Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[LadyForCamus]

Motivation is interesting, isn’t it? It’s also relevant in discussions like these. And every time you ignore the questions I’ve asked you above, you are tacitly admitting your dishonesty.  Also, I don’t need your permission to continue; this is an open, public forum, and I’ll be happy to continue just as soon as we can get past the first waypoint of you honestly answering the questions I’ve asked you. 

Yup, one interesting thing about motivation is that it generally has no effect on the truth of a proposition. If I say cats can fly, that statement is false regardless if my motivation for saying it comes from greed, money, revenge, sex, entertainment, religion, and the list goes on. And if the statement is true, then it will likewise be true regardless of me being classified as an honest or dishonest person.

Here's another example of a false statement: "Motivation is relevant in discussions like these."

You are right that personal motivations are irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of a proposition, however, they are quite insightful with regard to examining how a person judges the quality of available evidence for one particular proposition compared to another. Motivation can have implications with regard to erroneous reasoning, which is why I dig. I notice you’ve ignored my questions for a third time now. I’ll try drawing closer to my point a quicker way. Do you accept the current scientific theory of evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on planet earth?