Fairy tales for adults (long)

Björn Lindberg d95-bli at nada.kth.se
Fri Feb 14 00:27:40 PST 2003

steveb at creek-and-cowley.com (Steve Bougerolle) writes:

> If you analyze science from a strict logical perspective it fails
> dismally.  That assumption about radioactive decay rates is one of many
> that is particularly easy to criticize.  Thus, it is very possible for a
> certain sort of (intelligent and educated) person to discount what
> science tells him.  Try real hard to imagine yourself to be one of those
> people, Ian.  The insight will be worth it, I think.

Even if such a person according to your reasoning could discount
science, it does not mean that it is rational for that person too
choose an /even less/ credible source of information.

Science has its faults, but it has a lot more support and evience for
it than any old book. Thus, a person that is well-educated (knows
something about science), and intelligent (able to make logical
decisions), can not choose the Genesis above science and still be
acting rationally.

The point as I see it is not that there are a lot of things to doubt
about science, as you are trying to point out -- the point is that
compared to science, the Genesis simply (i) don't have any evidence
for it, and (ii) is much more unlikely. Someone believeing in the
Genesis as a literal account cannot be well-educated, intelligent and
/acting rationally/ (I'm adding this extra qualifier, since a
person can still be well-educated and intelligent and make an
irrational choice of beliefs, eg based on faith), IMO.


War on Iraq, expected # of killed Civilians:
Iraq            500,000
USA                   0
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-chat' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-chat mailing list