I don't support debates about evolution vs creationism because evolution is true.
-
@PhilosophyExp What would be needed is to convince about the value of the scientific process.
@sjzara Hmmm. It would also be necessary to give specific evolutionary ideas the oxygen of publicity. That's important, surely?
-
-
@PhilosophyExp Is debate a good way to do that, especially if you lose? I suspect not, but I'm not sure. -
@sjzara I think once you begin to make that sort of argument, you're moving away from the claim that the mere truth of evo rules out debate. -
@PhilosophyExp What I'm trying to suggest is that it's not evolution itself that needs to be debated. -
@PhilosophyExp What needs to be debated, I think, is the value of science itself for looking at reality, as against religious experience. -
@sjzara to be gain in terms of disseminating the truth by debate, etc. -
.
@PhilosophyExp Ah. I see your point. Yes.. it's not because evolution is true, but because you don't do science by debate. -
@sjzara Agreed. But you might do science *education* by debate, & that might be important (not saying it's the best way for our situation). -
@PhilosophyExp@sjzara (sorry to butt in) New to it, I learned a lot from Shermer vs Hovind, evo vs creationism, so I agree with Jeremy. - 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.