Sasquatch, Bigfoot (evolution, creation, hell)

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Tau

then surely this rather hampers any religious fundamentalist argument that man is not an animal and furthermore verifies and strengthens the evolutionary explanation for the appearance of man?

Nope. Nothing can do that, because from the Creationist/ID perspective, the debate isn't really even about biological evidence. It's about maintaining at least some level of deniability, no matter how slight, in order to the have the perception of a certainty in a strict, literal interpretation of the myths of the Bible. I think you'd be surprised just how easy it is for a mind to maintain a sufficiently comfortable level of deniability.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Nope. Nothing can do that, because from the Creationist/ID perspective, the debate isn't really even about biological evidence. It's about maintaining at least some level of deniability, no matter how slight, in order to the have the perception of a certainty in a strict, literal interpretation of the myths of the Bible. I think you'd be surprised just how easy it is for a mind to maintain a sufficiently comfortable level of deniability.

I don't know what you're talking about, but you're obviously wrong.

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Nope. Nothing can do that, because from the Creationist/ID perspective, the debate isn't really even about biological evidence. It's about maintaining at least some level of deniability, no matter how slight, in order to the have the perception of a certainty in a strict, literal interpretation of the myths of the Bible. I think you'd be surprised just how easy it is for a mind to maintain a sufficiently comfortable level of deniability.

Not all ID'ers are fundamentalists.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

Not all ID'ers are fundamentalists.

True. Would you agree that the vast majority of them are though?

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

True. Would you agree that the vast majority of them are though?

A lot are, I don't know about majority or vast majority. But it follows from my point that some ID'ers are led to such beliefs by a certain level of rational thought, and not by blind adherence to faith or denying biological sciences. To generalise as you did, therefore, is a little unfair

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

A lot are, I don't know about majority or vast majority. But it follows from my point that some ID'ers are led to such beliefs by a certain level of rational thought, and not by blind adherence to faith or denying biological sciences.

Adherence to faith isn't a lack of rational thought. For its purposes, it's actually quite rational, even if it involves "denying biological sciences". Let me narrow it down, I doubt that anybody who holds to "ID" that I've interacted with would be swayed, because it's not about biological evidence or understanding the natural world with more precise or complete models . . . it's about the peculiarities of their faith.

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Adherence to faith isn't a lack of rational thought. For its purposes, it's actually quite rational, even if it involves "denying biological sciences". Let me narrow it down, I doubt that anybody who holds to "ID" that I've interacted with would be swayed, because it's not about biological evidence or understanding the natural world with more precise or complete models . . . it's about the peculiarities of their faith.

Actually, faith and rationality are pretty much opposites. Adhering to faith might have, in a sense, some kind of internal rationality, but that does not make it rational as a whole.

If ID had nothing to do with the biological sciences, what are the likes of Michael Behe trying to do? Not that I advocate his books as good science, but he is trying to engage with biological evidence to support his viewpoint. That's not denying biological science. Twisting it perhaps, but they don't all shy away from it.

And you have absconded from your original point of them trying to "have the perception of a certainty in a strict, literal interpretation of the myths of the Bible". I wasn't arguing that it is not an issue of faith and as to how their perceptions are wired, after all ID is ultimately an attempt to prove God's existence, but being fundamentalist is not a necessary criteria for one to advocate ID.

[Tau]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

Hypothetical exercises are only any good when the conclusion is not reached within the time taken to read the scenario. Even if bigfoot were widely considered to exist, the answer to your question is blatantly obvious as soon as it has been asked.

Lol to you maybe..but then thats your opinion, whatever that in fact is...

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

Actually, faith and rationality are pretty much opposites. Adhering to faith might have, in a sense, some kind of internal rationality, but that does not make it rational as a whole.

Is there something other than "internal rationality"?