Today I had my first scuffle with (adamant) anti-creationists. How silly it all is. We were in rhetoric class, reading an article from the editorial Nature, which was talking about radical environmentalists and how they rely heavily on passion. Emotion, as the book says. The article compared the radical environmentalists to creationists in that they both (according to the article) rely on emotion rather than the ever-glorious “Scientific Method.” As I read the article, I noted how very pretentious it is, putting words in people’s mouths and beliefs in people’s hearts.
So, a really nice kid named (well, let’s just call him) Toby says, “I like how the author associates them with creationists, because they both rely on an emotional belief.”
Bob (again, not his real name), the most annoying kid in the class (and a McCain-Palin supporter I’d just like to throw in there) says, “Yeah, all of those have some deep-rooted belief in them.”
I say, “Well, since the Scientific Method relies on repeatable, observable experiments, isn’t the Big Bang or evolution just as much about faith as creationism?”
Bob says, “Well it’s about inductive reasoning.”
I say, “But that’s still not something you can experiment, observe, and repeat . . .”
Class ends. How silly!
2 comments:
Read Hume's Enquiry
sections 4 and 5. It will help you
in your attempt to disprove the scientific method.
Thank you . . .
Post a Comment