|
 Basic Instinct 2 (2006)
IMDB rating: 3.70
Plot: The decadent life of novelist Catherine Trammell (Sharon Stone) continues int his sequel that finds her in the opening sequence speeding through the streets of London using the hand of her obviously under-the-influence soccer star boy friend to masturbate herself. After the car goes out of control, she manages to escape but he drowns leading to an investigation of whether she had in fact murdered him with an implication that he was already dead before the car even entered the water. Officials bring in a police psychologist (David Morrissey) to determine her mental state. Obsession sets in and the psychiatrist is drawn into her manipulations and dangerous world. As deaths occur around the pair involving acquaintances of both parties, including the psychiatrist’s ex-wife, the story twists (and doesn’t answer) to make you wonder who is committing the crimes. David Thewlis also co-stars as a perhaps corrupt police inspector and Charlotte Rampling appears as a colleague of the psychiatrist. Contains frequent nudity, depiction of orgies and graphic sexual encounters, constant profanity and violence that is mostly committed off-camera.
|
Download
Available versions:
DivX Version (Normal Quality), DVD (Good Quality), PDA Version
Directors: Caton-Jones Michael
Actors: Morrissey David,Thewlis David,Dancy Hugh,Robertson Iain,Collymore Stan,Schneider Andre,Crime,Mystery,Thriller,
Download Full Version>>
Evolutionary argument against atheism?
I re-worded it again so please to not repeat your objections to my previous posts. Again I think most people misunderstood the argument.
1. If most atheists here are correct, evolution by natural selection favors biological factors that are conducive to survival and reproduction.
2. All of our thoughts, according to most atheists, are a product of our brains, an organ which evolved through the same physical processes as every other organ.
3. Our brains, therefore, evolved the capacity to produce thoughts that help us survive and reproduce, rather than the capacity to produce thoughts that correspond with reality (accurate thoughts).
4. Therefore, we cannot trust any of our thoughts accurately correspond with reality, because they are formed in (or arise within the framework of) our brains, which were selected for their capacity to produce thoughts that help us survive, not because of their capacity to produce accurate thoughts.
5. Therefore, we cannot know that atheistic evolution (as opposed to theistic evolution, atheistic evolution states that humans evolved by random mutation and natural selection rather than by the guidance of God or gods) is true.
The question was, is there a formal logical flaw in the argument?
Common objections:
"Evolution is a fact."
I agree. I’m only arguing that evolution plus atheism is self-defeating.
"Evolution has nothing to do with atheism."
I agree, other than the fact that some people happen to think both are true. By using the term ‘atheistic evolution’ i am purposefully joining two separate ideas.
"Thoughts are not genetic, they’re not passed down."
Of course we do not inherent our parents thoughts, but we do inherent the same basic brain structure. Our thoughts are the result of our brains, and our brains were selected by nature for their capacity to produce thoughts which keep us alive, not because of their capacity to grasp reality.
"Thoughts are different from instincts; they are not just based on genetics and brain structure."
Ultimately, any experience or information obtained must be acquired through sense perception which is interpreted by the brain, memory which is formed in the brain, or reasoning which occurs in the brain. These processes may not be as automatic as instincts, but that doesn’t matter. The manner in which you interpret this information is determined by your brain structure (for instance, a brain injury may cause you to think differently). If thoughts arise naturally out of a biological organ that evolved by natural selection, then the argument works.
"Our thoughts must be accurate in order to survive."
Not true, it’s possible to conceive of a creature whose every belief is false, but each falsehood is actually beneficial to its survival.
"We have science now, we don’t have to rely on human thought."
I would include the following assertions as thoughts that we cannot know are accurate (rather than merely advantageous to survival) — ‘The scientific method is reliable method of attaining knowledge’ - ‘The event I remember actually occurred’ - ‘The things I see actually exist.’
"This is just as much, if not more, a problem for theists."
Not so, if that theist believes that there is a God who created our brains through evolution or some other method to produce accurate thoughts rather than merely advantageous ones.
"EPIC FAIL"
I don’t realy have a response to this yet. Maybe I would if there was elaboration.
soxul — I understand that, but the argument is against atheism + evolution by natural selection. Either one may be true, they may both be true, but to claim both is seld-defeating.
Malik L — "The question was, is there a formal logical flaw in the argument?"
Grand Poobah — belief not equaling truth doesn’t matter at all. The argument isn’t about what is true, only what is reasonable to believe.
Also, science cannot by-pass human thought so to claim it works still relies on human thought.
Corky — You shoud have kept reading. "It’s possible to conceive of a creature whose every belief is false, but each falsehood is actually beneficial to its survival."
Freedom — I can’t begin to understand how what you said relates to what I said.
soxul — "if that theist believes that there is a God who created our brains through evolution or some other method to produce accurate thoughts rather than merely advantageous ones" then they can justify believing their brains produce accurate thoughts.
Allie — "By using the term ‘atheistic evolution’ i am purposefully joining two separate ideas." It is opposed to theistic evolution, which states that the process was guided.
Jake S — I could think of many examples of faulty thoughts being advantageous, but imagine an animal that thinks every sound in the night is a predator, they would survive.
Grand Poohbah — It is reasonable to believe that if we are given a brain that produces ‘accurate thoughts’, then we should trust in those thoughts’ accuracy. But if we are only given advantageous thoughts, then we should not trust in those thoughts’ accuracy.
Grand Poobah — There are two "if"s meaning we can believe either. One leads to a logical incoherency, so I suggest we believe in the other.
Accurate thoughts maybe advantageous. But inaccurate thoughts may be also. So we cannot conclude that our thoughts are accurate simply because they are advantageous.
Novangel — Can you explin what this means in more detail…"Plantagina’s rejection of formal reasoning by virtue of formal reasoning is self-defeating, so the argument failed before it was uttered. It is feeble special pleading."?
Allie — "I agree, other than the fact that some people happen to think both are true. By using the term ‘atheistic evolution’ i am purposefully joining two separate ideas." It would be like saying "Catholic Communism" referring to people who are both Catholic and Communist, NOT meaning that all Catholics are Communists or that there is any other connection between the two.
Anna — "I would include the following assertions as thoughts that we cannot know are accurate (rather than merely advantageous to survival) — ‘The scientific method is reliable method of attaining knowledge’ - ‘The event I remember actually occurred’ - ‘The things I see actually exist.’
Rory — Accurate thoughts may be advantageous. But inaccurate thoughts may be also. So we cannot conclude that our thoughts are accurate simply because they are advantageous.
Malik — I think it does matter. It’s the difference between being able to say "X is true" and "X seems true to me."
Still having problems finding the question
ADD: You are supposing that a person’s thoughts are not necessarily accurate, they are based on the need to survive? My response is: Does it matter?
Accuracy is defined as how close an assumption comes to the actual true value. How close you are to being correct. However, if you are wrong, but that mistake makes it more likely that you will survive and thrive, what difference does it make?
If you are looking at the "accuracy of human thought", how are you measuring accuracy? What are you considering the correct value by which our thoughts are measured against? For that matter, what "thoughts" are you considering innacurate?
Malik L | Jul 28, 2009
try to learn agnosticism
nichoals | Jul 28, 2009
I’m sorry, but atheism is just no belief in a god. That doesn’t mean we know how we got here.
"Therefore, we cannot trust any of our thoughts accurately correspond with reality, because they are formed in (or arise within the framework of) our brains, which were selected for their capacity to produce thoughts that help us survive, not because of their capacity to produce accurate thoughts."
You are neglecting that the belief in god was also in our thoughts.
How can they justify that they are making accurate thoughts? Just because they think something that doesn’t correspond with reality doesn’t make it true. I think that there is an invisible, non-tangible elephant in my room. There you go, reality. I’m thinking correctly because that is an accurate thought.
soxul | Jul 28, 2009
"if that theist believes that there is a God"
Again, belief =/= truth.
To address your #4 and #5, either science works, or it doesn’t. Since it demonstrably works for everyone INCLUDING BELIEVERS, what exactly is your argument?
Grand Poobah | Jul 28, 2009
On # 3- How would our "brains producing thoughts" that didn’t concur with reality be conducive to survival? That’s just ignorant.
Corky Thatcher | Jul 28, 2009
Evolution also contradicts the bible and god is just a character in the bible, so god must be false.
Freedom | Jul 28, 2009
Illicit inversion between 3&4. Conclusion too broadly drawn from premise.
edit
#3 is correct, but most thoughts must correspond with reality, if imperfectly, to have survival value.
?Machine Head? | Jul 28, 2009
There is no such thing as "atheistic evolution". Evolution is evolution, no matter what you personally believe. Your argument is ridiculous, no matter how you word it. You’re basing it on a false assumption. It’s useless.
1 - Atheism has NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. Evolution is not an atheist concept. Why are you trying to connect them? How is evolution + atheism "self-defeating"?
2 - And?
3 - False.
4 - Therefore, false.
5 - Again, there is no "atheistic" or "theistic" evolution. Evolution is evolution.
Allie Q | Jul 28, 2009
I would say that accuracy is extremely conductive to survival. In fact I am downright puzzled by the notion that this may not be so.
Suffice to say I completely disagree with you.
The last two points make no sense whatsoever.
Leonard | Jul 28, 2009
I don’t understand why you put the two together? An atheist simply does not believe in god. The end.
There is no fine print or extra details to being an atheist. And being one does not mean you know or care how humans got here or how the universe came to be.
What is your question??
Truth Chick | Jul 28, 2009
If you haven’t learned already, Evolution is just a theory. It doesn’t say that people evolved and that’s it. But it is flawed…
Timmy | Jul 28, 2009
You’re forgetting one major thing when it comes to the evolution of the human brain. Sentience. It allows us to think outside of the box, to imagine. That is why we are able to think past where our next meal comes from and where our next mate will be found.
Rico | Jul 28, 2009
"not because of their capacity to produce accurate thoughts."
Producing accurate thoughts is why we rule the world now. We are the only species that has evolved to a state that can also defend the environment and other species not just ourselves.
dethmiayr | Jul 28, 2009
"3. Our brains, therefore, evolved the capacity to produce thoughts that help us survive and reproduce, rather than the capacity to produce thoughts that correspond with reality (accurate thoughts)."
Faulty premise. Thoughts which help us survive and reproduce ARE based on reality. Where did you get the notion that thoughts of survival and reproduction are NOT based on reality?
Since 3 is inaccurate, the remainder of your points are null.
EDIT: "I could think of many examples of faulty thoughts being advantageous, but imagine an animal that thinks every sound in the night is a predator, they would survive."
However, faulty does not equate to ‘not real’. Thoughts of survival and reproduction ARE based on reality. Taking your example, an animal is wary of noises at night because it has at some point experienced a predator stalking it. While every noise may not be real, the foundation of this behavior IS real.
jake s | Jul 28, 2009
Yes, Logical flaws abound.
Just because our brains are pattern hungry, evolution made our brains pattern hungry Constanta looking for patterns, because cause and effect and pattern matching is an evolutionary benefit to survival.
Evolution is not about creating a better animal just a more successful one.
But our pattern matching brains are very good, and we have used them to come up with better pattern recognizing concepts life logic. We refine and add to these rules as we come up with better tests to insure its accurate. The scientific method is one of those. Experimentation has to lead to the same results independently for something to be considered true. That eliminates the weakness of your argument. Logic is the same if the rules of logic are applied correctly the same answer is achieved independently.
Anna | Jul 28, 2009
I disagree with the final counter to common objections (didn’t really read the rest I have to admit), as you cannot separate god from merely an advantageous thought then you cannot say that he designed the brain. For theists this is far more self defeating than for atheists as theism is often a tenancy rather than a process of logical though which has really only recently developed (about the non-existence of god not logical thought in general).
Keir O | Jul 28, 2009
edit - Alright I said I’d give an answer later so here it is. Again I’m pressed for time so sorry if it isn’t as complete as all the others. People say I come across as harsh but I don’t mean to be. Merely objective. And most of what I write, well, I don’t just write simple fact. Usually when I write I get ideas so I put them down so they may not be too organized. You’ll have to pick out the pieces you like and interpret them how you will.
1. If most atheists here are correct, evolution by natural selection favors biological factors that are conducive to survival and reproduction.
- They key word is "if". "If" atheists here are correct. The word is used in the sentence as to imply that there is uncertainty but there is a general knowledge. That general knowledge could in fact, be false. In the 1700’s spontaneous creation by a deity was considered science and if you believed anything other than such you were the laughing stock of the scientific community. The same can be applied here. You are assuming that evolution is right ACCORDING to atheists here, who, last time I checked, have little to no credentials on the subject. (This is many, not all. If anyone here is a world-renowned theologian, please, let us know).
Now to the real fact. Yes, evolution and natural selection favor people who are more likely to survive in extreme conditions. Survival of the fittest. The other factor that plays the biggest role is adaptive qualities. The animal that can adapt the quickest to its surroundings is favored over its harder, better, faster, and stronger brethren who unfortunately, do not have the same adaptive skills.
Maybe the adaptation is not to hostile physical environments, but maybe it is mental adaptation. Open-mindedness. I personally try to keep an open mind and not get too locked-up in an idea. Adaptation could mean anything in today’s day and age, due to the fact that no longer are we scavengers for an herbivore diet similar to that of a primate. Now we are civilized, we work at desks, and survival of the strongest is not now emphasized, survival of the most intelligent is emphasized. With that in mind, we must think that this has not been emphasized for very long in the human race (only 4 digits most likely) so evolution has not taken great place in this new way that it possibly would. This is just an idea.
Bottom Line - You have the wrong take on evolution. Evolution is a mysterious thing that people don’t know too much about. Selection as we know it is subject to interpretations and change. There are many qualities. And to add off of that you’re getting your definition from [mostly] uneducated masses of crazy redneck conservative fundamentalist ignorant christians and malicious, unsympathetic, "holier than thou", liberal atheists. That’s no definition to write a thesis and from what it looks like, a good argument about.
2. All of our thoughts, according to most atheists, are a product of our brains, an organ which evolved through the same physical processes as every other organ.
According to most atheists is what makes this almost silly. My carpenter is an atheist. My next-door neighbor who is a geologist is an atheist. My dog is most likely an atheist. What qualifications do they have? None. I would respect the views of a qualified evolutionist or a qualified theologian. For the most part though, this is true.
Thoughts are produced from the brain. The physical structure of the brain evolves.
That is all you have said. This is not news to anyone. This bullet point was a waste of time, though I see how it may be necessary for some to follow the rest of the argument.
3. Our brains, therefore, evolved the capacity to produce thoughts that help us survive and reproduce, rather than the capacity to produce thoughts that correspond with reality (accurate thoughts).
EPIC FAIL. ha just kidding. Saw that just now at the end of your list and it made me laugh. Anyway,
Your logic is flawed from 2 to 3.
Evolution "picks" those which have the greatest attributes to survival and reproduction. Thoughts are produced from the brain. The physical structure of the brain evolves. Therefore our brain gives us thoughts that help us survive and not necessarily accurate thoughts.
No. I’m having trouble explaining why this does not work. In the meantime I had another thought. If thoughts are helpful to survival and not necessarily accurate, you basically doomed all religion. Your argument confirms that there is no factually based religion or deity.
Anyway back to #3. Arguments could go either way. If a lion attacks or a lion bites, a human will feel almost no pain during the moment, which was created as a defense mechanism by the body. Pain is abundant, whereas since the human feels no pain he may be able to get up and get out of harms way. His thought of no pain is, as he will soon find, inaccurate. The body however helped him survive.
The other side is that the brain had to evolve accurately to survive. If the brain constantly is telling me of obstacles that need to be overcome, they need to be based on actual things that are going on in the world, and how to overcome them. You can’t overcome an obstacle to survival without doing it according to real physical properties.
4. Yes, you can trust our thoughts, they are created based on survival in the physical world. If the brain thinks thought A for survival it has to be based on thought B which is what is ACTUALLY going on in the physical world. So the survival thoughts have to be based on something real, which would make them accurate.
You seem like a smart guy so the next paragraph might seem elementary. Theistic evolution is divinely inspired evolution. You know that. You also know that there is no proof for any God or gods. No way of knowing if for sure there is a big cheese in the sky, right? All there is is a bunch of fairy tales called the Bible all tied up in string to form a "holy" book. That automatically rules out theistic evolution, no? With that in mind, since evolution has been practically proved through fossilization of different types, (which I have actually seen first hand. In the meagher stratographic layer of rock in wyoming I saw a delicate marine life fossil deposit in a shaley limestone bed. It was so cool. But that’s another story) and we know that at least one form of evolution takes place, it either means that atheistic evolution is confirmed as truth or there is some other option we have yet to consider as a race.
I’ve never been good with naming the logical flaws, i.e. Hasty Generalization, Red Herring, etc. but I do know that logical flaws exist. You’re not providing enough information for your argument.
So basically, the brain evolves and helps us survive. However survival is no longer an issue in very educated and well off parts of the world, so the evolutionary task is devoted to some other process. This may be expanding intellect, creating good looks, etc. We don’t know yet. We simply don’t. Survival thoughts have to be based off of actuality, so there must be accuracy in them for them to have paid off and stayed with us as a race.
I didn’t collect my thoughts well or present them in an organized matter but you get what I’m saying. There are logical flaws, as I pointed out. I can’t name them, but at least you’ll see what they are.
Oh and also, since I put a good deal of time into my answer, can you answer me this?
Would you have ever guessed that I just turned 15? Don’t let that fact let you discard my argument, I assure you I’m very well read. Among with baseball, religion vs. science is my favorite topic.
Sir Not Appearing in This Film | Jul 28, 2009
I had thought about this too. If there’s a flaw in the argument, then I think that it may come from the bit that if evolution can be proved as an "empirical fact" then the argument falls apart. However from what I know, Natural Selection is more of an "observed phenomenon" than established as a fact in itself.
It’s as good as
"The strong shall live and the weak shall die"
More of an aphorism…
anonymoussssss | Jul 28, 2009
3. Our brains, therefore, evolved the capacity to produce thoughts that help us survive and reproduce, rather than the capacity to produce thoughts that correspond with reality (accurate thoughts).
We have a language with definitions. We have objective measures which can be correlated with nature. (Take two apples and three apples and you get five apples; it also works with oranges). We can measure the deviation of perception from objective measures.
4. Therefore, we cannot trust any of our thoughts accurately correspond with reality, because they are formed in (or arise within the framework of) our brains, which were selected for their capacity to produce thoughts that help us survive, not because of their capacity to produce accurate thoughts.
Since the first human decision in the Bible was wrong, Chistianity has no better stance than atheism. Further, Plantagina’s rejection of formal reasoning by virtue of formal reasoning is self-defeating, so the argument failed before it was uttered. It is feeble special pleading.
ADDENDUM:
Special pleading — forming a double standard for arguments in which unsupported major concepts may be introduced by one side.
It comes down to the phrase, "Therefore, we cannot trust any of our thoughts accurately…".
After claiming that we cannot trust our reasoning if we evolved, he uses an unstated major premise — that we can if there is a deity. That is special pleading. He cannot support his position. Further as a Christian, he relies upon a doctrine that faulty reasoning preceded the Fall of Man and things only get worse from there. It therefore follows that as a Christian, he cannot trust his own reasoning, so, therefore, none of his arguments can be trusted.
Plantagina’s argument reduces to the paradox stated by Epimenides of Knossos (Crete): "All Cretans are liars.", but Plantagina cannot implicitly exempt himself.
novangelis | Jul 28, 2009
Your argument is nonsense what makes you think thoughts that respond with reality doesn’t help us survive and reproduce. I am an atheist and evolutionary argument has nothing to do with the fact that there is no God. There is no God irregardless of evolutionary argument. One fact has no bearing on the other.
Karema Midnight | Jul 28, 2009
"Our thoughts must be accurate in order to survive."
"""Not true, it’s possible to conceive of a creature whose every belief is false, but each falsehood is actually beneficial to its survival."""
It’s possible to conceive many things, that doesn’t mean anything, of course it’s possible to fucking conceive it, how does that make it true or even likely, I can conceive Vampires you know.
Accurate thoughts are the ones that help us survive, we take in information and base our actions on it, if this information was incorrect then survival would be less likely.
I’LL SAY THIS IN CAPS SO YOU READ IT- HOW ARE SUICIDAL THOUGHTS BENIFICIAL RATHER THAN ACCURATE?
Rory M | Jul 28, 2009
"Our brains, therefore, evolved the capacity to produce thoughts that help us survive and reproduce, rather than the capacity to produce thoughts that correspond with reality (accurate thoughts)."
Your assuming that this statement is correct. Since you cannot demonstrate that it is, and it is essentially at the heart of your argument, then the whole thing falls apart. We have the ability to think in both abstract terms and realistic terms. Thinking in abstractions is often part of our thought process that helps us come to realistic conclusions. A hunter 100,000 years ago who could imagine different scenarios of what his prey may do can strategize accordingly is more likely to be successful in the hunt.
Humans evolved the ability to think. We didn’t evolve a specific type of thought. Our brains aren’t limited in that way.
Opus | Jul 28, 2009
TL-DR
M to the R Mighty RA | Jul 28, 2009
Did someone actually say "EPIC FAIL" to you? Lol.
I pretty much agree with you. I’m a deist. I believe in a divine creator, but not that people have the capacity to fully understand it, which kind of invalidates organized religion in my opinion.
Anyway, yes, evolution is obviously real. But, in terms of probability, we should not exist. The idea that every single random variable that need to be in place in order to life to exist and for all the millions of different creatures to evolve was the product of random chance is ridiculous. It’s like throwing a 1000-piece puzzle into the air and having land completely assembled… and then doing that 1000 more times consecutively. It’s impossible.
Scientists don’t fully understand the mechanics of the brain on a cellular level. They can’t identify the source of certain bioelectric impulses that fire synapses associated with advanced human thought processes. Complex emotions, like love or jealousy, are often not directly related to outside stimuli, but trigger biochemical reactions that are just as strong as completely reactionary impulses (like gasping when you’re startled). At this point, scientists do not know the origin of these impulses. In short, they don’t know exactly what makes us think and act the way we do, or why we’re all so different. Is it such a stretch to believe that we all have some sort of divine cosmic imprint (soul) that manifests in our brains as an electrical charge and is responsible for our unique personalities? I don’t think so.
Rachael | Jul 28, 2009
3 does not follow. The fact that it is conceivable that inaccurate thoughts are conducive to survival, does not make it necessarily the case. You would need to separately establish that accurate thoughts are actually inimical to survival and inaccurate thoughts beneficial.
To speak to your example of an animal that thinks "every sound in the night is a predator" - this is only a case where inaccurate thoughts simply fail to prevent survival. One could argue that the animal is wasting energy responding to false positives, and therefore is at an evolutionary disadvantage to animals with a more accurate threat detection heuristic.
Further, there seems to be a tacit assumption that if the brain must be infallible, or else no human thought can be considered accurate. Otherwise #4 does not follow from #3. This is not the case, as a human mind is capable of being mistaken, but also may hold some true beliefs as well.
ralph_5772 | Jul 28, 2009
You need to replace "atheists" with "biologists". I accept the theory of evolution but I’m no expert!
You also make a blunder here:
"4. Therefore, we cannot trust any of our thoughts accurately correspond with reality, because they are formed in (or arise within the framework of) our brains, which were selected for their capacity to produce thoughts that help us survive, not because of their capacity to produce accurate thoughts."
Right and Wrong.
While it is true that some thoughts aren’t always as accurate, when it comes to science, we don’t rely simply on ONE person’s thoughts!
The scientific theory of evolution is based on evidence; Testable, verifiable evidence that yields repeatable results. Not just some ideas floating around in our heads. Theories in science MUST have mountains of evidence backing them! Even some of Darwin’s own hypotheses, were found to be inaccurate, or wrong. But MOST of his scientific predictions and hypotheses are accurate. He predicted DNA, before we could even barely see cells under a microscope!
And that is what makes science great! It is full of checks and balances! When new information comes to light, we change the way in which we think about a given phenomenon, process, or theory.
For instance while no scientist disputes that evolution has occurred, they do argue all the time about how it happened! There are many arguments over the mechanisms driving evolution, and while we may never know all the answers, none as of yet, have been "goddidit". (see the link below for some of the real controversies in evolution.)
That’s where theists fall short.
While we have empirical evidence of evolution, in everything from the fossil records, to the study of DNA, what empirical evidence to creationists, and even theists that accept evolution, have to offer?
None. They have already made up their minds on what happens, based on an ancient book (In the case of Christianity), and "gut feelings". Neither of these verifiable or testable, nor do they yield repeatable results!
Many of those that believe in "intelligent" or "guided" evolution won’t even perform the very tests and research they claim will prove their hypotheses. Why? Because they know the tests will only bolster the theory of evolution!
Unlike REAL scientists, they already have their conclusions and try to make the facts fit them. Rather than coming to conclusions based on the evidence.
Sure, sometimes real scientists do this as well. Like the doctor who claimed vaccinations cause autism. He’s admitted to tampering with the results of the test. Just so he didn’t have to admit he was wrong!
Those who purposefully misrepresent test results, or tamper with the test itself to get the results they hypothesized are eventually exposed by other scientists. Either in the reviewing of the study, or running the same tests, and coming up with different results!
So sure, the scientific method has it’s flaws. But it’s far better to base your understanding of evolution on what science has to offer, than the unsubstantiated claims of theists.
GambitGrrl | Jul 28, 2009
| Nov 26, 2009
good luck!
