more surprising would be if the reverse were true.

[Duppin]

Originally Posted by Tea on tuesday

Begging the question isn't just close to circular reasoning it is circular reasoning. Whenever in doubt just go straight to the horse's mouth, my main man, Aristotle.

Τὸ δ᾽ ἐν ἀρχῆι αἰτεῖσθαι καὶ λαμβάνειν ἐστὶ μέν, ὡςἐν γένει λαβεῖν, ἐν τῶι μὴ ἀποδεικνύναι τὸ προκείμενον, τοῦτο δὲ συμβαίνει πολλαχῶς· καὶ γὰρ εἰ ὅλως μὴ συλλο-γίζεται, καὶ εἰ δι᾽ ἀγνωστοτέρων ἢ ὁμοίως ἀγνώστων, καὶ εἰ διὰ τῶν ὑστέρων τὸ πρότερον· ἡ γὰρ ἀπόδειξις ἐκ πιστοτέ-ρων τε καὶ προτέρων ἐστίν. τούτων μὲν οὖν οὐδέν ἐστι τὸ αἰτεῖ-σθαι τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς· ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ τὰ μὲν δι᾽ αὑτῶν πέφυκε γνωρίζεσθαι τὰ δὲ δι᾽ ἄλλων (αἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀρχαὶ δι᾽ αὑ-τῶν, τὰ δ᾽ ὑπὸ τὰς ἀρχὰς δι᾽ ἄλλων), ὅταν μὴ τὸ δι᾽ αὑτοῦ γνωστὸν δι᾽ αὑτοῦ τις ἐπιχειρῆι δεικνύναι, τότ᾽ αἰτεῖται τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς. τοῦτο δ᾽ ἔστι μὲν οὕτω ποιεῖν ὥστ᾽ εὐθὺς ἀξιῶ-σαι τὸ προκείμενον, ἐνδέχεται δὲ καὶ μεταβάντας ἐπ᾽ ἄλλα ἄττα τῶν πεφυκότων δι᾽ ἐκείνου δείκνυσθαι διὰ τούτων

...

Εἰ οὖν ἐστι τὸ ἐν ἀρχῆι αἰτεῖσθαι τὸ δι᾽ αὑτοῦ δεικνύναι τὸ μὴ δι᾽ αὑτοῦ δῆλον, τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶ τὸ μὴ δεικνύναι, ὅταν ὁμοίως ἀδήλων ὄντων τοῦ δεικνυμένου καὶ δι᾽ οὗ δείκνυσιν ἢ τῶι ταὐτὰ τῶι αὐτῶι ἢ τῶι ταὐτὸν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὑπάρχειν, ἐν
μὲν τῶι μέσωι σχήματι καὶ τρίτωι ἀμφοτέρως ἂν ἐνδέχοιτο τὸ ἐν ἀρχῆι αἰτεῖσθαι, ἐν δὲ κατηγορικῶι συλλογισμῶι ἔν τε τῶι τρίτωι καὶ τῶι πρώτωι. ὅταν δ᾽ ἀποφατικῶς, ὅταν τὰ αὐτὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ· καὶ οὐχ ὁμοίως ἀμφότεραι αἱ προτάσεις (ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἐν τῶι μέσωι), διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀντιστρέφειν

τοὺς ὅρους κατὰ τοὺς ἀποφατικοὺς συλλογισμούς. ἔστι δὲ τὸ ἐν ἀρχῆι αἰτεῖσθαι ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἀποδείξεσι τὰ κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν οὕτως ἔχοντα, ἐν δὲ τοῖς διαλεκτικοῖς τὰ κατὰ δόξαν.

While I give you props for quoting in Greek, I can't read a damn word of it.

Still though, begging the question is just a type of circular reasoning. Thus, all begging the question is circular reasoning, but not all circular reasoning is begging the question.

[James]

Originally Posted by Tea on tuesday

τοὺς ὅρους κατὰ τοὺς ἀποφατικοὺς συλλογισμούς. ἔστι δὲ τὸ ἐν ἀρχῆι αἰτεῖσθαι ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἀποδείξεσι τὰ κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν οὕτως ἔχοντα, ἐν δὲ τοῖς διαλεκτικοῖς τὰ κατὰ δόξαν.

LOL, that Aristotle. Such a kidder.