Creationism's Legacy: Anti-intellectualism

reply to post by DangerDeath


it hurts it hurts make the bad man go away please


creativeness is easily explained by evolution, abstract thought allows you to plan things, to envisage what you would need to solve problems (like how to beat that animal to death without it chewing your leg off)

its a mental survival ability

its pretty dam simple really

sorry what? how in gods name does science disprove ethics? ethics is a man made control system to add responsability to ones choices and actions

i should think scinece is a fan of man made things wouldnt you ?>

sorry your posts wolly thinking and mis-information with no relevance to the topic or posts prior to your own

reply to post by sirbikesalot06


It was late August/early September . . . and it was an editorial by Micheal Shermer. He talked about his interview, in reality, with Stein . . . where he was clearly trying to lead Shermer and several racist remarks he made while giving the interview. Shermer then gave a synopsis of what ended up in the movie, from the original interview . . . appears Stein's editors did a hatchet job to make Shermer look like the "nervous lawyer" that Martin Short used to do on SNL.

Yes Intelligent Design is a disproven theory. I remember watching a 90 minute Nova Show about it and in court, it was proven that it was a remake of Creationism.
I hate to say it, but people who lack doubt in God, tend to destroy society to the good old days when we threw out our waste into the streets, rode horses and believed that lighting was way god punnished us.
For those of you who don't understand a mindset of a god forcing person, please read the bible word for word. Now remove the ideals of science, (science facts) from your mind for they are the work of an anti god. Look they are disproving Adam and Eve, even though they for get of Lillif, you know the girl who came from the other rib. LOL

Our short life spans fail to show us evolution to our own eyes. We do see it in the Fossil record. Even though Darwin tried to use Evolution for eugenics purposes, doesn't make Evolution a true theory. Give our civilization a few million years, well then start to believe it. LOL

I believe in God and do believe in Intelligent Design. But I also do believe in Evolution. I bet with more research, we'll figure it out between those amino acids were actually evolving in those containers.

Also, don't worry about Texas. He's actually setting up for a big lawsuit that the state will not want to pay for it. So I'm not worried, and neither should you be.

Originally posted by DangerDeath
Because I'm sick of this false dilemma and false discussion between "creationists" and "non-creationists" who, none of them, know what they are talking about.

The fact that some dogmatic people claim that everything is in the Bible is used to promote this kind of charade by those who naively (or mischievously) believe that science has already said its last.

So, when I ask some really creative questions, I get goggled...

Just as I thought so...

dd

What are you talking about . . . what "creative" questions did you ask that are relevant to the discussion? Goggled? What's that and how can I avoid doing this to anyone in the future? This thread is specifically about the Creationist/ID agenda and if it promotes anti-intellectualism? What say you on this topic?

reply to post by prestonberryworth


I started to read your post, but after a few needless injections of politics, I stopped...

Debate on these subjects are very important, we are about Denying Ignorance here, nothing is a bigger denial of ignorance than challenging the notion that you must sacrifice the objective knowledge that science gives us to operate functionally within a religious dogma...

Originally posted by DangerDeath
Science gives us following evidence:

For a couple of million years there was Homo Erectus, whose brain was growing for all that time, but he was using same primitive tools without being able to use the apparent advantage of enlarged brain.

So, what is this thing about evolution? Where is the intelligence coming from, the size of a brain?

D.D. You may find this thread interesting:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Some of the earliest human remains (100,000 years old) have been found surrounded by thousands of empty middim (shellfish) husks leading to speculation that man was semi aquatic in nature and the long chain fatty acids in said foods facilitated,through the mechanism of schizophrenia,the awareness of consciousness (or creative intelligence) in our primate nature"

Cheers Karl

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by karl 12

love the aquatic ape thoery ^_^

i seem to remember a few years back there was some work bieng done with higher primate who had been taught to communicate through sign language or a pictographic system were displaying signs of basic self awareness

it was in a couple of tv documentaries years ago so i cant pull the proof of this sorry but that would date the formation of conciousness to a common ancestor further back then the origins of the aquatic ape

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
However, the idea of God the Creator is not. Mainstream science does not explore the existence of things prior to the creation of the known Universe, because it can not.

There is equal merit both for and against God the Creator. And right now it belongs mostly do the domain of philosophers and mystics.

Actually the probability for the existence of a creator is very tiny. Anyways, "GDI" cannot explain the creation of the universe because it leaves the giant question; "Who created God"?

Philosophers can't explain the origin of the universe because grand truths do not flow from mere wordplay or thought.

Mystics cannot because grand truths do not flow from ignorance.

That leaves science.

I'll try to be short...

I've read Desmond Morris and some of the articles about this aquatic origin of men... But this is all about causality and mixing Lamarck and Darwin.

Theory of evolution only claims (observes, to be more precise) that living beings adapt to changes in environment. Everything else that is added to this theory is often of some ideological origin and creates great confusion in people's minds...

There have been found five skulls in Ethiopia recently, one of a grown man and four from children, 160 000 years old. This adult's skull is 10% bigger than today's average human skull. So, if some think that evolution means growing of brain, this proves the opposite. Such belief is not scientific, it is ideological.

As for the "design" theory of creationists, the claim that God, which is an abstract being of force, bothered with human physiology instead of creating a being capable of understanding creation and being connected to its creator - I believe this is the cause of such deep rift in non-intellectual argumentation.

I believe that both such sides don't understand what creationist theory really means.

To place the act of creation in space/time continuum is wrong, creation doesn't happen in time. It is the creation of the whole world, not just men, but not in historical sense or perception. It did not happen the way it was described in the Bible...

Originally posted by DangerDeath
I'll try to be short...

Theory of evolution only claims (observes, to be more precise) that living beings adapt to changes in environment.

This is incorrect... You should re-read darwin's publications.

If you include predation in your statement about Changes in the environment, then you might have a sliver of truth...

However, the predator-prey relationship cannot be summed up properly in this manner... Predation is one of the most important aspects of natural selection, as in, only the strong survive... so an animal that evolved a slight advantage, would live on to spread their genes to another... which in the course of time makes the trait he evolved all but universal for that species. However, at the same time, the opposite end of the predator/prey relationship is doing the same thing, making it nessesary for a defense mechanism, or a counter-measure to keep the status quo...

This is natural selection, not changes in the enviroment.

You also forget to mention Sexual Selection. In sexual selection, members of the same species but opposite sex, might develop a trait that makes them more desirable to the opposite sex. Therefore, they reproduce more, and their genes get added over time to the entirety of the gene pool.

Here, let me fix your statement for you:

Theory of evolution claims (observes, to be more precise) that living beings adapt to changes in environment, predation and natural selection pressures, and sexual selection pressures present in the population.

There, that work better?


edit: spelling errors... sorry

[edit on 30-10-2008 by nj2day]

Originally posted by DangerDeath
To place the act of creation in space/time continuum is wrong, creation doesn't happen in time. It is the creation of the whole world, not just men, but not in historical sense or perception.

How convenient that your god does everything "outside the timeline"... therefore making it completely impossible to refute...

how do you know he is outside the timeline? From what I remember after reading the bible about 6 times over the years, is that the book never once touched on Quantum Physics...

This argument is called apologetics.

Remember the difference between science and religion... Science takes a series of observations, and develops a hypothesis, which is then rigorously tested and tested... if all experements confirm the hypothesis is correct in almost all instances, it can then be upgraded to a theory.

Religion, takes an idea, and seeks to find supporting arguments...

see the difference? Science starts without presumption on the results.

It did not happen the way it was described in the Bible...

now THAT, I can agree with.

It seems between last night and today this discussion has "evolved" to a debate over "theory", once again. So, I'll try to bring it back somewhat . . .

I'll pose a different question off of the OP . . .

While I'll agree the legacy is "anti-intellectualism", is this a broader issue in communication amongst the masses. Is this nothing more than the "average joe" not knowing the difference between opinion and fact? We've delved into the realm of it being a "push" . . . but, is this push due to zealous belief and evangelic fervor OR is this simply not understanding what a "fact" or what "evidence" is?

Sure . . . anti-intellectualism is the umbrella that this confusion would fall under, but is this "push"'s intent malicious or the folly of the simple?

For an example . . . look no further than this thread or any message board. This whole thing is one big opinion piece . . . Some opinion based on fact/evidence (and supported through documentation) and some opinion based on belief structure. When I read post's . . . I don't need for someone to tell me . . . "This is my opinion" because I expect that it is. If someone says they have proof or a better way . . . I always ask them to back that up with a reference . . . otherwise, to me, it stays opinion. However, we've all seen those that state opinion w/o reference and fail to respond to calls for evidence. We have seen those that get mad because they feel (by telepathy?) that someone who makes a direct post is stating a "fact" (or trying to), even when they make no claim to.

So . . . if I haven't lost anyone (which I doubt) . . . We already know that most, if not all, proponents of C/ID don't understand the actual meaning of "Theory" or "Hypothesis" and misuse both to suit their needs. Is it also the case that they don't understand the difference between opinion/fact . . . therefore, unwittingly, think they have a legitimate claim to make? OR . . . do they know that C/ID have no business in Science, however, force it there anyway?

Did any of that make sense?

reply to post by solomons path


I would say there is no such thing as their religion "not having a place" in anything they do.

Their belief system seems to hinge on letting religion control all aspects of their lives... They feel that they need to have god in all they do...

this being said, they also feel it is their mission to preach the good word to everyone... especially those who "doubt".

with this being said, the possibility of them not knowing it doesn't have a place in schools/buisness is nil...

This discussion has been a few steps above most of the threads on the origins board. I'm still reading through the last few pages to get caught up.

Shout out to noobfun. Nice work, you've contributed a lot of sanity to this thread.

reply to post by nj2day


First . . . I agree with everything you've said. However, I'm wondering if the "average" follower knows that it's bunk? I know they are indoctrinated to believe it's a real "science" . . . but do they really know or do they confuse opinion with fact? Do they know the difference between evidence and supposition OR is their intent really malicious?

reply to post by solomons path


They don't know its bunk I'm supposing...

I think Dawkins in one of his books put out that they compartmentalize discrepancies between science and their faith, meaning they isolate the two in their brains... never comparing one to the other...

This is the best way of putting it that I can think of...

But who can blame them, once you compare the two, and realize that your religious beliefs can't hold water... its a life changing, and pretty scary moment...

I've lived through it, as I'm sure most people who chose reason vs. myth have...


[edit on 30-10-2008 by nj2day]

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by nj2day

 

First . . . I agree with everything you've said. However, I'm wondering if the "average" follower knows that it's bunk? I know they are indoctrinated to believe it's a real "science" . . . but do they really know or do they confuse opinion with fact? Do they know the difference between evidence and supposition OR is their intent really malicious?

I do not believe that "the average follower knows it bunk", they believe it 100%. I also don't believe that the average follower does not know the difference between theory and hypothesis.

I think it just does not matter to them, as to christian creationist/id they are "right", end of story no debate no question. They do not "confuse" opinion with facts. Because to them the bible is "fact" and not opinion. No confusion to them.

My experience (family and friends who are pushing for creationism to be taught in the school system), is that they are aware that creationism has nothing to do with science, they only care that the belief system is "true and factual" and therefore should be taught in the school system instead of, or at least along with evolution etc. With the thought that evolution is just an opinion (yes, yes I know an oxymoron in the face of their belief system being factual in their eyes) and really has no bearing, nothing to see here now let's move on to oohhhhh creationism the "real" truth.

ggrrr I am having a hard time replying to this and have rewritten my reply at least a dozen times.

In trying to have discussions with those around me that I know, my emotions heat to the boiling point, no explaining that evolution does not try to explain the beginnings of life ever seems to matter, as god created the heavens and the earth, sometime around 7-10 million years ago, he did so in 6 days and rested on the 7th and we are all exactly now as we were then, and Satan has added things to the earth to confuse humanity and test our faith.

To them (christian creationist/id), evolution has been debunked, the bible says so. End of story, no confusion in regards to what a theory or hypothesis is. Because to them, to question what the bible tells them is "true" is to question their faith in god, and bring his wrath down upon them and therefor lose their place in heaven.

How do you argue with that?

I hope I communicated what I am trying to explain better than I think I did.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by amazed]

Originally posted by nj2day
How convenient that your god does everything "outside the timeline"... therefore making it completely impossible to refute...

Well, surely something is outside of our timeline, which makes our own existence impossible to imagine.

Originally posted by nj2day
how do you know he is outside the timeline? From what I remember after reading the bible about 6 times over the years, is that the book never once touched on Quantum Physics...

Most who believe in creationism would say that the creator would have to be outside of our timeline. Afterall, he created everything including our timeline, so it's not at all a stretch.
Just as a 2 dimensional being might see us as 'outside' their dimensions, even though in reality we are outside and inside.

Originally posted by solomons path
, I'm wondering if the "average" follower knows that it's bunk? I know they are indoctrinated to believe it's a real "science" . . .

twice ive gone head to head against clearskies over the issue of Darwin being racist and bot time she has used exactly the same quotes despie us proving they arnt racist in the slightest

i get the feeling its done similar with the evil atheist crap

associate athiest with evil like the whole hitler thing, stalin was an atheist and he wa evil, pol pot an evil athist ... its low grade brain washing through repatition so then when an athiest appears auto connection to evil must argue against same with Darwin evil athiests attack (dispite he was ctually a priest )

i think its the same with the thercrap its associated with negativity and a nice list of websites to go look at, and if those websites just happen to be in copy paste sound bite format so much the better


suddenly you have a whole propganda army rampaging around firing off the faulty sound bites with malicious intent

not knowledgable enough to dicuss the topic but zealous enough to stand and fight to thier dying breath to save the world from our percieved evilness

thats why over and over every thread that relates to evolution some idiot says Darwin was racist then someone else says nazi's liked evolution

reply to post by TruthParadox


Time and space can't exist without each other... where there is space, there is time... so the assertion that something is outside of time doesn't work... if its outside of time, it can't exist... (You should read Steven Hawking's "A Brief History Of Time"... It is truly fascinating)

(I actually started to type up the proofs for that above statement, but that leads me WAYYY of topic, so I deleted it... If you have questions, Check out Hawkings.)

You spoke of different dimensions... Different dimensions can and do exist. (I'm speaking scientifically, not parallel universes) However that is yet another looong drawn out conversation on Quantum...

The fact that people believe that something must have created everything is the result of a natural human instinct to quantify, or reject that which cannot be quantified.

The human mind never evolved to understand true infinite... why should it, the mind only needs to be concerned with what is necessary for survival, not quantities of vastness...

anyway, This has led me WAAAY off topic... If you feel like re-butting this, go ahead, its fair... but in the best interest of staying on topic, I shouldn't respond back...