Creation/evolution debate - an interesting analogy

by dmouse 10 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  dmouse

  - from the Institute for Stork Research and Science
  Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory of Sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory at school. In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favor of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth. Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.

  Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:

  1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This can be confirmed by every ornithologist.

  2. The alleged human fetal development contains several features that the theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.

  3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a newborn child is newborn.

  4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.

  5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are decreasing.

  6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork.
• 

  Zico

  Why do you find it interesting?
  
  Evolution IS a theory. Sexual reproduction IS NOT.
• 

  dmouse

  Well, I don't want to get into the whole 'oh yes it is, oh no it isn't' theory debate - that's been done to death already.

  What I found interesting is the premise that an obviously unscientific claim can be made to sound as if science supports it. This analogy (and analogies don't have to mirror their target EXACTLY) appears to use very similer thought processes and reasoning to those of scientific creationists.

  And, for the record, that above comment of mine is biased because I am an agnostic who accepts evolution as being more likely than other explanations.
• 

  Elsewhere

  I agree! The theory of sexual reproduction is absurd!!!

  -Elsewere, a member of the Church of Storkology.
• 

  dmouse

  Yes, Elsewhere, and the single sperm that resulted in you was only one chance in a million! Consider all the barriers and odds - the theory of sexual reproduction is also mathematically and statistically impossible!
• 

  AuldSoul

  dmouse: ...very similer thought processes and reasoning to those of scientific creationists.

  Not to be combative, but this goes beyond bias. This is called "prejudicial labeling" and I flatly reject such generalizations when I find them, because I have not found many that are actually true. I am called an apostate, and there are lots of things that I am supposedly guilty of a result of that label.

  The theory of evolution is not contradictory to the concept of either direct or influenced creation. Design development and improvement is seen throughout the human design process. All that really needs to be dispensed with by all creationists, is the notion that there would have been no "trial and error" in the process. It is a human conceit that perfection equals incapacity for mistake and inability to learn (a process that implicitly necessitates either error and correction or ignorance and discovery). However, even the Bible shows that Jesus (the one actually credited with creation, in the Bible) definitely learned.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  dmouse

  The theory of evolution is not contradictory to the concept of either direct or influenced creation.

  Many creationists would vehemently disagree with you there.

  Ok, in the interests of mitigating my generalisation how about I say some scientific creationists?
• 

  AuldSoul

  dmouse: how about I say some scientific creationists?

  Oh great! Like I'm supposed to actually believe you don't think it is all of them NOW?

  That modification actually serves two purposes: It lessens the appearance of prejudice and significantly narrows the focus of your point.

  dmouse: Many creationists would vehemently disagree with you there.

  I find that, in general, nearly any statement following the construct "Many [fill in the blank with any "-ists" you like] would vehemently disagree with you there." is true when directed at me. Like the "tingle" of Head & Shoulders shampoo, that's when I know it's working. Many creationists would disagree with my assertion that "perfection" does not equal "incapacity for error" and many creationists carry around the concept that perfection somehow infers omniscience, which would eliminate the need for trial or error and would be contradictory to ignorance.

  (1) Perfection does not mean incapable of error, nor does it mean omniscient.

  (2) There is plenty of cause for belief that extraterrestrial beings have had a major influence on the development of life on this planet, and a special interest in the developments of human civilization on this planet. There are some coincidences along these lines that are unforgivable from a scientific standpoint without allowing at least for the strong possibility of extraterrestrial involvement.

  (3) The mythos of every civilized culture (even civilized cultures that are now extinct) has many things in common, among which are many features that cannot be easily explained without the possibility of fairly concurrent exposure to advanced lifeforms.

  (4) Anyone who believes the Bible, believes in extraterrestrial life. "Extraterrestrial" simply means "outside or beyond Terra, or Earth".

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  dmouse

  Oh great! Like I'm supposed to actually believe you don't think it is all of them NOW ?

  Well, I haven't spoken to all of them to find out. You quite properly pointed out that I had made an unwarranted generalization, in the same sense that the label 'apostate' is used to 'tar all with the same brush'. I accept that.

  To add to your argument, imperfect souls (such as we) are even more likely to be in error!

  Do you accept, though, that labels such as 'extraterrestrial' have a commonly accepted meaning that acts as a linguistic shorthand, unless explicitly explained or known through context?

  I used the term 'scientific creationists' in that sense - of course there is nothing 'wrong' in being scientific, or creationist, or even scientific creationist if you are going to be literal about it.

  I suppose my 'target' if you want to call it that, is pseudo-science, non-science, misused science, misapplied science, distorted science etc.
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  >>Elsewere, a member of the Church of Storkology.

  I thought you were a follower of "Last Thursdayism"? Have you converted? Surely you aren't doing some sort of "inter-faith" thing!

  Dave