Creationism's Legacy: Anti-intellectualism

reply to post by dr_strangecraft


You have just hit it on the head.

Creationism is automatically tied to religion by the so called intellectuals.

The intellectual elite have decided that creation is out and evolution is in.

If they would only open up and view it as scientific creationism and not shun it simply because it is a religious belief.

F@#k it man, lets go bowling

[edit on 30-10-2008 by deepred]

Originally posted by deepred

If they would only open up and view it as scientific creationism and not shun it simply because it is a religious belief.

If only. but don't hold your breath.

Heliocentrism in Europe was originally a religious proposition. Mystics like Giordano Bruno argued that the human body was an appendage of the soul, and that the Sun, as the life-giving "soul" of the system, was at the center, while the earth/human area was "off to one side." The church originally objected to Copernicus and Galileo because the Roman Church thought they were supporting heretics like Bruno, and not because of the scientific data itself.

What's the point? My point is that big ideas ALWAYS have political and social implications. Scientific and religious communities ignore this truth at their own peril. Today, scientists accept galileo and copernicus, but only the materialist facets of their work.

Science, while claiming to by a perennial martyr of religion, has now turned the tables and is now tormenting it's own intellectual grandparent.

Now, I'm not any more a fan of orthodox creationism than I am of orthodox evolution (which I used to teach). But one thing I'll say against the scientists-----they are woefully ignorant of the history of ideas, which is why so many of them are on a high horse when it comes to "pseudo-science."

Why is it that the "bible thumpers" are so much more well versed in the philosophy of science, than are the scientists themselves? I personally think it's because being an oppressed minority gives you perspective you don't get when you have favored political status. One of the only positive affects of a "pluralistic" culture.

.

.

Originally posted by Horza
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.

this Max Planck's quote explains what I mean about scientists (mainstream ones):

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”


to answer you:

I can agree on that...

...idealistically scientific progress is 'to search The Truth objectively', but you forgot The All Knowing Mainstream Scientists' (Unintelligent/Heavily Paid by Governments) EGO which ruins any chance of progress


Darwinists still didn't find 'The Missing Link' between ape and 'man' but they act just like the other side: primitively








[edit on 30-10-2008 by donhuangenaro]

reply to post by donhuangenaro


'Darwinists', or 'Biologists' as they prefer to be known, don't need to find the missing link to demonstrate the theory of evolution is correct. That's not how science works.

reply to post by dr_strangecraft


It would seem that religion has become a distraction to both the true believer and the scientific/intellectual communities.

Having read the Bible numerous times I decided to investigate it with a modern and open minded perspective, I am about two years in and am finding it to be THE most intellectual pursuit I have undertaken,not to mention laborious.

It is a shame that this book has been labeled and discounted as a religious work.

My point is because creation is mentioned in this book it has been labeled as anti-intellectual by the elite.



[edit on 30-10-2008 by deepred]

reply to post by deepred

?

creationistic belief or theory are you talking about?

one says god made it and can work in and around science happily, science cant disprove this even if it really cared enough to

i dont think there is anything objectionable about that and any one that did have a probelm is a muppet

god could have flicked a bunch of atoms and we get the biug bang, he could have picked the puddle of mud he shot lighting at for abiogenesis

creationism theory is the bible is exact and accurate protrayal of how life on earth got here

god points *poof* animals appear
god points *poof* plants appear
god winks *poof* stars in the heavens

this theory also states the earth is somewhere between 6-10,000 years old

now this theory has no proof or scientific basis it is purley faith based it should not be taught in school as an alternate to anything except in religeous education

and its this kind of thinking people are against in out places of eductaion, why simple the people pushing dont realsie that even though they may think they are fighting against biology but they are taking on a whole bunch of sciences geology archaeology astronomey astro physics chemistry

this thiery if it was to be taught suddenly turns 80% of science on its head all without proof

so do we lump everyone who beleives in some form of creation with the crazies above ..no the crazie brigade above are classed as anti-intellectualistic

so are you one of the crazies? are you sticking up for the crazies?

why should science open them selves up to somthing that isnt scientific? do you ask your hair dresser to build you a new house?

i wouldnt expect a theologian to be asked to open up and study advanced dna engenering it has no relevance to his field

why should they open up to the bible and not any and every other book, lords of the rings and many many other sci-fi/fantasy books have thier own creation myths too .. should they not also study those?

reply to post by dr_strangecraft


as much as i loved the analogy and the implicity irony in the mental image of some lone christian screaming out in defeat "you dam dirty apes" to a bunch of biologists

its flawed ...sorry

if 5% of scientists beleive in creationism
and 40% beleive in creationistic evolution i guess the men put on monkey suits and are taking over from the inside

45% of scientits believe in a god or gods, thats a fairly good percentage so ruins your whole analogy,

they have thier books and thier labs and if they cant give any proof for it they dont go around writing papoers on it, and why it should be taught despite the fact theres nothing to talk

the talking humans are agreeing with the apes

reply to post by dr_strangecraft

 

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

but they did change didnt they, it may not be at the speed of light but it changes

christianity still teaches Jerusalem was a great city at the heart of the most advanced mini empire around

dispite all historical and aracheological evidece saying at best it was your average town and nothing more advanced about it then any other town around that period or area ...when will religoen change that?



[edit on 30/10/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by deepred
My point is because creation is mentioned in this book it has been labeled as anti-intellectual by the elite.
[edit on 30-10-2008 by deepred]

its not the book its the people pretending its somthing it isnt that are the problem

they keep insiting its science or scientific or in some way of merit to science

its a nice story with some real way out drug crazed wierdness at the end, wouldnt have had so many irregualraties if it had been written by one hand not the hundreds that have had a hand in it but that still doesnt make it anything to with science

Originally posted by OldThinker
Good morning you two. Have you seen the movie EXPELLED with Ben Stein?

There is more to this story...

OT

You kind of just proved the point of the OP.

That movie is about as anti-intellectual as they come. It tries to pretend it is smart but can't even do that, with all these very strange and disorganized arguments it presents.

reply to post by deepred


While you say reading the bible and researching into it is a huge intellectual undertaking, it is a different type of intellectualism. I would count your undertaking as a philosophical, and not scientific in nature.

Archeologists have tried to validate the bible for years now... and have discovered for a book written by god, it sucks at geography.

Archeologists now believe that the bible wasn't even written by individuals familiar with the areas they were writing about, which, most likely means it was written by clerics in the dark ages...

There is not a single "first hand" account of the new testament anywhere... I know the bible claims its written first hand, but this is just not so...

Looking to the bible for scientific fact isn't objectivity. It equates to finding facts to fit your theory instead of finding all facts, and coming up with a postulate after discovering the facts.

"The Greatest Story Ever Told" is a work of pure fiction... and the fact that it has been "unchanged for 2000 years", as many people claim, is actually a sign of weakness when trying to look for scientific fact...

Would you use an encyclopedia from the 1800's as a basis of research in the 21st century? prabably not... you'd want the most recent set you could find... why? because the books change as discoveries are made...

Bible supporters try and change the discoveries to match their books...

If they don't have an adequate solution as to a discrepancy... than its easy... "The Devil put it there to make you question god's word"

reply to post by harrytuttle


I do want to state that it is possible to be intellectual when considering biblical for answers in science.

These people are called "Theologians", and they are very intelligent...

Intellect is not just confined to science, or people who don't believe.

Just thought I'd throw that out there... Just because you're religious, doesn't mean you can't be intellectual.

Originally posted by noobfun
one thing i would be curious to hear and as yet havnt come across(luckily?)

is how do the the 6 day 7-10 thousand year old earth believers explain those big burning balls of gas we call stars and the fact it takes many many thousand of years for thier light to get here

the answer would need to be a lot more complex then they are closer then we think they are

First off, it's farsical to think we know how far away stars are. The way they are measured are ridiculously flawed. For the distances to stars to be known, we would have to know positions in absolute space. The inverse square lwa also makes it impossible for light particles to travel as far as is claimed.

Originally posted by nj2day

Archeologists have tried to validate the bible for years now... and have discovered for a book written by god, it sucks at geography.

hahaha dam you NJ i nearly spat my coffee all over my monitor

welcome to the party ^_^ it seems you missed then fun of the first night its hit 15 pages in under 30 hours lol it was some fast and furious typing by all envolved

reply to post by noobfun


hehe I love religious topics

yah, after reading, I wish I had been here last night too... looks like you held the fort down pretty well

Originally posted by Masterjaden
First off, it's farsical to think we know how far away stars are. The way they are measured are ridiculously flawed. For the distances to stars to be known, we would have to know positions in absolute space. The inverse square lwa also makes it impossible for light particles to travel as far as is claimed.

we dont need to know 100% accuratley

the more accurate the better so the methods can have a built in percentage of innacuracy

im not to up on star measuring so ill go do some quick reading while you demonstrate how its wrong, how wrong it is and a mroe realistic distance of how far stars really are away(obviously not all of them but a few of the better knowns for comparrison would be nice

and also are you covering every method to guestimate a stars distance or just one specific one?

reply to post by nj2day


I don't know anyone looking to the bible for sceintific facts. People look to evidence and interpret that evidence with their perceived truth of the bible in mind. You do the same thing with your perceived truth that evolution is accurate and that the modern scientific paradigms are a close approximation of truth, you only have your faith in the infallibility of man and human reasoning to base your faith on and creationists only trust in the infallibility of God in their trust of using the bible as a lens.

Originally posted by Masterjaden
First off, it's farsical to think we know how far away stars are. The way they are measured are ridiculously flawed. For the distances to stars to be known, we would have to know positions in absolute space. The inverse square lwa also makes it impossible for light particles to travel as far as is claimed.

Actually its pretty easy to tell how far a way a star is... its simple trigonomotry (which may be an oxymoron... I haven't decided yet )

Parallax: You stand on a given point and measure how many degrees above the horizon a star is... then you stand on a different point on the earth and measure again.

After you know the measurements of the two points on earth, you can figure out the rest of the angles and determine distance using trig.

seems pretty accurate to me... you just have to measure them at the same instant...

once you know the distance, you can see how "old" the light is that you are looking at... (takes some time to travel, even at the speed of light). we'll call that X

Then you know the star you are viewing is X years old... after this, you can see what period of its "life cycle" the star is in... we know this because we've been studying the death of stars for a while now... We'll call the approximate age of the star as determined by examining the life cycle Y.

Now its X-Y = the approx age of the star you are looking at...

its not difficult... no magic or anything...

reply to post by nj2day


and heres funky little animated show on it

www.valdosta.edu...

www.valdosta.edu...

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by nj2day

 

I don't know anyone looking to the bible for sceintific facts. People look to evidence and interpret that evidence with their perceived truth of the bible in mind. You do the same thing with your perceived truth that evolution is accurate and that the modern scientific paradigms are a close approximation of truth, you only have your faith in the infallibility of man and human reasoning to base your faith on and creationists only trust in the infallibility of God in their trust of using the bible as a lens.

I would call it trust in the scientific method, not man. The scientific method is great because results achieved through these means are repeatable... The scientific method is blind to the wishes for a desired outcome that the human conducting the experiment might want.

Once you have the results from proper execution of the scientific method, there is not much open to interpritation. Either the results support your hypothesis, or they don't...

Belief that god is infallible results in circular logic... God is infallible because the book he supposedly wrote says he his?

That means he's infallible because he says he his... which goes back to the old joke...

There are 2 rules around here: 1) I am always right... 2) In the event I am wrong, (see rule number 1)

reply to post by noobfun


nice animations! That method of using parallax seems like it would be more accurate than 2 points on the earth simultainously... (you can do it on earth at the same time too... but you need hypersensitive measuring devices

reply to post by dr_strangecraft
Doc, you've hit the nail on the head. I've been trying to tell people the same thing in other threads. Mainstream science does not want to think outside the box. They are much like the old alchemists who convinced there were only 4 elements. When it was proven that air, fire, earth, and water were not elelments, they hung the scientisits.

The reason they don't want to deal with people who ask questions about creationism or intelligent design(and they are different concepts) is that the scientists might have to deal with something that doesn't fit inside their little paradigm.