Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Do You Believe In Evolution? — Yes or No

arroba Email

A blast from the past. Have you stopped beating your wife? — Yes or No. These are the kinds of tactics that Darwinists use to disqualify all dissent.

This kind of thing should put to shame all in the scientific community who make claim to objective, rational, dispassionate evaluation of evidence.

Had I been asked this question I would have responded: Of course I believe in evolution. Living things have changed over time. Only an idiot denies this. However, if “evolution” means that random accidents engineered the most sophisticated information-processing technology ever discovered, in even the simplest living cell — technology so sophisticated and functionally integrated that human engineers marvel at its elegance, error-detection algorithms and repair mechanisms, plus the information-decoding mechanisms and machinery that process that information — I would have to admit that I don’t believe in evolution.

Interviewer, after my response (should he be honest): Mr. Dodgen, I must admit that my vocabulary is limited to the point that I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you want to destroy science and impose a theocracy?

Of course, in this thought experiment, my political career would be over in an instant, which is why I have never even considered descending into the hideous cesspool of politics.

Have you stopped beating your wife? — Yes or No. I prefer to ask "Have you stopped beating your puppy?" :-) scordova
And yet the Spanish Inquisition was the most heinous thing in human history. In US politics, rightly or wrongly, the religious beliefs of the candidates are considered important knowledge about the candidates themselves. And you need not sign onto the idea that governance should be based on philosophical principles such as Natural Rights. If you believe at all in the merits of democracy then running for office is no more than a popularity contest, no matter how you dress it up. The answers to such questions are simply the raising of status flags the signify shared group membership and the notion that you're one of the Good Ol' Boys. Or that you prefer to eat infants parboiled rather raw. Orthogonally to these notions, you can hew close to the idea of scientific governance or any other variation of the notion. The idea that candidates ought be able to use reasoning skills; and be willing, and capable, of staying abreast of empirical knowledge that is relevant to the powers they may exercise. But to Evolution that is only pertinent on the basis that government does, or should, be able to exercise its power in the domain of sex and birth defects in a manner consistent with the thesis of Evolution. That is, Eugenics. Which is rather strongly frowned upon in the US at this time. So either it's a religious litmus test, or it's the questioner professing their own personal belief that good governance entails making sure the 'wrong people' don't breed. Where, historically, the 'wrong people' were often religious apostates or heretics, such as with the Spanish Inquisition. Maus
Agenda-loaded words/questions and appeals to unacknowledged Darwinist prejudices and bigotry . . . kairosfocus

Leave a Reply