11.27.05
Credibility Gap
Dilbert blog registers a dismally correct point, in a tangle with Pharyngula. There isn’t anyone, apparently, that we can trust to speak on the subject of evolution! This isn’t a plea for the ID position.
Let me say very clearly here that I’m not denying the EXISTENCE of slam-dunk credible evidence for evolution. What I’m denying is the existence of credible PEOPLE to inform me of this evidence.
The people who purport to have evidence of evolution do a spectacular job of making themselves non-credible.
Canned arguments are starting to reach critical mass, socia asphyxiation. Actually the problem starts with Darwin in Origin where he had a clever tactic of raising objections to his theory. It sounds like it’s all in good faith, disguising the severe flaws at the foundations of his whole enterprise. Another problem is the way shouting, condescension, and imputations against the intelligence of doubters, is used to manipulate emotions, and intimidate. Darwinism’s unique ability to confuse the highly intelligent leaves a false plus in its favor: the experts have spoken.
Actually, the presentation of the evidence is, in one way, adequate, if all you want is the case for ’something labeled evolution’ in deep time. It is when the conclusions drawn from this are pressed onto our belief modules that the credibility gap goes critical. ID-ists are right, no doubt, to accuse ‘methodological naturalism’ for much preconceived thinking, but unfortunately the supposed opposite, by a false antithesis, is not ‘methodological spiritualism’.
The debate often seems like a clever way to coddle the suggestible by presenting two false alternatives in a dialectic, as if these summarized the possibilities.