It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationism's Legacy: Anti-intellectualism

page: 10
31
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


It's not like we have an experiment of abiogensis, now do we? That was my point...both view take scientific principles and make assumptions based on theological biases.

If you mean scientific principles that ID is based from...one, see all the failed abiogenisis experiments, etc...these led to looking into other directions. Two, information theory is prime example supporting the need for an ID. There ARE books out there that are not science being hijacked by zealots; find a few, and read up on the science of ID.

I would liken the ID/creationism issue to the current conflict between republican/conservative. The face of the republican party is that of the "neo-con," if you will, but they are merely hijackers (along with the religious right) of a party that has been about sound fiscal issues and small government. In the same way, ID has been hijacked by creationists, but it is not nearly the same thing.




posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Afraid of the truth? Don't be like that. I've sat through more sermons than I care to count. They don't do anything for me. Although I must admit, even being agnostic bordering on atheist the Mosaic sermons. They are some good messages, but even they are only feel good sermons.


GW, ok...just listen to it....


Unlike anything you have heard...this dude studied with Einstein...come on, you can do it!!!!!


I loved it....you will too...

No boring verily verily BS...really....

noobfun....u2 big boy...come on OT is begging!!!!

Night boys!!!!



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Being one who believes we were in fact created i must say that the way creationists argue the point undercuts the incredible nature of god. To think that you can explain the motives or actions of said creator is laughable to say the least. The best arguement the creationists have is irreducable complexity (which has already been shown to be flawed theory). The creator who has to be taken on faith has covered his tracks well, to understand the mind of the creator you have to be able to observe the model from outside the model. We are forever barred from doing this.

We should be more interested in the inner workings of the creation not the grand scheme. We are part of the the scheme and therfor unable to see the big picture with 100% clearity. Stop trying to prove it is a creation and start trying to show the brilliance of the creation and its elegant wonder



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
^Another variant was the claim that Darwin renounced his theory on his deathbed. Not only was this false, it had nothing to do with the accuracy of his explanation.

Not only is creationism spawning rampant anti-intellectualism, it's an organized movement with the stated goal of subverting scientific naturalism. Research "The Wedge Document" to read up on this.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


Where you get your numbers shows the sources bias. Look up who Dawkins and his cronies consider "scientists." Basically only himself and his worshipers. The contrasting data includes engineers and the like, who are far more scientists than men like Dawkins. They use their science in serious, sometimes life or death applications, while he plays around at being an atheist messiah, writing books full of vitriol and making up computer programs based on his own false assumptions.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


not especially off topic, no. You have to understand the origins of the theory, and how many times it has changed in the past hundred years, to see the huge flaws in it. Are there still any details of Darwin's theory that haven't been changed entirely to try to keep a failed hypothesis alive? I can't think of any, off hand



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by saturnine_sweet
 


You are proving the OP correct almost everytime you post. There have been experiments on abiogenesis, as I have posted earlier here. Perhaps you should review my entire original post here.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Ugh. ID and creationism aren't even the same thing. ID is based on science; granted, it isn't acceptable to atheistic naturalist religion, but it is a dissenting scientific viewpoint. There is no more faith in believing that science shows traces of a creative force than there is in believing that nature is a creating force, in and of itself. Neither have been proven, and neither are likely to ever be proven. Both have fact-based reasons supporting them. The most dangerous form of anti-intellectualism in the world is dogmatic fervor towards unprovable theories.


Ok ... lets pretend that I have no idea about what Intelligent Design is.

Can someone who believes on I.D. please explain it to me.

Your own words please.

No quotes or external sources.

The reason I ask is that twice in this thread it has been touted as a scientific alternative to evolution and I want to know why.

To whom ever answer this post ... Thank You!



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by optimus primal
 


not especially off topic, no. You have to understand the origins of the theory, and how many times it has changed in the past hundred years, to see the huge flaws in it. Are there still any details of Darwin's theory that haven't been changed entirely to try to keep a failed hypothesis alive? I can't think of any, off hand


well abiogenesis is about the origin of life, and not the diversification of life(as evolutionary theory is about).

it doesn't matter if his original work has been modified. it's supposed to be. that's how the scientific method works. his original theorem wasn't entirely correct, according to what we have observed since then ...this means the original theorem has to be changed to more accurately represent what the evidence shows us. isn't this basic science class stuff? i dont understand why you dont appear to get this....are we not communicating properly here?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   
I don't believe creationism necessarily denotes anti-intellectualism. I've had many pastors who had their doctorates in chemistry, biology, or some other hard science. These are men who are believers of the faith but still pursue answers about life from the sciences as well. It is my personal belief that science and mathematics are God's language left for us to figure out for ourselves. I do believe we have a creator at some point or another. My only problem with religion is the vanity within the principle that we were created to worship that God. Could there possibly be any more vein reason to create a whole species, capable of independent thought, but only existing to worship? If someone has an answer for that I'd like to hear it.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Wow. It must be nice to hide behind a screen to insult people. Else you'd have your ass kicked daily. I know those experiments VERY well. I also know genetics VERY well. And I know that yep! no experiments making life from nothing...not even with highly tweaked conditions. Just because you want to believe they prove something doesnt change the hard facts.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Horza
 


It is the theory that the facts of science regarding origins of life suggest that there had to have been intelligence in the design of life. Good examples of why lie largely in the ignored flaws of the evolutionary theory concerning genetics and mutation, abiogenesis, information theory, etc. Good enough?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path

RED HERRING:
One particular character is described or emphasized in a way that seems to throw suspicion upon that character as the person who committed the crime: later, it develops that someone else is the guilty party.
reply to post by saturnine_sweet
 



55% of this . . . (made up by the way)

Racist eugenics . . .

The OP is about creationism . . . if you can't argue FOR it . . . just make up or parade out things that have nothing to do with the issue to convolute and demonize the discussion . . . GREAT TACTICS! And you are the same people that say this should be taught in schools next to topics that have been upheld under rigorous testing?

What does Darwin's beliefs, regardless of morality judgement, have to due with what was/is being observed and the data collected to back it up. This is why creationism and I.D. fail in the realm of science . . . they can't stick to the subject. "Yeah . . . well Darwin was a racist" . . . yep that discredits, not only his, but every researcher since and the work they have done.



everytime i read through threads like this wether from the creation view point or evolution viewpoint, one question crops up time and time again.

how does evolution prove wrong creationism? it only proves wrong that if there was an inteligent designer that they did not make man directly.
if there was an inteligent designer they may of only designed the building blocks of life and intended evolution, ensuring lifeforms are relative to their enviorment.

now i'm certainly not saying that i have reason to believe that IS the case, only that i have no reason to discount it, because scientists although they give theories on how life started, have been unable to recreate that scenerio in the same conditions they proposed in their theories in a lab. meaning we have no clue how life started.

so we have no clue how life started, and evolution is only a part of life, where as creation of life is the beginning. so untill we know what happened at the beginning, creation of life by a inteligent god/being or whatever should not be discounted. especially while ever scientists fail to create life themselves in the same conditions they proposed it would start in.

if a inteligent god/being did create the building blocks of life, then it/they/him/her created man, and all other life.

however if creationism was one day found to be fact, it would not disprove evolution either.

so why do people argue about either being right or wrong when both can be true without meaning the other theory is wrong?

edit to add: i am not talking about creationism in terms of how the bible proposes it occured. however i think the creation by inteligent 'others' is overlooked due to the bible theory. if i believed we were created by inteligent influence why is that illogical?

discounting the creation theory due to the christians creation theory is a mistake IMO. and being labelled as a christian for considering a creation theory is also a bigger mistake.

your simply throwing out one of the possibilities due to the bible theory.
i thought that would be considered unscientific, especially when nobody knows how life started and have been unable recreate it.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by lifeform]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


sigh. Abiogenesis isnt directly evolution, no, but it IS part of ID. Duh. Two, yes, adapting theories is basic science. But perhaps you should go read the actual scientific process, and try to apply it to what has been done with evolutionary biology. Its a farce. your arrogance doesnt change that, and being a prick to others doesn't make you right.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by Good Wolf
 
its 4am lol i should have been asleep way way back


Here in NZ its 5:45pm.

Right done. Back into it.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Creationism is NOT anti-science. It uses the bible as a literal text toward truth. There are many creationists who believe in scientific analysis and progress. Creationists believe in the literal interprtation of the bible from a historic chronologic point of view. What is never said is what kind of entity God is other than the supreme. That doesn't describe substance. Perhaps all will get the ultimate surprise when Christ returns in the clouds AND in a spaceship.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
[

Funny thing is over 55% of SCIENTISTS say that evolution is tripe, trash, impossible, didn't happen, can't happen, won't happen...


No ... that is wrong.

The stats from The Gallup Organisation poll from 1997 are:

Scientists beliefs:

Creationist view - 5%
Theistic evolution - 40%
Naturalistic Evolution - 55%

Sorce

edit - formatting issues





[edit on 29/10/08 by Horza]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by lifeform
 


well if you had read the thread, especially the first page, you'd know that it's not about if some deity/deities created the universe. it's about creationism being put forth as a scientific theory to be taught to our youth, and how they (literal creationists) are anti-intellectual and dont really understand evolutionary theory in the first place. this thread isn't about genesis, or abiogenesis. evolutionary theory describes the mechanism/s for the diversification of life, not how it got here.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Wow. It must be nice to hide behind a screen to insult people. Else you'd have your ass kicked daily. I know those experiments VERY well. I also know genetics VERY well. And I know that yep! no experiments making life from nothing...not even with highly tweaked conditions. Just because you want to believe they prove something doesnt change the hard facts.


Apparently you are unaware how insulting your posts have been. Perhaps you should reread them before you start pointing fingers at others. As to the second sentence, I'm the same way in person and given my size and military training, that's not gonna happen. Also, you apparently don't know those topics VERY well, or you would not state what you have as fact, because they are not. Creationist beliefs on the other hand have zero facts to back them up. Not a single one! Nil! Nada! Zilch! And just because you want to believe in creationism doesn't change the hard facts, which all point in another direction.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by optimus primal
 


sigh. Abiogenesis isnt directly evolution, no, but it IS part of ID. Duh. Two, yes, adapting theories is basic science. But perhaps you should go read the actual scientific process, and try to apply it to what has been done with evolutionary biology. Its a farce. your arrogance doesnt change that, and being a prick to others doesn't make you right.



we're not talking about ID, we're talking about creationism, as you've clearly said they aren't the same thing. i'm neither being arrogant nor a prick. you are, whether intentionally or not, confusing this thread into what you want to talk about, instead of what it's really about.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join