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: 16
31
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   

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.


first sorry this is double dutch pretending to be phylosophical
it works on to many flawed assumptions


"Perceived truth that evolution is accurate" it isnt accurate ..well not 100% its work in progress but the work in progress is infinatley more provable then any other rival it has

"only have your faith in the infallibility of man and human reasoning to base your faith on" we accept mans flawed thats why science changes, we throw away what is deffinatley wrong and keep what maybe wrong at a later date but it the closest we have come to being right

you getting confused between religeons need to be right and sciences desire to be right

religeon has to be right or it doesnt work, a faulty defective god just wont prop the whole side show up

science can be wrong in fact it likes nothing more, when its wrong it gets to go be all nerdy again until it finds a more right answer then the one we have ...... recycle repeat for infinity or until we have a totally right 100% answer to everything .. but then science will become a religeon and we will all be sad




posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
What is intellect? It is the power of the mind to know or understand something rather than going by what one feels or wants. Basically, it is how a person interprets the evidence they observe. Creationism is religion based. Religion is faith based. Intellect, by its own definition cannot be used in religion.

Science is knowledge based. Observations must follow certain criteria and conclude with the same results each time. Sorry, but you are arguing apples and oranges. People believe in creationism by faith. When you try to make it follow a scientific formula, it fails. Christians need to stop apologizing for their beliefs. The Bible is the “Owner’s Manual” for Christians. The Bible is believed by faith not science. Faith and intellect are simply different ways of interpreting evidence.

A person can be intelligent, yet still practice their faith. I am ignorant on many subjects. I do not understand quantum physics, nor do I care to. It is not a necessary requirement for my daily life. I do, however, have knowledge in many other areas that have been needed to complete school, perform my job, and follow my various hobbies. I use intellect, just not where matters of faith are concerned.

Anti-intellectualism is not necessarily a bad thing. An anti-intellectual is a person who believes that actions and emotions are more important than intellect and reason in solving dilemmas and interpreting reality. They are not followers of modern academia. In other words, they are not necessarily unintelligent, they simply choose to not believe the status quo but find their own interpretations.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
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.



Actually science challenges people to constantly look outside the box... Its the religious suggestions (can't call them theories, as there is zero evidence to support them...) that refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't fit their dogma...

Think about it...are you open to the possibility that perhaps the universe is not being cosmically conducted by a magic man in the sky?

Science would be open to the hypotheses of religious groups if there was one minute shred of physical evidence to support it...

I tend to think that hard physical evidence should be able to trump 2000+ year old speculation...

The people who wrote those books wrote them and relied on them because there was no other way to understand the world and how it works...

now we have many of those questions figured out, and the religious still cling to the notion that these people were correct 2000 years ago, and all the scientific evidence isn't "real".



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by darkelf
 


Even though I'm on the non-believing side, I still disagree...

Theologians are very intellectual... and many of them actually accept evolution and other scientific theories that seem to debunk the existence of "god"

The difference being, is most use god to fill in the details there are no answers for...

I'm not prepared to close the doors to Intellectualness on the religious if they are honestly seeking knowledge, instead of seeking facts to piece together their 2000 year old beliefs. and it does happen...

Maybe I'm too generous?



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
Mainstream science does not want to think outside the box.


ever looked at string theory? it makes revalations make sense by comparison it is deffinatley outside the box and so are many other scientific hypothesies being looked at

they refuse to climb into the box marked relgon no evidence required which is what your point seems to be but thats a dangerous box once your in there you stop making sense in scientifc terms



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.
?? erm... what? the alchemists were the scientists sorry .. and they were presecuted by the church not each other


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.


ask a scientific question and youll get a scientific answer

or as my ole scince teacher used to say" there are no such things as stupid questions, just people stupid enough to ask them"

what questions of ID or creationism do we ignore? but what about bombardier beetles we explain the hows and the whys, what about blood clotting, we explain the hows and they whys, what about .....

you ask we give answers, people ignore or simply refuse to beleive the answers and 2 days later

what about the bombadier beetle?

they deal with stuff thats doesnt fit thier paradigm all the time thats how new thoeries happen, if our little paradignms werent challenged scinece would have stagnated and died long ago instead its still pushing forward

[edit on 30/10/08 by noobfun]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


another great example is the fact they look to the bible for answers...

The bible has been discredited as a reliable source of information many times over.

Its full of contradictions, geographical flaws and ideas stolen from religions they say are wrong. The identity of the authors who claim to have written the books has been proven to be inaccurate... Yet, they refuse to acknowledge these facts, and continue to press on as if the bible is infallible.

When shown all these facts about the bible, they most likely will say that it is not supposed to be taken literally, and instead taken figuratively.

Which leaves the symbology to be determined only by the faithful, and setting up an argument that cannot be refuted, because its open to interpretation, which can change on a whim...

There's something to be said for a method of truth seeking that is not open to interpretation. X equals X, that can stand up to critical thinking and objectiveness...

over 1000 years ago, someone wrote some books, people who challenged it's assertions were put to death...

Aristotle questioned his surroundings, and 2400 years later, we are still adding to and editing the findings of all scientists that came after Aristotle.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day

Theologians are very intellectual... and many of them actually accept evolution and other scientific theories that seem to debunk the existence of "god"

The difference being, is most use god to fill in the details there are no answers for...


Theologians use intellect to interpret Biblical evidence such as prophecy, doctrines, etc. . . . Yet there are proponents of both old earth belief and young earth belief in Christianity. Some believe in evolution, but not the theory.

Science has no room for God as He can not be measured, observed or quantified. Faith is God based. Theologians should use God to fill in the details unless they are trying to debunk Biblical beliefs.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by darkelf
 


Right, But I can't say they can not be intellectuals...

Quantum theory: Cannot be understood, even the top quantum physics experts will concede that point. We know the end results of an experiment, but cannot verify what is happening during the ordeal. People who study quantum theory by your definition are considered intellectuals, but it is impossible to understand, and many times hypotheses cannot be proven by technology currently available to us... but students of quantum are confident in their postulation, and believe that one day, their theories will be proven correct (and many times they are... black holes for instance).

Sounds a little like filling in the blanks with faith...

who am I to tell a theologian that the blank can't be his god... at this point his theory is just as valid as the quantum theorists...

Not to mention that your statement that they can't be intellectuals and science is intellectual can be paradoxical in nature...

Suppose a person is Religious... and suppose they are a scientist...

This is a minority case, I know, but if you're a student of the scientific method, all it takes is one exception to the rule to prove it false...

edit: spelling...




[edit on 30-10-2008 by nj2day]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by optimus primal
 


from the OP:
"This is only one reason why we cannot let creationism or ID to be taught in schools, especially in science class, or let anti-intellectualist fundamentals rise to power. It would be the beginning of the end for western society."

Outstanding arrogance aside in this post, ID is equated with creationism right off the bat. But its easier to deflect than answer the tough questions. Don't all of you zealot naturalists ever get tired of that game?

BTW...Im no christian. Facts are facts, and ID easily has more merit than evolution, by the facts alone.


Well, what I have not seen is anyone explaining what those facts are. Please list them. As science does thank you very much.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by amazed
 


I don't think he was agreeing with ID... but maybe I'm wrong...

ID does have more merit than Creationism, simply because ID takes Evolution, and claims that a magic man planned it that way, instead of it happening by natural selection...

at least in ID, scientific laws and theories are considered... however its just a reaction to science disproving the creation myth...



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   
@nj2day: Check out this line from the above post:

ID easily has more merit than evolution

No, he's straight up saying ID has more merit than evolution, not that ID includes evolution. Apparently, the man who swaggers in with the point that ID and creationism are different then immediately sticks his foot in his mouth by stating that they're essentially the same thing from his POV, as there's no room in his definition of ID for evolution...


[edit on 30-10-2008 by '___'eviant]

[edit on 30-10-2008 by '___'eviant]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by '___'eviant
 


oooh I see what I did LOL sorry for the confusion... I need more coffee...


But I.D. doesn't have more merit than evolution... if it does, show me how?

Edit: Fixed to correct my own muddled and confused post
like I said... more coffee





[edit on 30-10-2008 by nj2day]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by amazed
Well, what I have not seen is anyone explaining what those facts are. Please list them. As science does thank you very much.


you wont find them, there simply is no theory of ID

The premise is its too complicated for somthings to exist so they need to find what they call 'irreducible complexity' meaning it couldnt have evolved, until they find this complexity without it it being shown to exist in part in other life forms it is no more relevant although has slightly better odds then my theory an intergalactic ant sneezes and we(life on earth) are the result

its an hypothesis and can simply be sumed up as 'god made it' they know what they need to find to remotley validate this claim

it also seems they (some of the more scientific minded of the bunch*)dont want it taught in schools or dragged around the press becasue it simply isnt up to the job of facing down science in its present state. all the crusading christians waving it around are doing it more harm then good they are discrediting the theory before it could even become one

i still say they they are wrong but they are playing the rules of the game not just trying to make them up or force them to fit thier point of view which give them a thumbs up from me for effort


*www.intelligentdesign.org...



[edit on 30/10/08 by noobfun]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by '___'eviant
 


I wasn't responding to the OP...

But I.D. doesn't have more merit than evolution... if it does, show me how?




It doesn't. That's what I'm saying. At least, with my edited post that should have been clear... Sorry if it didn't come across that way.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Have you ever heard of 'wolves in sheep's clothing'?
Christians aren't perfect like Jesus, but, they try.(most of them)
The thing is, JESUS HELPS us to overcome evil, if we want Him to.



Ok, I was not going to reply to you but here goes anyway.

I call crapeola on your statement. Most christians that I know are hypocritical, racist, judgmental, self serving small minded people. They run around thinking and acting like they are better than everyone else, pushing their opinions on others as if it is the only opinion that matters.

They run around trying to save souls as if that will get them into their heaven, when I really think that "religion" and those that try to shove it down others throats are the "wolves in sheep's clothing".

I am far less "evil" that most christians that I know, why? Because I do not run around judging people on what they believe, making accusations and pretending to be better than they are just because of my beliefs. Their are a multitude of other reasons but that would take ten pages to list. You get my point.

I believe that "religion" is "evil", spirituality does not entail the horrors that have been hammered onto humanity all in the name of some religion or other. Spirituality includes the relationship on ONE person with his/her GOD/GODDESS etc. Big difference in my thinking.

Get a grip, save your own soul, meaning stop the judgmental, self serving, racist, small minded, hypocritical thinking.

Oh, and to another person that called me "a good man..." it just so happens that I am a woman.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I asked, way back on page 4, for any of this "proof" that ID is better than evolution . . . I've asked to see these "facts" or any experiment pointing towards design.

Yet the best offer anyone has given, has been Information Theory, yet when I asked HOW Info Theory pertains or points to a creator . . . silence.

So . . . 12 pages later. Tell us PLEASE about these "facts" and how it sums up bio-diversity and speciation better than Evolutionary Theory.

Someone . . . post these better alternative and explain to me WHY? PLEASE?



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
The thing that drives me nuts about this whole debate is that the IDers, and Creationists don't understand what science is about, and don't seem to understand what a theory is...

Science doesn't have to disprove ID or Creationism (Even though Creationism has been debunked). Just because we don't have every step of human evolution, and they claim we need a missing link to complete the theory doesn't invalidate the theory itself...

Science looks at the information available... and draws a conclusion based on that information. It does not take a conclusion, and find facts to support it...

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.

What a layperson defines as a theory, science defines as a Hypothesis.

The missing link they claim we're missing... Well, when we have the first set of skeletons showing evolution all the way from apes to man... The theory will become a Scientific Law...

IDers and Creationists that want their hypotheses to be considered a valid theory... show me your data set and we'll talk...



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by amazed
Get a grip, save your own soul, meaning stop the judgmental, self serving, racist, small minded, hypocritical thinking.


feel better now? nothing like a good rant to ease the tension in your shoulders

not all christians are bigots and hate mongers, it just seems there seems to be a corelation between how serious you take the bible as accurate historical proof and your level of bigoted racism

i can introduce you to more then a few christians around here who arnt racist homphobic or sexist clowns, yes some of them actually act like a jesus loving christian (Old thinker wave for the nice lady so she knows who you are)

but clear is one of the special ones, the only differance between this kind of fundamentalism and islamic fundamentalism seems to be they are so busy insulting and berating every one they dont have time to go blow them selves up and meet thier maker

i came close to out right ranating myself but managed to hit the delete key instead of enter on my more ..interesting language and opinions


Oh, and to another person that called me "a good man..." it just so happens that I am a woman.
dont worry we wont hold it against you


and remeber wo-man still has man in it .... even though biologically its man that has some women in them .... go figure ^_^

[edit on 30/10/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 30/10/08 by noobfun]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


The reason you haven't been given any 'facts' is because there aren't any. And any that might be given would not indeed be facts, but instead would be opinion. This thead has made me ponder another question, which I have started a thread concerning it. That question is: Christian Theocracy: Has the U.S. already 'jumped the shark'? I think that clearly christian doctrine and dogma has replaced free thought and individualism. Why study, learn and question everything when someone can just tell you what to think and what to believe? This actually surprises me, as we were clearly on the opposite track just three decades ago.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by optimus primal
reply to post by riggins44
 


i'll answer your last question, as it's most pertinent to the discussion at hand.
why not teach both in science class? well creationism is not science. it pretty basicly says : god created everything the end.
where as evolutionary theory says : this is how we think diversity arises, and here is the evidence we have gathered since it's first advocacy by darwin. we may be entirely wrong, and if you've got different evidence that we can test as we have with the evidence we have, we'll seriously consider your evidence and theory.

do you see the difference?


NO NO and NO, we should not teach in the public school system along side science creationist/ID ideology. Come up with a better scientific view than what we have and teach that. SCIENCE should be taught with SCIENCE.

Spirituality and scientific studies should NOT ever be taught side by side. If you want your child to studly spirituality or religion teach them at home or send them to a private school that will teach your view of things.

Personally, I feel that schools could have a class that teaches multiple views in regards to religion and spirituality. But if this were to happen, then ALL religious beliefs should be discussed and not just one or two. Get my point?

I have no problem with a course of studies that incorporate the ideals of all religious and spiritual beliefs. I actually feel it would be beneficial, and open the minds of humanity to have at least a rudimentary understanding of where others come from in regards to their religious and spiritual thinking.




top topics



 
31
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join