Originally posted by Free Enterprise
Narrow characterization and blatantly misleading analogy with flat earth.
Is it? Lets see
There is evidence about the roundness of Earth since Erasthatones (sp?) have done his experiments with triangles; still, many refused to accept or to believe in it, and it was a matter of controversy that existed until Yuri Gagarine traveled to space and saw it with his own eyes.
Well, certainly, not all of us have saw earth with their own eyes
but thats what cameras and videotapes are for, right?
Of course, that resource is also available to prove that man went to the moon
and still, there are people who doubt it, and make whole websites to advocate their denial. After all, testimonies should always be taken with a grain of salt, and the magic of technology has allowed us to see dinosaurs and matrixes in the screen. So, when we accept those pieces of information, what are we using, if not faith?
And faith in what, exactly? In scientists and their accomplishments, be then space shuttles or videoconference. Its faith in people that have the same bases to take their conclusions as those used by the ones who defend evolution, or that Erasthatones (sp?) used so long ago to conclude himself, without all the gadgets of modern science, that earth was round.
Thats when we notice that it was not faith at all. It was trust. Trust, because we can walk on their shoes, and test the evidence for ourselves. Because there is no intrinsic factor preventing us from reaching the same conclusions. Its trust, because we see that when we walk a mile on their shoes, we always end up in the same place.
His conclusion could not be proven beyond doubt in his time (despite mathematics and trigonometry could put it beyond reasonable); it took a few thousand of years until that same mindset that he had empirical thinking and scientific method created the tools to provide a virtually irrefutable proof.
That, of course, could be refuted by lack of reasonability after all, testimonies with a grain of salt, matrixes and dinosaurs, they are still in our heads. And people could, like I said, claim divine intervention, or mysterious energies, to state that the tools of technology, filled with vice inherited from the imperfection of their creators, to advocate that reality does not match what we currently think of it.
And that is when we feel the difference between trust and faith; the first is open to all, allow us to evaluate and analyze it, understand it, repeat it. Nothing can prevent us from getting to it
while the second, well, even if we open our minds, we can never analyze it
because its all about mysteries and more mysteries that cannot be solved, such as the above mentioned divine intervention and mysterious energies.
When we apply this logic to the matter of evolutionism, well, what does it have?
We have a theory with profound implications, which exists for less than two centuries. Its like a fraction of the time that humanity has taken to prove that earth is round, so, here we get the first similarity. The obviousness of the shape of the earth still took such an amount of time to be proven, that your statement, that implicates that flat earthers are less reasonable than creationists, falls flat (pun intended), as they too were able to defend their causes and achieve a stream of successes for a significant period of time.
And what is creationism? Well, its again, the intervention of the divine and its mysterious energies. Just like the one that support the flat earthers.
We live a moment where we cannot provide a supremely virtuous proof of evolution, just like Erasthatones couldnt, in his time, provide a perfect evidence of a round earth. Because, in both cases, we have facts that arent definitive, but have so much supporting indications that its virtually as proven as any indirect evidence can provide. Fossils and genetics and biology are as conclusive as trigonometry and mathematics once were.
And, just like some people say that man never went to the moon, some people deny the evidence of evolution, and refuse to acknowledge the enormous implications of it. And they do it with exactly the same tenacity that people once used to deny the shape of earth.
See why my comparison was never narrow, nor my analogy misleading? In all those cases, we have one side that is supported by a functional methodology, tons of data and by an history of successes in achieving knowledge, being confronted by other that rely on plain faith, lacking any supporting grounds except the faith itself. They fit each other like a glove.
They only masking themselves by partially learning about the technical disagreements of the scientific community on the mechanics of the evolution theory, and repeating them, many times erroneously, to cannibalize the respectability of the technical glossary of science to try to sound like they dispute them with technique, while never proposing anything of minimal validity, except by repeating the same chore of faith that flat earthers used to support their view.
So you please, be careful before you disregard the similarities of creationism with the supporters of the flat-earth theory. In the end, taken out all the make up and all the dancing around, they are fruits from the same tree.
Regards
.
)
)
