@colewd said something in the advice thread that I wanted to dispute, but it wasn’t really relevant to my original question, so I’m creating a new side conversation thread.
The idea here seems to be that only the middle (centrist) position in a debate can be credible. But that’s nonsensical if applied to other things. For example, the middle position between flat earth and globe earth would be concave earth or some other such nonsense, but that doesn’t make it more credible than globe earth. The credibility of a scientific position is based on how well it fits the data, not whether it’s in the middle of a particular debate.
Furthermore, whatever position is considered “centrist” will differ based on context. This applies to other fields where the same fallacy is often observed (such as politics). The “centrist” position depends on what range of positions is considered “acceptable” within a particular context, which will differ from situation to situation and even from person to person.
But for what it’s worth, I don’t even think that I’m not in the “middle of the argument” in this case. I didn’t go straight from YEC to militant atheist, but from YEC to theistic evolutionist, which I think is somewhere in between the two positions (and objective observers would probably agree). So even if the fallacy that centrist positions are most credible were correct, it’s not the case that this would ruin my credibility.
But in that scenario Sarah Palin really could have seen Russia from her house.
A centrist position might be reasonable when there is a center to be found, such as within philosophy. Trying to find a center between religion and science is a category error, but a very popular one.
The notion that complete rejection of creationism is not “credible” really is quite strange. And you are very right to recognize that it is a fallacy to assume centrist positions to be more credible. The center is defined in some sense by the extremes. If it’s 1855 and you’re in an argument about slavery, the extremes are abolitionism and wholehearted endorsement of slavery. Are we to suppose that the middle ground – perhaps a somewhat limited degree of slavery, or an improvement of the rights of slaves without actually freeing them – is the best place to be in that argument? The abolitionist is indeed an extremist, and he’s right.
On the general question of whether evolutionary theory is the correct approach or whether creationism, whether that’s YEC, OEC or IDC, is better, I suppose there’s a middle ground, a kind of “both sides make good points” position. But that position is itself extreme: specifically, it is extremely ludicrous.
This topic brings to mind a classic inane argument which always makes me cringe, “Some people favor Theory X and some people favor Theory Y. So whichever position you choose, you’ve got a 50/50 chance of being correct.”
(Yes, it is illogical on quite a number of levels, all of which give the person a 100/100 chance of being thought stupid.)
I would say neither. It would take a great deal of care, consistency and discipline to ensure that you are wrong every single time. I do not know of anybody on this forum, not matter how muddled and misguided, who has achieved this. We should therefore expect the occasional sensible comment, even from Bill. But this should not be the cause of any false hope.
I imagine Bill thinks that the middle position is whatever he believes. Nobody but him knows what that is though (and sometimes I doubt that even he knows).
I think his position could reasonably be characterised as “ID but with (lots of) extra incoherence”. Whether this is more “centrist” than ID simpliciter, I have no idea.
Hi Andrew
My point has nothing to do with Atheism vs Theism.
It has to do with the evidence for and against the idea of universal common descent and acknowledging the contradictory evidence such as animals with different genetic make up not being able to reproduce offspring in the same way as animals with like genetics can.
These observations along with a lack of a model and detailed evidence how these changes have occurred.
The idea is simply being open to the challenges the current model faces. The round earth claim does not have these type of challenges as it is directly observable.
ID/creationists are the only one who thinks that UCA has a “lack of a model.” And they’re absolutely wrong, because it is a testable theory that has been confirmed time and time again. See here for just a few tests of common ancestry that have been performed.
How the changes occurred is irrelevant to UCA, because UCA is confirmed by the pattern of similarities and differences, not the similarities and differences themselves. The evidence for UCA is compatible with both God’s guidance and unguided evolution, which is why even some IDers (such as Behe) also accept common ancestry.
I’m open to challenges to the theory of UCA, but there aren’t any serious challenges as far as I’m aware.
That can only indicate that you do not understand the model.
We directly observe that the earth is not round. It has mountains and valleys. But the idea of a sphere is a useful approximation. Science goes with what is useful.
