Matt Damon and Looney Liberal Paranoia About Creationists

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

What if Palin starts beleiving that God is personally directing her mandate and that God tells her what to do?

Then we are doomed.

Yeah, we already heard her try and wriggle out of the "Iraq is a task from God" bit.

 

[NotreDame]

The way I see it -

1. Any president is an individual that has to rely on the opinions of experts to make a decision. No one can expect the president to be knowledgeable about everything.

2. A creationist is someone who ignores the sum total of scientific expertise and opinion to go for some other opinion based on nothing.

3. If a person is willing to ignore the expert opinion of the scientific community and believe in something with no basis or foundation, that simply tells us this person thinks they know everything and has not respect for experts or people that devote their lives to studying a problem

4. Thus we can conclude such a person will rely on their own uniformed opinion to make decisions rather than consulting with people who make it their life's work to know about a particular topic.

Thus we would have every reason to believe a creationist president would make ignorant decisions all over the map by relying on their own opinions over systematic and scientific studies.

That is why it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that a creationist would make a terrible president.

If a president ignores the scientific community, why wouldn't they ignore their experts on Russia because they are so sure they "know" things about Russia that their advisors just don't get?

Emphasis is mine.

This argument moves from specific and narrow reasoning to a general claim. There are two general claims and they are in bold. This is, of course, an inductive argument but it has some problems.

The argument assumes it is not possible for someone to ignore the advice of experts and evidence in some narrow field but not do so elsewhere a majority of the time. The argument seeks to conclude a very general proposition about the conduct of an individual on the basis of a specific and narrow example. This is very difficult to do. Just because a Creatonist, or anyone else, rejects expertise and evidence in regards to some specific and narrow subject, such as evolution, does not lead to the proposition such a person generally or normally engages in this kind of behavior. It ignores the possibility this conduct is the exception, not the rule.

Here is a parallel example. This child persistently disobeys his mother by eating cookies before dinner (A creationist is someone who persistently ignores the scientific evidence and claims regarding evolution/or this person ignores scientific evidence and claims in regards to some issue). Therefore, this child is disobedient (therefore, the creationist will ignore the advice of experts/the person will ignore the advice of experts). It is quite possible, indeed plausible, the child is generally obedient, except in one area, snacking before dinner.

The next assumption is being president, and all of the responsibilities associated with it, the accountability to millions of Americans, the safety of millions of Americans, will not induce them to not only seek the advice of experts but follow it. The practical considerations of the office may and I think can persuade people to perhaps behave and conduct themselves differently.

 

[Donkeytron]

That's like saying Obama is a creationist because they sell YEC books at his church.

No it isnt. People tend to go to a church because they agree with most or all of the doctrine that church promotes, yes?

 

[NotreDame]

Asking someone if they are a creationist doesnt tell us their IQ, but it does tell us something about them. It tells us that they are either gullible or ignorant enough to think the planet is 6000 years old.

Asking someone if they are a creationist doesnt tell us their IQ, but it does tell us something about them. It tells us that they are either gullible or ignorant enough to think the planet is 6000 years old.

Does being gullible or ignorant in regards to a specific and narrow area make one generally gullible and ignorant? No. Does someone who has examined the scientific evidence and claims and renders an opinion they disagree with it make them gullible and ignorant?

Understanding modern science and the ramifications of an old earth is not a sufficient condition to be considered fit to run the country, but its certainly a necessary condition.

First of all, there is not any evidence she does not understand it but rather it is presumed she merely disagrees with it. There is a difference between not understanding something and disagreeing with it. Disagreeing with a proposition is not the same as failing to understand the proposition.

Second, explain to me how and why it is a necessary condition?

 

[jamesrwright3]

No it isnt. People tend to go to a church because they agree with most or all of the doctrine that church promotes, yes?

Yes and his church believes in YECism or else it wouldn't sell the books.

 

[Donkeytron]

Emphasis is mine.

This argument moves from specific and narrow reasoning to a general claim. There are two general claims and they are in bold. This is, of course, an inductive argument but it has some problems.

The argument assumes it is not possible for someone to ignore the advice of experts and evidence in some narrow field but not do so elsewhere a majority of the time. The argument seeks to conclude a very general proposition about the conduct of an individual on the basis of a specific and narrow example. This is very difficult to do. Just because a Creatonist, or anyone else, rejects expertise and evidence in regards to some specific and narrow subject, such as evolution, does not lead to the proposition such a person generally or normally engages in this kind of behavior. It ignores the possibility this conduct is the exception, not the rule.

I understand and agree with this argument ND, except for one serious point - denying the age of the earth doesnt deny some arcane, technical point of biological evolution. Rather, it denies basically all of the most important findings in numerous branches of science (geology, astronomy, physics, biology, etc.) in favor of a worldview that requires the whole world to be under water a couple thousand years ago. Thats what I think most people, like myself, have a problem with.

 

[Donkeytron]

Second, explain to me how and why it is a necessary condition?

Would you vote for someone who believed whole-heartedly, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that the earth was flat?

 

[JoshuaW]

This argument moves from specific and narrow reasoning to a general claim. ........... The practical considerations of the office may and I think can persuade people to perhaps behave and conduct themselves differently.

Presenting a creationist argument using the language of college debate will not bestow credibility on the basic nuttiness of the belief. The age of the earth is not a test of faith, get over it.

 

[NotreDame]

Presenting a creationist argument using the language of college debate will not bestow credibility on the basic nuttiness of the belief. The age of the earth is not a test of faith, get over it.

Actually, this demonstrates how uninformed you are on this subject matter and based on the logic of some people here, you are most certainly not qualified for the office of the president. NO SCIENTIFIC CLAIM and no credible scientist ever exclaim 100% correctness. Scientists and scientific claims are much more carefully qualified and tentative. Scientists and scientific claims are phrased as it is VERY LIKELY TRUE gravity exists, the earth is X number of years old, and so forth, leaving open the possibility they are wrong. So, we can quite simply view them as justified beliefs (this phrase meaning there is sufficient evidence to make it rational and reasonable to believe in the proposition as true without know it is 100% true) about the earth and universe, thereby having, albeit small component of faith.

So, you have summarily just disqualified yourself from any future consideration for president or vice president. If you had any future aspirations for either one, I suggest a career change.

This reply of course ignores the fact you said absolutely nothing relevant to my argument. I certainly would reference this type of faulty reasoning on your resume for politics.

 

[NotreDame]

I understand and agree with this argument ND, except for one serious point - denying the age of the earth doesnt deny some arcane, technical point of biological evolution. Rather, it denies basically all of the most important findings in numerous branches of science (geology, astronomy, physics, biology, etc.) in favor of a worldview that requires the whole world to be under water a couple thousand years ago. Thats what I think most people, like myself, have a problem with.

I disagree with the slippery slope argument but this digression aside in favor of question more germane to our discussion. How and why does this make them unfit for the office of the president?

Disclaimer: I can see how the slippery slope argument may become relevant at a later point and will address it as it does so,. if it does so.

 

[Athene]

That's like saying Obama is a creationist because they sell YEC books at his church.

No, it isn't.....

 

[jamesrwright3]

No, it isn't.....

Yes, yes it is. A church doesn't sell materials for beliefs it doesn't support.
Could I buy a pro-abortion book or a book on the postitive benefits of the Reformation in a Catholic church? No I couldn't.

 

[NotreDame]

Would you vote for someone who believed whole-heartedly, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that the earth was flat?

It would not keep me from voting for them. I would want to know more about them because believing the earth is flat, as insane an idea this may be, tells me nothing about the person in general. It tells me nothing about their decision making skills in other areas. It tells me nothing about their general intelligence.

 

[NotreDame]

I don't think its a lower wattage. Its the ability to ignore scientific evidence in favor of perceived religious truth. If she is a young-earth creationist, it means that she is willing to discard the mountain of scientific evidence in favor of her interpretation of the writings of bronze age goatherders when it comes to evaluating a scientific question. This kind of person should be kept at least an arms length away from making policy.

Does this one narrow example mean they cannot make good policy?

 

[Athene]

Yes and his church believes in YECism or else it wouldn't sell the books.

GWrules was using an analogy and not a very good one at that when he mentioned YEC books at Obama's church. It's not actually been established whether or not books on YEC are sold in Obama's old church.

 

[jamesrwright3]

GWrules was using an analogy and not a very good one at that when he mentioned YEC books at Obama's church. It's not actually been established whether or not books on YEC are sold in Obama's old church.

Yes..they are sold at the church. A simple google search will show that.
It is a good analogy if you are accusing a whole denomination of having the same beliefs.

 

[tulc]

No it isnt. People tend to go to a church because they agree with most or all of the doctrine that church promotes, yes?

...no, not always. People go to Church for many different reasons.
tulc(some spiritual some less so)

 

[Sojourner1]

If someone is of the opinion that creationism should be taught in public schools as science or an alternative to it, they either lack the integrity to stand up to the religious right, or lack the intellectual heft to be president.

Sadly though, a good portion of our voting public lacks the ability to know why it should never even be considered for an alternative to evolutionary theory.

Can you explain why it should never be considered for an alternative to evolutionary theory? Remember, it is the evolutionary "theory". If you are going to teach one theory, then why shouldn't the alternative theories be taught as well?

 

[tulc]

Can you explain why it should never be considered for an alternative to evolutionary theory? Remember, it is the evolutionary "theory". If you are going to teach one theory, then why shouldn't the alternative theories be taught as well?

that actually isn't how it works
tulc(pouring more coffee, getting ready to drive)

 

[NotreDame]

I want to know. It IS important. The same way that I wouldn't want a world leader to think the Earth is flat. Judgment matters, and if you can't see straight on what is essentially a slam-dunk, then you don't deserve to make decisions for the rest of us; you're dangerous.

Btodd

Hasn't this happened to all of us? Haven't all of us exercised this kind of alleged bad judgment in our lifetime? Nobody, but a very young baby or child, would be capable of becoming president or vice president with this standard. Human beings quite simply do not always make decisions consistent with the direction the evidence points, even when it is a proverbial "slam-dunk."