Creationism's Legacy: Anti-intellectualism

reply to post by saturnine_sweet


you know nobody is calling you a prick or arrogant merely because we disagree with you. it'd be great if you could debate like a civilized human being.

Originally posted by optimus primal
reply to post by lifeform

 

you're assuming that evolutionary theory is supposed to do this, when in fact it is not. evolutionary theory, as i've said in probably six posts now, tries to explain the mechanism/s for the DIVERSITY of life, not how it got here. i think your confusion comes from the "abiogenesis/genesis" part of my post. in that i am referring to the creation of life, not the universe.

evolution does explain the mechanism for diversity of life.

creation of life or the universe if you insist i was talking about the universe even though i was talking about how life started, is a seperate thing all together.

why are the two being compared as though they both try to explain the same observation?

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

 

Just addressed the last person who said that a minute ago...read above. This whole thread is nothing more than hating on opposing viewpoints...nice show of tolerance there....so surprising from a group that is usually far to the left...or is it?

That's a joke, right? Tolerance has never been a virtue of the far right! I could point out countless examples!

Originally posted by lifeform

Originally posted by optimus primal
reply to post by lifeform

 

you're assuming that evolutionary theory is supposed to do this, when in fact it is not. evolutionary theory, as i've said in probably six posts now, tries to explain the mechanism/s for the DIVERSITY of life, not how it got here. i think your confusion comes from the "abiogenesis/genesis" part of my post. in that i am referring to the creation of life, not the universe.

evolution does explain the mechanism for diversity of life.

creation of life or the universe if you insist i was talking about the universe even though i was talking about how life started, is a seperate thing all together.

why are the two being compared as though they both try to explain the same observation?

you know lifeform i really dont know. it's literally comparing apples and oranges.

reply to post by optimus primal


Ive tried...but I don't get replies to my statement, I get arrogant orations reciting parroted lines, implying that I have no idea what I am talking about merely because I have an opposing opinion. (In some cases, that has been more than implied.) I'll give you a Hank Hill-ism...I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem! Ive tried some discussion...but I don't get anything but arrogant blindness back...can't do much with that, except call it what it is.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Did I mention the far right anywhere? You can't even reply to a simple observation without deflection...perhaps you should be a politician.

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by solomons path

 

Ugh. I gave you one REALLY BASIC ONE. Information theory. Oops, sorry, biologists only believe in biology...MY BAD. I don't believe in hell, but sometimes i wish there was one, just for all the arrogant pricks who think anyone who dissents from their opinion doesn't know their science. I could write you a damn book from genetics and cellular biology to quantum physics, but it doesn't do a damn bit of good if you can't drop your arrogance and zealotry long enough to even examine THE ONE, SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND, piece of science I threw out there, instead of parroting the fecal spewing made so famous by Richard Dawkins. Want to see a legacy of pseudo-intellectualism? Look in the damn mirror.

arrogance? pseudo-intellectual? Dawkins and his arrogance? Biologists? oppression?

More Red Herrings . . .

Just because I don't concede to you that Information Theory supports I.D. you go off on a tanget/rant and end with insults?

I know Information Theory . . . tell me how that supports a designer? What work is being done to tie this theory to design? I'm assuming you are talking about "Transinformation" and how it relates to molelecular coding? SO . . . how does that support design without injecting a supernatural force/intelligence?

How's that for looking in the mirror . . . all of which still have nothing to do with the religious/spiritual subverting of science to gain a legitimate foothold in the shaping of young minds.

reply to post by ofhumandescent


Well said. And on topic too, you've done better than most. I must say.

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by optimus primal

 

Ive tried...but I don't get replies to my statement, I get arrogant orations reciting parroted lines, implying that I have no idea what I am talking about merely because I have an opposing opinion. (In some cases, that has been more than implied.) I'll give you a Hank Hill-ism...I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem! Ive tried some discussion...but I don't get anything but arrogant blindness back...can't do much with that, except call it what it is.

that gives you no license to namecalling. i personally dont care if you dont believe evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the diversity of life, you're entitled to your opinion. i'll gladly debate the merits of both ID and evotheory any time(allowing that you give me some time to research on some of the finer details of ID) but the namecalling truly is arrogant and denigrates your position. you may have noticed that i have tried to debate with you and asked several times for you to stop with the arrogant prick stuff....you may not have. we can disagree you know without our lives being terribly affected by it. i have stated here and elsewhere that evotheory is not perfect, as we are not perfect, but it's the best explanation for diversification i have come across. now if what i've said in this post is arrogant prickishness , so be it, but namecalling is not allowed here for a reason: it's childish and does nothing to advance debate.


edited to add: sorry op, i'm pretty sure this post was entirely offtopic, but i felt it needed to be said to clarify my position on the topic.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by optimus primal]

reply to post by saturnine_sweet


When one uses the term far left, it leads to a reply about the far right. I am a centerist. Again I would state that your posts have been rather agitated and thus have gotten agitated responses. It is not my favorite form of debate, but I'm not above it (it's the Scorpio in me). I am starting to get the impression that you may not be a creationist, so my question would be why are you defending creationism? If you can tone down the rhetoric, I will endevour to do the same.

reply to post by Good Wolf


I really pitty the US or any country that may someday bow to & be succumed by Creationists.

Science of all types outlawed, Witches Hung or Burnt, Cats & Dogs no longer able to live in Sin, no parties, booze, sex, masturbation, Playboy magazine & Hustler gone, the list would go on....

I would love to argue with that guy who thinks he wins all those discussions on Utube... you know the one, the real Smug Creationist guy...

Love to see him try to skip round some real questions...lol

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet


Ugh. I gave you one REALLY BASIC ONE. Information theory.

So saturnine_sweet, you must be talking about Werner Gitt, William Dembski and Lee Spetner.

These guys use try to use Information Theory to show that evolution is wrong.

However:

Where Gitt Goes Wrong
A striking contradiction is readily apparent in Gitt's thinking- he holds that his view of information is an extension of Shannon, even while he rejects the underpinnings of Shannon's work

Source

Where Dembski Goes Wrong
So far, Dembski has applied Kolmogorov complexity to the Shannon information resulting from a single event. At least, other parts of the article imply he means Kolmogorov complexity, and he doesn’t state otherwise in this paragraph. Mathematically, there is nothing wrong with this, though the usefulness isn’t very clear at all. There is a big error in the final half of the last sentence, however:

…the complexity of information increases as I(A) increases (or, correspondingly, as P(A) decreases)

This is wrong. In general, there is no relationship whatsoever between the Kolmogorov complexity of a string and its probability of occurrence.

Source

Where Spetner Goes Wrong
So to summarize, although Spetner's arguments are superficially plausible, a deeper look with some knowledge of biochemistry shows massive flaws. Spetner is wrong in the details of the biology, ligand specificity is not directly governed by binding string length as required by Spetner's theory, and ligand binding is not an "all or nothing affair". This invalidates his analyses. Even then, Spetner's own examples do not support his claims. Furthermore, when using his metrics Spetner swaps metrics when one shows inconvenient changes.

Source

Ok ...

So saturnine_sweet .... Information theory doesn't work for I.D.

Do you have more examples of facts that support I.D.

I ask because you are sure there are and I can't find them ... and I am looking.

Thanks for your help!

reply to post by saturnine_sweet

But when we are force-feeding the religion of naturalism in our schools already, are you not alarmed? Just because we give it a name of science, that makes it ok? Sure reminds me of Homeland Security...Its not a rights violation if its about national security!

The current scientific explanation of evolution falls under science and science along with math, reading and grammer are the foundations of education.

Darwinism is the basis of our gene theory - yes this is the basis of our current scientific explanation for evolution. Medical Science, Animal Husbandry and our understanding of the role DNA plays in our genes has come a long way thanks to Darwin.

Darwin brought mankind out of the dark ages.

Personally I'de have every highschool kid read: The Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom, The Gods of Eden by William Bramley and The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot.

The main thing I tried to get across is children need to be taught to think for themselves.

On post:

1. Somewhere there is a list of distinguished scientists (over 1000 now) who disagree with evolutionary theory. I suppose those distinguished and qualified scientists would be considered anti-intellectuals in this thread.

2. IMO there is insufficient universal time for ERVs to create the variations of life on earth from the beginning. The argument reverses on itself. If the likelihood of the ERVs occurring in the right places at the right times in unquantifiable potential combinations is impossible, the argument falls flat. This assumption of ERVs, while it is a noble and well-presented argument, may lead to the chicken or egg argument, also.

3. I, and several others I have met through life who are, in many cases, very intellectual, have seen Christ in person. It becomes hard to rationalize away a Creator and his description of the events, after that happens. Now I am doing my best to fit the science together, like most Christians would do, I hope. It would seem that there is a logical choice given by Him: believe it or not. Usually these types of choices seem to be a test of how much you love him (like Deut 13:3), like the fruit in the garden of Eden. Having seen Him, and knowing it is ALL about love to Him, it would appear to be a test of love.

4. Obviously I favor the Creationist view. God made it that way.

reply to post by Ironclad


Yes I agree. Unfortunately New Zealand is under that threat too, though it's not as far gone as in the US.

AndI believe that guy on youtube is venomfangx. He's well nutz.

Originally posted by Jim Scott
1. Somewhere there is a list of distinguished scientists (over 1000 now) who disagree with evolutionary theory. I suppose those distinguished and qualified scientists would be considered anti-intellectuals in this thread.

Right there, RIGHT THERE you have already both missed the point of the thread and what I actually said.

There is nothing wrong with fundamentalist literalistic faith in genesis. What is wrong is the attempts by those people to suppress scientific knowledge by trying to have creationism taught in schools.

As long as the scientists don't so this, suppress science and encroach freethough, then they are not the anti-intellectuals that I was talking about.

Capesh!

Originally posted by Jim Scott
On post:

1. Somewhere there is a list of distinguished scientists (over 1000 now) who disagree with evolutionary theory. I suppose those distinguished and qualified scientists would be considered anti-intellectuals in this thread.

2. IMO there is insufficient universal time for ERVs to create the variations of life on earth from the beginning. The argument reverses on itself. If the likelihood of the ERVs occurring in the right places at the right times in unquantifiable potential combinations is impossible, the argument falls flat. This assumption of ERVs, while it is a noble and well-presented argument, may lead to the chicken or egg argument, also.

3. I, and several others I have met through life who are, in many cases, very intellectual, have seen Christ in person. It becomes hard to rationalize away a Creator and his description of the events, after that happens. Now I am doing my best to fit the science together, like most Christians would do, I hope. It would seem that there is a logical choice given by Him: believe it or not. Usually these types of choices seem to be a test of how much you love him (like Deut 13:3), like the fruit in the garden of Eden. Having seen Him, and knowing it is ALL about love to Him, it would appear to be a test of love.

4. Obviously I favor the Creationist view. God made it that way.

1. does this list say exactly what is about evotheory that they disagree with, and the counter evidence they provide for their opinions? If not, i could also say that there are 1000 people who agree with me that thunder is thor smacking frostgiants around in asgaard.

2. You're taking one part of it and saying that then invalidates the whole theory? that's not how it works bub. evotheory isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got right now and generally it's bang on.

3. congratulations. i too have seen one of my gods. I dont however believe that invalidates evotheory.

4. maybe they did and maybe they didn't, but there's no evidence they did so far......maybe someday there will be.


edit to add: i'd say goodwolf is right on about there being nothing wrong with people believing literally in genesis. and that the belief shouldn't be used to the detriment of science. however i dont know about free thought....i mean if we're really all about free thought we dont want to curtail their belief in genesis as a literal transcription. i'd say that what we(i'm using we as in society in general) want religion to stay in religion and science to stay in science, meaning it's cool you want to believe in genesis literally, but you're not allowed to teach it to the young in public school as if it's a stone cold fact backed up by science.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by optimus primal]

Originally posted by Jim Scott
On post:

1. Somewhere there is a list of distinguished scientists (over 1000 now) who disagree with evolutionary theory. I suppose those distinguished and qualified scientists would be considered anti-intellectuals in this thread.

Yes there are distinguished scientists who disagree with evolutionary theory. I posted this earlier. I posted that 5% of scientists believe in Christian Creation.

Maybe there is 1000 of them. 1000 is a very small number in comparison to how many scientists there are in the world. We are talking millions.

2. IMO there is insufficient universal time for ERVs to create the variations of life on earth from the beginning. The argument reverses on itself. If the likelihood of the ERVs occurring in the right places at the right times in unquantifiable potential combinations is impossible, the argument falls flat. This assumption of ERVs, while it is a noble and well-presented argument, may lead to the chicken or egg argument, also.

I think that you missed the point here.

ERV are used to show that human and chimpanzee have a common ancestor and therefore that evolution is fact.

I can't find a theory that says that ERV's are the basis for all life forms.

3. I, and several others I have met through life who are, in many cases, very intellectual, have seen Christ in person. It becomes hard to rationalize away a Creator and his description of the events, after that happens. Now I am doing my best to fit the science together, like most Christians would do, I hope. It would seem that there is a logical choice given by Him: believe it or not. Usually these types of choices seem to be a test of how much you love him (like Deut 13:3), like the fruit in the garden of Eden. Having seen Him, and knowing it is ALL about love to Him, it would appear to be a test of love.

I know and am friends with Christians who are very intellectual. This thread is not saying Christians are non or anti intellectual.

The existence of Christ and God does not contradict the theory of evolution nor vice versa.

Only a absolute literal interpretation of the Christian Bible contradicts evolution.

The Bible also contradicts a great many things.

reply to post by Horza


"I can't find a theory that says that ERV's are the basis for all life forms. "

and you wont, because there isn't one. of course you and i know that, but apparently there are those that dont. i think there's a lot of miscommunication that has been and continues to go on in debates related to this topic, and a lack of knowledge on the subject. it just goes to show how lacking our education system really is on it. maybe the next president will give us a little more money to correct this problem so society can move forward in debates like these.

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by lifeform

 

You get a star!! Find me one person that actually understands evolutionary theory that claims it explains the meaning of life. Evolution is a mechnaism for bio-diversity through adaptation. It does NOT disprove creationism or the existance of god . . . AND never claimed to.

The argument arises, when those that think this challenges their faith, have to "invent" new hypothesis to account for a creator . . . then want that hypothosis given equality with a time tested theory. Believe in a god or don't . . . just don't try to bring god to science.

I'm still waiting for a definition of ID that doesn't include the supernatural, which would put it into the realm of science, or any experiments that have given credence to a creator. Philosophy is a wonderous thing, but it doesn't belong in science class.

so you agree yourself evolution dos'nt explain how life started or that there is'nt a god.

so why are you against teaching creation in school? it would be no different to teaching the lightning striking 'soup' theory. creation dos'nt threaten evolution and visa versa, you would'nt be unteaching children about evolution is you taught creation.

they don't mix, they both try to explain different occurences.

we(including scientist) don't know how life started. who are you or anybody else to say people cannot learn of the possible scenerio's?

also, i like the way you try to paint me as a christian, i'm not. i just know we don't have the answers to certain things so i don't toss out the possibilites based on my religous or non religous beliefs.

people keep saying "but we are talking about evolution" so why was creationism even mentioned, or why was evolution offered as a better theory, when both explain different things.

believing in a creation possibility or being taught it is not anti-intellectualism like the thread title suggests. not understanding evolution is.

creation theories are overlooked due to people like yourself not seeing past the bible explaination. if anyone mentions a creation theory you instantly assume they are religous. wether you accept it or not creation is a possibility untill we know more, therefore should be given as one of the possibilities, wether in school or not and should'nt be overlooked.