rationalskepticism.org

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:First, we don't resurrect previously falsified hypotheses just because we still quite like them... so you can chuck Creationism out right now. It's not a scientific explanation, it's a religious narrative.

The way I see it, Creationism is basically a rejection of the evolution explanation for the biological past. before Darwin there was no such word as Creationism. I agree it’s not a scientific explanation.

Regardless of whether there wasn't such a word, which incidentally I think is untrue, the position labelled Creationism was in fact in existence, and had been for a considerable amount of time. As you agree it's not a scientific position, you're also aware that it is unsupported by evidence, has no testable predictions, and no outlined mechanism. Quite the contrary - the tenets of Creationism are thoroughly falsified by empirical evidence. Some Divine Being may well have magicked it all into existence, but all the religious narratives asserting this are still entirely ex-recto claims. Either some people know, and consequently have evidence for it... or there is no evidence, and consequently no one actually knows jack shit about it. The problem is that people still hold desperately onto it pretending that it's actually valid. It's simply a belief that has no means of assessing the verity, and as such is simply an inherited belief, not a considered position.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Further, Evolution already explains how such organs and functions came to be - no need to invoke magic. While Creationism can assert that God made people love one another, it does so without any evidence other than deferring to authority and tradition. Also, it fails to explain how an all good, all knowing, all powerful being could create/permit 'evil' or dysfunctional behavior. In summary, drop the pleas to magic - it's not going to wash for a moment.

The Creator might not be all good or might not see good the way we do, or might use a wider frame of reference. The Creator might not be a being. We humans have some cheek, a hundred thousand years into sharing language on one planet around one sun in one galaxy, to pontificate about the qualities of creator of the universe.

I very much agree. All these claimed qualities of the creator of the universe, and no one even knows it exists. What a pathetic muddle of a species we are.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Second, you're talking about Evolutionary Psychology, as such, your desire for them to talk about the 'wonders of Creation' is what is know as 'way outside the scope'. Science, even such a speculative, qualitative science as this, has a scope - a remit. No biologist needs to contemplate the motions of fundamental particles to talk about the way an organ functions, or a species reproduces. As such, your criticism is invalid.

Well I’m pointing to a problem for a model which is (a) in contention (b) forms an origin narrative and (c) is used as a tool for weak and silly explanations.

This is confused. Evolution doesn't form an origin narrative, it explains how species diverge. What people personally do with that information is another thing altogether.

Secondly, what is 'in contention'? Do you mean the ToE, or Evolutionary Psychology, or the specific notion in the OP?

Third, if you mean that Evolutionary Psychology offers some weak and silly explanations, I'd be forced to agree. It's more 'just-so' than anything. However, that doesn't mean that all the findings of Evolutionary Psychology are weak and silly. And really, in comparison to invoking magical beings as a counter, any hypothesis based on actual observations is in a far stronger position from the outset.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

falconjudge wrote:Yeah... talking bad about a professional lecturer explaining how a dysfunction came about will NOT strengthen your Creationist position, which is an attempt to get away from explaining such things.

How dare one be sceptical about the utterances of a professional lecturer? Well in the first place this one admits that many other professionals don’t see issues like domestic violence the same way he does.

Actually, Falconjudge was quite specific in his criticism, and it didn't say 'You can't be sceptical of professional lecturers' - he said, 'you can't use your criticisms of this lecturer to bolster the validity of Creationism' - I thought that was quite clear.