scientific fact? evidence?

Consider Moebius in this one from Cheat Seeking Missles quoting Gary Bourque at Both Worlds:

Bookman has one valid point–lying to promote truth is counterproductive. But focusing on irrelevancies in order to avoid a more important point is a form of lying.

So which is worse, advocating the teaching of a scientific fact which happens to benefit a particular faith, or suppressing that fact because of, well, whatever motives evolutionists have, which nobody ever bothers to question?

Anytime the word “science” is used as an adjective the skeptic’s alarm should sound. Here, the issue is about this “scientific fact” and evidence should raise questions. What facts? What evidence?

Bothworlds posits

In fact, the likelihood that our universe–with its astonishingly fine-tuned capability of producing life–is accidental is not only remote, it’s mathematically impossible. So the next step is not only logical, it’s necessary: If the universe can’t be accidental, then it must be purposeful. That’s not faith, that’s reason.

And this illustrates the basic flaw. Here again, there is the suspicious adjective (“mathematically”). Believing a probability is impossible because it is very small is a belief, not a rational conclusion. If this is an example of a ‘scientific fact’ it is also an illustration of poor critical thinking and flawed logic.

It is also interesting that describing of a lie is considered name calling in a fit of labeling the person describing the lie as Elmer Fud.

Bourque is caught on a Moebius strip and trying to stay on only one side. Perhaps a higher standard of intellectual integrity would help ease the mind and clarify the idea that both God and our intellect can exist simultaneously and that we do not need blinders to accomodate them on the same side of the Moebius strip.

Comments are closed.