Post by Arlon10 on Feb 20, 2019 10:46:48 GMT
I actually did explain in detail that creationism versus evolution debates prevailed following the Scopes trial, and that better educated people had no reason to engage them.
It is possible some old textbook somewhere had been written thereafter based on creationism versus evolution foolishness.
There are very poor schools and very poor writers. The Dover school system favored the poorly educated, perhaps because the world was ready to move on and politicians saw an opportunity to win the new argument by dragging up an old and useless one.
Since you'd never guess on your own, I'll tell you that's more or less what an ad hominem actually is. To say that intelligent design fails because you found proponents of creationism somewhere is a logical fallacy.
And Intelligent Design fails because it has the exact same arguments as creationism. Creationism doesn't fail "because it's creationism", but because the arguments are rubbish. The only thing ID does different is to say "well, we're not trying to identify the designer..." So you don't use the Bible on the face of it, but the arguments still haven't changed. You still believe that
"
Since you have such a short attention span ...
Neither Darwin nor any science has held forth on the origin of life, only the origin of species. It is that failure that intelligent design addresses, not how species might vary, which was known for centuries and described in the Bible.
Also, evolution doesn't explain "the origin of species" - you're focusing too much on the title of the one Darwin book you know, "On the Origin of Species". It is not preoccupied with origins, but rather the dynamics which allows for the diversity we see around us. Which you guys dispute, because it removes the requirement of an intelligent designer. If humans could arise from other species, the implication is that we are not specially made in the image of God as the Bible claims. And in turn it makes it less implausible that life itself could have arisen without an intelligent agency.
Also, the Bible doesn't explain anything about nature, other than to claim that God made it all. It doesn't explain the diversity of species, and certainly not the principles of evolution. Selective breeding has indeed been known, not for centuries but for millennia, but the Bible does not even comment on why that works. The Bible doesn't have any answers. You pretend it does, but then you read the Bible with the answers already in hand. If the only knowledge you ever possessed was from the Bible, and nothing else, you would believe very different things.
And that's all you wrote. You wrote all of the above, not once addressing the single thing I had to say in the post you replied to.
If Scopes was not "about" creationism, then how did creationism "never recover?" It was "about" creationism insofar as intelligent design was never mentioned.
I never said or implied Scopes was a win for creationism. I said neither theologians nor scientists of substantial education engaged in it, giving valid reasons why they would not.
Although "creationists" and "evolutionists" indeed often talk past each other, as I described, the book offered evidence that challenged evolution. Indeed its purpose was to challenge evolution.
You still fail to recognize that simply because some group teaches "Creation Biology" all proponents of "Intelligent Design" must be doing the same thing. You failed logic. That is indeed failing to address the argument about the origin of life which we both well know is not covered by any evolution.
Just turn on your TV and witness the political farce. Trump's followers obviously failed religion. The Democrats obviously failed science. Those are the same imbeciles who made "creationism versus evolution" the catch phrase it is and was. How proud are you to be one?