ON why people can weigh the evidence and not consent to experts on any contention.

As a Christmas gift for creationists and all truth enquiring mankind i offer the intellectual foundation of opposing claims by a acclaimed authority.

Creationists/anyone are often enough told they must submit to scientists on conclusions about origins. to reject same conclusions is to reject science or reasonable claims of scientists to being experts in their subject as opposed to anyone else.

Does the free and thoughtful enquirer of truth owe such a deference? I say NO!

It is the intellectual right of all men to not submit to a expert in conclusions but listen to their evidence they have gathered. Then weigh it. In dealing with experts we owe a respect , a presumption, that they have studied uniquely some subject and have gathered knowledge about it. known or new insights.

Yet we do not need to respect their conclusion because it means actually respecting their intellectual  personal mechanism.We don’t need to say they have intellectually got it right just becvause they are a expert.

We have a moral, intellectual, right to weigh the evidence they have gathered.

In this weighing, for the creationist, we have our own intellectual mechanism . that is equal to the task.then we have our own experts. Starting with God, his written knowledge, or human experts/scientists (as in organized ID/YEC/ETC circles) or anyone who has persuaded us they know about subject(s) within origins.

Creationism/anyone should do a better, aggresive job of demanding why we can take on experts/scientists in origin subjects without being told we are breaking the rules of human society , uniquely, if we disagree and oppose aggressively intellectually conclusions.

It must first be the independent thinking human. We only owe respect to knowledge and not human intellectual thinking mechanism.to what they know and not to who they are.

Merry Christmas.

7 Replies to “ON why people can weigh the evidence and not consent to experts on any contention.”

  1. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    We have a moral, intellectual, right to weigh the evidence they have gathered.

    I agree!

    But this means weighing it in light of what else we know (or don’t know). Therein lies the rub.

    Creationism/anyone should do a better, aggresive job of…

    …learning the science so they don’t look like fools and become a disgrace.

  2. Robert Byers
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: I agree!

    But this means weighing it in light of what else we know (or don’t know). Therein lies the rub.

    …learning the science so they don’t look like fools and become a disgrace.

    Yes. its all about weighing evidence. the concept of the expert must not interfere but be respected in those studious enough to weigh these matters.

  3. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Bob,
    Thank you for your thoughtful OP!
    I have a question for you: what would happen if you found out that Christmas may not be as Christian as you think it is?
    Wouldn’t it be ironic that you and I have been fooled by atheists who had know all along that they are selling as BS (literally) in the name of Christ but they don’t really mean it? If we are wrong about it, who is right?
    Has keiths been right all along but nobody listened to him?
    BTW: Apparently there are a lot of undercover atheists within the church trying to destroy it … A story like that has gotta be true…

  4. T_aquaticus
    Ignored
    says:

    You don’t oppose experts, Robert. You oppose facts.

  5. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist
    Ignored
    says:

    T_aquaticus:
    You don’t oppose experts, Robert.You oppose facts.

    Are you new here? I don’t recall seeing your username before.

    If you are, a word of advice: there are several contributors here who are thoroughly ineducable. Their minds are set like concrete and it’s impossible to correct their misunderstandings or expose them to new ideas. Just accept it, try not to get too frustrated, and enjoy your interactions with the few of us who are somewhat rational.

  6. Neil Rickert
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist: Are you new here? I don’t recall seeing your username before.

    T_aquaticus is relatively new here. He has been a peaceful science for a while.

    I think he is already familiar with the creationist leanings of the folk he is replying to.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.