![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastI've been trying to avoid making these tips seem too specific to Creationism. Even though there are examples from Creationism, I'm trying to keep this as widely applicable as possible. That said, this tip has an obvious application.
Unless you know what the theory of evolution actually says and predicts, you're never going to disprove it. And, if you understand the theory, you will be able to understand questions, such as "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys", for yourself.
Stepping out of the obvious, the multiverse hypothesis was not constructed as a response to the teleological argument. No, really, no matter how many times its repeated.
William Lane Craig's repeated use of the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem didn't serve him quite as well when Guth appeared in photos specifically refuting the conclusion William Lane Craig drew from the theorem.
Returning to the obvious, Ray Comfort didn't do himself any favors when he declared the characteristics of the banana to be proof of God's design... only to have repeated Youtube videos detailing wild bananas and how selective breeding is to thank for the banana that we see in the grocery store.
You are lucky. You live in a world with an internet. That makes researching these things relatively easy. If your argument relies upon a scientific theory saying one thing and not another, check. If your argument relies upon a certain conclusion from science, check. If you want to disprove or "defeat" some scientific theory or study, perhaps one that is "straight from the pit of Hell", check what it actually says.
For that matter, also make sure you understand the methodology of science and the study involved. Before you rely upon a detail, check the detail to be sure.
Unless you know what the theory of evolution actually says and predicts, you're never going to disprove it. And, if you understand the theory, you will be able to understand questions, such as "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys", for yourself.
Stepping out of the obvious, the multiverse hypothesis was not constructed as a response to the teleological argument. No, really, no matter how many times its repeated.
William Lane Craig's repeated use of the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem didn't serve him quite as well when Guth appeared in photos specifically refuting the conclusion William Lane Craig drew from the theorem.
Returning to the obvious, Ray Comfort didn't do himself any favors when he declared the characteristics of the banana to be proof of God's design... only to have repeated Youtube videos detailing wild bananas and how selective breeding is to thank for the banana that we see in the grocery store.
You are lucky. You live in a world with an internet. That makes researching these things relatively easy. If your argument relies upon a scientific theory saying one thing and not another, check. If your argument relies upon a certain conclusion from science, check. If you want to disprove or "defeat" some scientific theory or study, perhaps one that is "straight from the pit of Hell", check what it actually says.
For that matter, also make sure you understand the methodology of science and the study involved. Before you rely upon a detail, check the detail to be sure.
