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: 14
31
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


I feel protected!

It's like the Justice League of America!

Nice vid




posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Currently, the biggest faces of the creationist movement are

"Dr." Kent Hovind-See the thread that tops this forum for all you need to know

Ken Ham-Answers in Genesis and curator of the Creationist "Museum"

Ray Comfort and Kurt Cameron-Way of the Master

Michael Behe-Chief expert for the Discovery Institute

Of those, the only one who has a clue as to science is Behe. Sadly, Behe is a waste of a mind. Of the others, I'm sure it's a combination of their own ignorance willful or otherwise, and the almighty dollar. Each one of the first three bring in millions of dollars a year to their various ministries. Now, where have most court cases dealing with creationism taken place? The Deep rural South. Where are the most poorly educated citizens usually? The Deep rural South. I believe I see a cause and effect here. My friends who went to a normal high school managed to get out with a diploma without taking a formal class on physics or chemistry. The people I mentioned above prey on the uneducated. Of course they'll buy Evolution is the atheist's answer to God. That's why we have this kind of crap.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Considering the worst case scenario, could this be a NWO conspiracy, or just a political one, to secure general power over the people just to make them vote for certain parties. I don't know what to think about who might be behind this movement if there is someone.


probably has something to do with the political activeness of evangelical christians in america. where-ever there is a concentration of evangelicals you won't get elected if they're not on your side, so if they want creationism taught in schools and there is no good argument against it, politics allows it to be taught.

i'm not sure if it's because everyone else is not bothered to vote or because they don't vote collectivly, but either way i suspect this is at the heart of it.

it's very easy to blame the NWO but i think, realistically, the population as a whole has to take responsibility for the education system in any democracy. what you get out of it is proportionate to what you put into it.

you can't expect the education system to be world class if no-one is willing to pay for it and no-one is taking an active interest in how it is being run.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   
If it has not been created it does not exist.

If it does not exist it can not evolve.

Simple scientific logic.

Creation and evolution are only seperated in a time line, first it is created then it evolves.

If anyone knows of anything that has self created from absolutly nothing without an outside source of intent, or purpose and then evolved I would be very interested in this new and amazing scientific finding. (seriously)

Quantum theory requiers a creator to provide the intent to complete the equation.

Lateral evolution such as a bird that was born with a slight genetic abnormallity (birth defect) and developed a much shorter stronger beak that allows it to crack and eat nuts that others of its kind could not would expand its abillity to feed and have a better chance at survival and reproducing more genetically abnormal birds, that after some time may fail to resemble the birds they evolved from, but it is still a bird. This is sientific fact of lateral evolution.

Vertical evolution would have this bird evolve into a completely new creature such as a dog, cat or human. Vertical evolution is theory and has no scientific proof.

With that said, I would suggest that creationism should be viewed in an intellectual light rather than a religious light.



[edit on 30-10-2008 by deepred]

[edit on 30-10-2008 by deepred]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 05:51 AM
link   
I agree except for the fact that you can't really blame our stupidity on religion, though it adds to it. I'm pretty sure that's the government's doing, and they use religion as a catalyst. Good points were definitely made and I flagged and starred!



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by deepred
 


the universe?
or
god?
self awareness?
religion?

depends on weather we are we talking physical items or matters of abstract thought?

not that it matters, it doesn't make any difference weather we are discussing physical items or metaphysical, it could equally be argued that everything is a spontaneous random creation or that everything is created with intent depending on you philosophical disposition.

this philosophical debate involves neither science nor creationism because it is an attempt to answer unanswerable questions. science would claim no such thing has been shown to exist and creationism would claim such things should be left as they are, where they exist.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by deepred

Creation and evolution are only seperated in a time line, first it is created then it evolves.



We are not debating the anti-intellectualism of creation and neither are we debating the fact of creation.

We all know that creation happens ... we can all see the existence of the universe.

As the OP says, we are debating the anti-intellectualism of Creationism, the political/philosophical movement, who's agenda is that the literal Biblical account of creation should be taught as a scientific replacement/alternative to the Theory of Evolution.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by panda319
 


Hiya panda

Agreed ... we add our stupidity to everything don't we ...



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Horza
 


so people that believe that creationism is not anti-intellectual shouldn't say so?
strange point of view, why should skeptics be excluded from this discussion in particular?


[edit on 30/10/08 by pieman]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Horza
 


so people that believe that creationism is not anti-intellectual shouldn't say so?
strange point of view, why should skeptics be excluded from this discussion in particular?


[edit on 30/10/08 by pieman]


You also misunderstand pieman

deepred was talking about creation ... as in the creation of everything ... we are not debating creation being anti-intellectual, because creation cannot even be defined in those terms.

The OP is talking about Creationism ... the movement of Creationism ... any Creationist that wants to debate that Creationism is not anti-intellectual is, in fact by the definition of this format, warmly welcomed to put forward their side of the argument.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


Evolutionists claim that before the big bang there was nothing. The nothing somehow compressed to the size of a pin head and exploded and made everything. How is that science? That takes as much or more faith than I.D.


Creationists believe that before the big bang took place. A I.D exsisted outside of time and space and created eveything in our universe. He set laws where there was chaos. The very same laws that make science possible. Science doesnt prove or disprove God, God proves that there is science.


I want someone to show me where they took all the different combination of minerals, combined them and somehow created a self replicating single celled organism in a controlled enviroment.

I know change takes place over time but evolution doesnt explain origins.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Horza
 


excuse me, i misunderstood, deepest apologies.

reply to post by HooHaa
 


i'm sure evolutionary scientists claim nothing about the big bang, or if they do, it's not a professional opinion, only personal. i'm also sure that physicists either say they don't know or they think there was something, or they think there was nothing because.....they can't say there was nothing, full stop, because they haven't a shred of evidence for it.

[edit on 30/10/08 by pieman]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


I could not agree more.

And people wonder why the US is falling way behind in the areas of math and science. We as a society should not tolerate such non-sense. Creationism is a BELIEF, evolution is a SCIENCE...there is a big difference.


difference...?

scientists BELIEVE in so many things without proof, like big bang, dark matter, red shift, black holes... etc, etc

to me both sides look the same: unintelligent

they have so many dogmas which they cling on, but in the same time The Truth evades them




[edit on 30-10-2008 by donhuangenaro]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by HooHaa

Evolutionists claim that before the big bang there was nothing

reply to post by HooHaa
 


i'm sure evolutionary scientists claim nothing about the big bang, or if they do, it's not a professional opinion, only personal. i'm also sure that physicists either say they don't know or they think there was something, or they think there was nothing because.....they can't say there was nothing, full stop, because they haven't a shred of evidence for it.

[edit on 30/10/08 by pieman]


Too right there pieman.

HooHaa - pieman is totally correct in saying that evolutionary science has nothing to do with the big bang.

That is the realm of cosmologists.
source


Originally posted by HooHaa
I know change takes place over time but evolution doesnt explain origins.


Evolutionary science does not deal with the origin of life. It deals with the diversity of life.
Source

The study of the origin of life is called abiogenesis.
Source



Originally posted by pieman

excuse me, i misunderstood, deepest apologies.



no worries mate!

edit - formatting

[edit on 30/10/08 by Horza]

[edit on 30/10/08 by Horza]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by donhuangenaro


scientists BELIEVE in so many things without proof, like big bang, dark matter, red shift, black holes... etc, etc

to me both sides look the same: unintelligent

both sides have so many dogmas which they hold but in the same time The Truth evades them




There is a fundamental difference between the faith based belief of religion and the evidence based belief of science.

That difference is the ability to re-evaluate their beliefs on the basis of evidence.

A scientist may believe something because to them, the evidence that they have seen, thus far (and that is the important bit) shows them that their belief is fact.

If evidence is presented to them that proves that evidence and therefore their belief, incorrect, then the vast majority of scientists will change their minds or adjust their beliefs to fit the evidence that is considered to be fact.

A Creationist, the cast majority of them, will not change their faith based belief no matter what evidence is presented to them.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 
Strict creationists, who believe in a 6000 year old earth, base that beleif on the calculations of one Bishop Usher, who sat down with the the old testament and counting backward, using the geneolgies listed, the exact month, date and time the God created the earth. Not all Christians, including creationist, believe this. But there are believers out there that cannot accept tht science can show the earth is much older than the Good Bishop's calculations, because they would have to think, reason, and reconcile their beliefs with scientific findings. (I won't say fact, because it seems the scientific facts change daily.)
That being said, I do believe in Intelligent Design. There is something that set this universe in motion. Does this intelligent design(er) interfere with the universe? With the affairs of men? I don't know.
And there are some out there who will call me an idiot. That's fine, you are welcome to your belief. But I spent years thinking and studying religion and science, and asking quiestions. I was okay with evolution until I reached one point. I can't get past "First Cause." What started it all? Who started it all? The Big Bang can't explain it, because we don't know what was before the big bang.
Can somebody help me out?



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Since 12212012 is turning stale and Blossom Goodchild got sacked we turn our heads to religion and problems closer to home. I wonder what the next big distraction would be!

On topic: Yes i agree, But knowledge is just as good as the person that interprets it. The only problem is that those ignorant pigs that call themselves Christians have the biggest mouth and scream all day. This brings forth the problem that it reaches lots of ears. And if you listen long enough you might just start believing it.
What i am going for is not all Christians burn science books at rave parties, just a small portion.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   
It's no wonder that creationism is a laughable theory. After all, the science establishment has worked really hard to make sure it stays that way.

How many pro-creation students do you expect to make it through a 4-year science program at a major university, with professors who will instantly downgrade and ridicule anyone who asks deeper questions about evolution?

And if they did? Where will they get accepted to grad school? Who will agree to sit on their doctoral committee? How will they get grants? NSF and NIMH are going to actually fund creation research??

You can laugh at them for not getting published in mainstream journals, but you have to admit that "Science" and "Nature," "National Geographic," and "Smithsonian" are not going to print anything creaty unless it is specifically for the chance to rebutt creationism one more time.


You can dress it up as "anti-intellectualism," as long as you think intellectual is synonymous with the university research establishment. Many creationist "scholars" are fluent in the multiple languages of the Bible, and several I have conversed with are students of extemely complex religious documents like the Talmud, Gilgamesh Epic, Iliad, or Upanishads.

Hardly anti-intellectual.

Unless intellectual = corporate/university research establishment



my point is, it's hardly surprising if Creationists seem anti-intellectual, given the way they are ostracised from polite company. Sort of like in the original Planet of the Apes, where Charleton Heston is put on trial to defend humans agains the charge of being anti-intellectual.

The anti-creationists here sound like Dr Zaius, arguing that humans are unintelligent because they have no universities, no language of their own, no science, no archaeology, other than what the apes give them. Which is why taylor must be silenced with a lobotomy.....

.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Horza

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Horza
 


so people that believe that creationism is not anti-intellectual shouldn't say so?
strange point of view, why should skeptics be excluded from this discussion in particular?


[edit on 30/10/08 by pieman]


You also misunderstand pieman

deepred was talking about creation ... as in the creation of everything ... we are not debating creation being anti-intellectual, because creation cannot even be defined in those terms.

The OP is talking about Creationism ... the movement of Creationism ... any Creationist that wants to debate that Creationism is not anti-intellectual is, in fact by the definition of this format, warmly welcomed to put forward their side of the argument.



No my point was not about creation in general. I am saying that creationism is intellectual and by definition can not then be considered anti-intellectual.

I am saying both sides, the creationists and the evolutionists are both holding pieces of the same puzzle and then one cannot be considered intellectual if the other is considered anti-intellectual.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Horza
A scientist may believe something because to them, the evidence that they have seen, thus far (and that is the important bit) shows them that their belief is fact.

If evidence is presented to them that proves that evidence and therefore their belief, incorrect, then the vast majority of scientists will change their minds or adjust their beliefs to fit the evidence that is considered to be fact.




You mean like the great Sir Isaac Newton, who, as a member of the Royal Society, actively suppressed and destroyed evidence of meteorites, because he could not explain how mysterious hot stones stayed in the sky for thousands of years before randomly falling to earth?

Or the fact that before World War II, scientists had their careers ruined for advancing the pseudo-science of plate tectonics---now the "establishment dogma" only 60 years later?

Or maybe you are thinking of the warm reception given the few scientists who currently dare to question the dogma of global warming?


Yes, scientists are "Better" than everyone else at accepting new ideas, aren't they?



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join