Perspectives on Discussion of Science and Religion

No one is denying your freedom of thought or expression. I think the trouble starts at the good old Demarcation Problem.

Demarcation again, mixed in with something else. The something else runs the gamut from mild misunderstanding to outright lies.

I think I can speak for everyone here, that we appreciate this understanding. Thank you.

We try, and I think we do far better than the typical FB group featuring arguments about Science and Religion.

Indeed.

From the scientific perspective, very few claims from Intelligent Design or Young Earth Creationism warrant any discussion at all, except to explain the scientific thought to the inquisitive. For example the YEC claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits evolution has long been debunked; it is even on a “list of arguments that Creationists should not use”. BUT an equivalent claim, that “Evolution cannot create new Information”, remains common in ID arguments. Should we discuss such questions?

ID frequently makes claims about the improbability of “something” evolving, and this invariable depends on math that is flawed in calculation or interpretation, or both. When someone who has the education to correctly understand that math but makes these claims anyway (like William Dembski), do we really want to take them seriously?

If we restricted discussion only to topics that have scientific or educational merit, there would be less to discuss, and very little to argue about. Yet here we are arguing about it. :smile:

Much of the argument is our own damned fault. Too many are eager to prove the other wrong before establishing the basis of the original claim. Faulty claims fade away under careful examination, but that is rarely what happens. Instead, someone jumps in to argue against the claim, tacitly accepting the claim has merit, and setting off a long and often pointless argument based on a false premise. We really should not allow ourselves to be goaded into pointless arguments.

We create these arguments in part to resolve disagreement, and in part because we enjoy arguing. It’s a hard habit to break, and I have to count myself among the offenders, but I’m trying to be better about it.

Material evidence of the immaterial is unlikely. However, I don’t think questions on the edge of the Demarcation problem will ever go away.

This might require another thread split. :wink:

4 Likes