On 21/08/2012 08:35 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Some, I would argue,
> have been so sheltered in their own, and semi-related, communities, that
> the mere fact that someone not only doesn't agree, but flat out denies
> the reality of their position, and doesn't take it seriously at all, is
> a complete shock to them.

I still remember reading "Darwin's Black Box" for the first time, and 
being all like "WTF? How can you print such /obviously/ false statements 
and claim it to be fact? OMG!"

If you reflect on this for a moment, you will realise that actually 
anyone can print anything they like. But /usually/ any book which 
purports to contain scientific fact actually /does/. It was rather 
shocking (to me) to find one containing such utter gibberish.

I don't mean the fact that the book questions evolution; there are 
several /valid/ objections that might be voiced. I mean the way the book 
holds up a few examples which fail to demonstrate that evolution doesn't 
work, and then says "now that we have PROVED that evolution is false, 
and therefore ID is clearly true" - wait, WTF? Are you mental? You 
haven't PROVED anything yet! And even if you had, the conclusion does 
not follow.

The bit that really gets me is where he points to the definition of the 
scientific method and starts complaining that it's "unnecessarily 
restrictive" because it doesn't admit magic, supernatural forces, and 
deities. Um, yeah, that's /precisely/ what separates science (the thing 
that allows the book you wrote to be printed in the first place) from 
folklore and myth (which brought with them no process at all).

But I digress...

> No, have the guts to say what is the truth in such case, "You are
> talking bullshit, and an idiot for believing it." Give them links,
> evidence, facts, etc. to back it up, but don't pull the BS position of,
> "Lets sit and chat about it."

Because if you do that, you add legitimacy to their insane claims.

Post a reply to this message