A short note of reference to the death of 5 000 000 during the Holocaust should surely teach us that this massive crowd of people did not know much about self defence. A quick read of a headline announcing the loss of life during the sinking of the Titanic should teach us that those drowned passengers did not know much about swimming or floating. And Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac seem to be two, rather stupid, characters who could not afford to pay their bonds, and thus lost their houses.
+/-90 Words that conveys the utmost of claptrap, and a little reading would dispute this with ease. Further study would tell what actually happened, the reasons why the above happened and the broader circumstances surrounding these incidences. In depth study of all the material available, would make the reader quite an expert on each of the 3 subjects, and even able to discard with authority, the dross from the gems of probability and truth.
Wikipedia author(s) of the opening paragraph on Evolution deemed it necessary to read and quote 10 sources to substantiate said paragraph. For this short article of mere 10 000 words it was deemed that it must be supported by 294 references. (Most novels run to between 80k-120k words; to put this in perspective. The English translation of Tolstoy’s W&P contains more than 560k words).
Each of those references does take some time to read and much more time and effort to study in depth. To understand these references mentioned, it is presumed that the reader is either proficient in the subject matter and/or properly schooled to a level that makes understanding easy within the ethos and context.
It is thus reasonable to expect a good scholar, and exponent of a subject matter, to have studied a 1 000 books and other relevant publications. Would it thus be unreasonable to assume that s/he would have read and understood maybe 50-100 million words? Would this be enough to form an educated opinion?
As an aside: It is a mystery why a YEC would presume to display a similar knowledge and understanding of a subject based on small a portion of the +/-38k words in Genesis. Not taking into account that the source material is 2.5k years old and not of a scientific nature either.
The vehement opposition to the TOE, based on a spiritual argument, or on the gainsaying of scientific research and facts, should therefore have no validity. Surely the understanding of, or belief in, a deity does not reside within the veracity of the TOE? Should the existence of God not be sought in the paranormal? (Which by its very definition is discounted by many a believer)
There rests on the shoulders of a true seeker after knowledge, an obligation. That is the acquiring of suitable and adequate and substantiated knowledge of a subject matter prior to espousing a position or not. Standing on the shoulders of giants makes one see over high walls, one would presume?
Equally, it might be noted, s/he who really searches should not be scorned or ridiculed.
“Seek and ye shall find”.....
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.