I’m sure you’ve noticed how creationists only want to talk about their perceived flaws in evolutionary theory, but never about their preferred creationist explanations (they can’t, because they don’t have a reasonable creationist model to discuss.) Here’s a cartoon illustrating that fact.
It’s also the case that they think there is nothing to discuss: you either accept that god did it, or you’re wrong. It all makes conversations with them pointless and boring.
PZ, if confronted by one of these miscreants just say:
‘I refuse to engage in an intellectual argument with an unarmed person “
I see these irrational jebus thumpers on the news all the time. Someone is rescued by a skilled team of emergency responders risking their lives, yet the imbecile ignores the fact they owe their life to them and blubbers ‘god saved me, thank you jebus’
So, applying PZ’s idea to my comment in an extremely harsh manner (hope I don’t get banned for this) – –
the rational person says: there is no afterlife
the jebus thumper says: god told me there is, you have to prove there isn’t.
Whereupon a mugger comes up and says: ‘lets settle this’, shoots the jebus thumper dead and says: ‘Now, he’ll find out if there is an afterlife’
“You prove I can’t fly.”
That’s when you push the guy off of a tall building.
I’ve never heard anyone say, “Relativity? I don’t think so, not according to the Principia Mathematica, the infallible word of Newton.”
I find it pretty easy to argue with someone who lacks evidence.
(Not that I need that advantage)
I’ve never heard anyone say, “Relativity? I don’t think so, not according to the Principia Mathematica, the infallible word of Newton.”
Never spoken to a crotchety old engineer?
Snarki @7: I heard something similar from a crotchety young geophysicist.
This post assumes the goals of the apologist and scientist are they same.
They aren’t.
Once you understand their goals, it makes sense.
This post assumes the goals of the apologist and scientist are they same.
They aren’t.
Once you understand their goals, it makes sense.
Quiet hereabouts, bobinger1833, so let’s see if I get what you mean.
I think you mean that the scientist is seeking truth based on empirical epistemology, whereas the apologist is seeking non‑concession to scientific claims.
“Non‑concession” is a general apologist goal, but only one among the possible complementary goals apart from truth‑seeking.
That set includes persuasion, reinforcement of identity, maintaining coherence with doctrine.
Note they are not themselves mutually-exclusive, and that the cardinality is high.
So the goal of any given creationist will include at least one of those elements, but I can’t think of a case where non‑concession is not present. Therefore, the goals cannot be the same, because the one relevant element is lacking for creationists.
If that’s what you meant, then I concur.
@John Morales I have been struggling to articulate that goal of non-concession. Very concise, thanks.
DanDare, there’s a payload there, too.