Evolution & Creationism: Why can't people believe both?

[GeoffP]

[/COLOR]

Why do you think this is so ? How about all the clever people who do not believe in God ? You are making a mistake which is known to psychologists as the halo effect. Because a person is clever in one field we tend to assume that what he says about subjects outside his area of expertise must be true.

I'm fully aware of the 'halo effect' so don't patronise me, arsewipe.

But listen: this bloke headed the human genome project. He's a fucking clever bloke!!! So if he says there's a God then believe me, there fucking well is one!!!

Glad yopu are aware of the halo effect and that you know how to be abusive. But that's the extrent of your knowledge, I'm afraid.

What you are doing is appealing to authority and that is a no. no. But I'm sure you know that also. But to remind you, you are arguing that. as someone is clever, he is more likly to be right than I am. So all you have to explain is why this clever person should be believed as opposed to lots of other clever people who do not share his views.

It comes down to asking what evidence he has to support his belief. He has no objective evidence. His belief is based on his feelings. So think again, unless you are looking for a father-figure to comfort you.

You are long on arsewipes but sadly short on logic.

Hmm...all right, a question. Your "argument" has - unfortunately for me - actually provoked a philosophical thought on theism.

If we accept that the halo effect produces false authority on unrelated subjects - so that Collins the geneticist cannot comment on the God of theists, since his area of expertise is not theism - should we not then also dictate that Dawkins the evolutionary biologist should also not comment on the God of theists, since his area of expertise is not theism? After all, this would also be argument from authority in the unrelated field. You could say that evolutionary biology goes against the theistic position by disproving special creation, but that battle is all but won, except to the unfortunate ranks of nutters.

 

[iceaura]

If we accept that the halo effect produces false authority on unrelated subjects - so that Collins the geneticist cannot comment on the God of theists, since his area of expertise is not theism - should we not then also dictate that Dawkins the evolutionary biologist should also not comment on the God of theists, since his area of expertise is not theism? After all, this would also be argument from authority in the unrelated field.

That would be so if Dawkins were arguing from his authority as an evolutionary biologist, or if Collins were not arguing from his authority as a geneticist.

In the case of actual events, Dawkins makes his arguments about theism without asking for trust based on authority, and Collins both uses and is used for his credentials in his field in making arguments not so much for theism as against the posits of Dawkins et al.

Dawkins's arguments re theism are not from his personal authority as an evolutionary biologist, in other words. Some of Collins's are, or he is used that way by others at least. It's a question of fact.

We see the situation in other multi-field or publicly active intellectuals - Chomsky does not argue from his authority as a linguist, for example (when the Berlin Wall fell, several European intellectuals were very surprised to discover that the two Chomsky's were the same person).

 

[GeoffP]

That would be so if Dawkins were arguing from his authority as an evolutionary biologist, or if Collins were not arguing from his authority as a geneticist.

In the case of actual events, Dawkins makes his arguments about theism without asking for trust based on authority, and Collins both uses and is used for his credentials in his field in making arguments not so much for theism as against the posits of Dawkins et al.

Whoa whoa. Where exactly is Collins saying "lookie me, I'm a big kahuna and I know all about this God fellow and you should believe me because I is so smart"? I know redarmy11 is saying that (for the usual sarcastic tarty reasons ), but is Collins saying that? Why can't we go round and say the same about Dawkins then? I can't think of anyone else in the evolutionary sciences who rests on his reputation so much as Dawkins. Well, actually there are others. But Dawkins is the most annoying of them. Now I could agree with Collins being held up for example by other theists, but let's not assign him a character without evidence. I don't know the man's work, so I'd rather see it first. If he wants to claim to something silly like ID then he needs evidence of course, but why shouldn't he be taken as seriously for arguing against Dawkins as for? Because he represents the other side? And which side?

Dawkins's arguments re theism are not from his personal authority as an evolutionary biologist, in other words. Some of Collins's are, or he is used that way by others at least.

Hmm I suspect it might be the latter. But this is avoiding the question: if Collins' injection into the debate is nothing more than the halo effect, then the same applies to Dawkins. Both are geneticists and so have nothing, if we take the halo effect, to contribute to arguments against theism. One can't have it both ways.

Best,

Geoff

 

[KennyJC]

Dawkins' profession has little to do with the matter. True, it makes him more able to comment on creationism vs evolution than most people. However, the only skill needed in this debate is to spot bullshit when you see it. Believe me, that's a skill. You'd be amazed at how many people aren't able to spot bullshit.

You make it sound as if there are people that actually know anything about god. All believers in god can more or less give a description of god, despite the fact it's never been shown that god exists. And the truth of the matter is that god probably doesn't exist. Even if there is a god, then theists are as much in the dark as atheists are. Theists right now are just going by what their imagination has told them. So forgive me for defending Dawkins' "authority" on the matter, because I don't think any theists are the authorities here either.

 

[ggazoo]

My question is, what about sex? I mean, why does it even give pleasure? If sex is a means to an end for reproduction, then how can evolution be the explanation for the pleasure it gives? It doesn't seem necessary.

 

[GeoffP]

You make it sound as if there are people that actually know anything about god. All believers in god can more or less give a description of god, despite the fact it's never been shown that god exists. And the truth of the matter is that god probably doesn't exist. Even if there is a god, then theists are as much in the dark as atheists are. Theists right now are just going by what their imagination has told them. So forgive me for defending Dawkins' "authority" on the matter, because I don't think any theists are the authorities here either.

Maybe - but the theists have a traditional knowledge system at least, which they're trying to jive - rightly or wrongly - with naturalistic knowledge. It's not just their own imaginations and at least has the authority of a thought experiment. I still have to call them the 'experts' on God and whatnot, especially as it's this God which Dawkins is attacking. Otherwise how can there be any null position. It's a load when he says he's not out to attack any specific conceptual deity - he certainly is. So why not at least call the other side the 'experts'?

 

[GeoffP]

My question is, what about sex? I mean, why does it even give pleasure? If sex is a means to an end for reproduction, then how can evolution be the explanation for the pleasure it gives? It doesn't seem necessary.

Maybe, but nothing is really "necessary" on the same scale - we could hypothesize a lot of structures or behaviours outside evolutionary constraints, but ultimately theists could argue that we have to live in the "real world" anyway.

 

[iceaura]

I still have to call them the 'experts' on God and whatnot, especially as it's this God which Dawkins is attacking. Otherwise how can there be any null position. It's a load when he says he's not out to attack any specific conceptual deity - he certainly is. So why not at least call the other side the 'experts'?

Dawkins is not attacking the God - he denies its existence - but the belief. He is attacking the hypothesis of the existence of expertise in a God. Calling the other side "experts" in a Deity is assuming the consequent.

As far as expertise in theisms as a subject, there is no reason to think theists would have any more than anyone else.

I don't know the man's work, so I'd rather see it first. If he wants to claim to something silly like ID then he needs evidence of course, but why shouldn't he be taken as seriously for arguing against Dawkins as for?

It's not a matter of taking him seriously as taking his arguments seriously. Dawkins arguments have been persuasive, and his reputation has derived far more from them than from his professional scientific endeavors. Collins's arguments are not persuasive in themselves, and depend for their force on his achievements as professional scientist.

 

[spidergoat]

My question is, what about sex? I mean, why does it even give pleasure? If sex is a means to an end for reproduction, then how can evolution be the explanation for the pleasure it gives? It doesn't seem necessary.

Why else would we do it? Any creature that found reproduction pleasurable would have a distinct advantage over one that didn't.

 

[JNS888]

Where in the Bible does it specify exactly HOW God placed Adam and Eve on earth? Ever source I've queried so far either doesn't know or says it doesn't. So, who's to say he didn't have one celled organisms evolve into Adam and Eve? It certainly doesn't contradict that idea.

Many people do believe that. I guess the only problem that people have with it is that it discredits the bible and the 6 day creation story. A lot of people just have an issue with the way that so many people say that "Evolution is the way it is, no question," when, in fact, there are many questions.

 

[spidergoat]

Evolution means people didn't spontaneously appear at some point in history. They evolved gradually. Evolution is a factual description of reality, just like Gravity is a definite phenomenon. The Theory of Evolution is what explains how that probably happened.

 

[Yorda]

atheists often ask "who designed the designer?". if the designer can create something as complex as we, then it must be even more complex than we.

but if the universe has always existed, then there has always existed intelligent beings, intelligent designers.

the universe is a paradox, cause and effect are illusions

 

[HumanBeast]

One could believe that God is Nature and it created everything for it's own pleasure, which would be a torture chamber for all the inhabitants.

 

[GeoffP]

Dawkins is not attacking the God - he denies its existence - but the belief. He is attacking the hypothesis of the existence of expertise in a God. Calling the other side "experts" in a Deity is assuming the consequent.

Let's not split hairs.

As far as expertise in theisms as a subject, there is no reason to think theists would have any more than anyone else.

I think there is. Theists could at the least be called philosophers in their own right. Evolutionists don't generally spend much time with the issue of religion, or theism.

It's not a matter of taking him seriously as taking his arguments seriously. Dawkins arguments have been persuasive, and his reputation has derived far more from them than from his professional scientific endeavors. Collins's arguments are not persuasive in themselves, and depend for their force on his achievements as professional scientist.

If you say so; but I would need to see some kind of summary for this position. I haven't followed Collins' arguments or statements in any way; this is the first I've heard of his position.

Best,

Geoff

 

[ggazoo]

Why else would we do it? Any creature that found reproduction pleasurable would have a distinct advantage over one that didn't.

But WHY is it pleasurable? From an evolutionary standpoint, if having sex is just a means to an end for reproduction, then the fact that it feels good doesn't seem necessary.

 

[Yorda]

But WHY is it pleasurable?

it wasn't in the beginning. but later some found it a little pleasurable so they reproduced more than others, so they created beings who found it even more pleasurable etc.

if no one thought it was pleasurable no one would do it.

if having sex is just a means to an end for reproduction,

sex is reproduction and it won't come to an end.