Creationism's Legacy: Anti-intellectualism, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 31 times

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 10:57 AM by OldThinker

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by OldThinker

Yes and it's creationist propaganda, nothing more.

Thunderf00t has the floor:

And that's just the tip of proverbial iceberg.

[edit on 10/29/2008 by Good Wolf]

[edit on 10/29/2008 by Good Wolf]

Thank you for the youtube clips, I looked at the first one…will review the final two later. I have to tell you the accusatory tone calling Stein a ‘fool’ over and over doesn’t present the most intellectual milieu for open discussion…

It’s disappointing to me that most are either/or…why can’t it be both?

Faith and Science together......like these 25 great ones below?

Who they were (what they discovered) what faith they were.

Isaac Newton (the Newtonian Revolution) was Anglican.

Neils Bohr (the Atom) was Jewish, then Lutheran.

Louis Pasteur (the Germ Theory of Disease) was Catholic.

Galileo Galilei (the New Science) was Catholic.

Antoine Laurent Lavoisier (the Revolution in Chemistry) was Catholic.

Johannes Kepler (Motion of the Planets) was Lutheran.

Nicolaus Copernicus (the Heliocentric Universe) was a Catholic Priest.

Michael Faraday(the Classical Field Theory)was Sandemanian.

James Clerk Maxwell (the Electromagnetic Field) was Presbyterian; Anglican; Baptist.

Werner Heisenberg (Quantum Theory) was a Lutheran.

Linus Pauling (Twentieth-Century Chemistry) was Lutheran.

Erwin Schrodinger (Wave Mechanics) was Catholic.

Andreas Vesalius (the New Anatomy) was Catholic.

Tycho Brahe (the New Astronomy) was Lutheran.

Max Planck (the Quanta) was Protestant.

Marie Curie (Radioactivity)was Catholic.

OT

PS: TIME and CHANCE are far from scientific, right?

Edit: spelling

[edit on 29-10-2008 by OldThinker]

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 10:59 AM by pieman

reply to post by Good Wolf

yeah, i misunderstood. sorry about that.

i do think evolution is compelling, really do, i just don't think it can be considered fact. creationism has more holes but hasn't been shown as false definitively. this is what i was pointing out, perhaps so forcibly that i nullified my point.

again, my point is that there are no origin theories that can be called facts, therefore evolution should not be given priority over any other origin theory outside of context.

it should be pointed out more, when science is being taught, that there are no scientific facts, only probabilities, and each theory should be quantified according to it's probability when it is published.

[edit on 29/10/08 by pieman]

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 11:04 AM by dave420

reply to post by pieman

Nope, evolution happens. That is a fact. We have witnessed it in laboratories. We have seen one species turn into two. Therefor, it is certainly a fact. What isn't a fact is our current theory on how it happens, the 'Theory of Evolution'. That is not fact. But, so far, not one single piece of evidence has been found that disproves it, even though this evidence is able to be found if it exists. The difference between that and creationism is evidence against creationism cannot exist, as creationism isn't a scientific hypothesis. It is not well-defined, and can constantly be shifted to suit whatever evidence is found.

The Theory of Evolution = science: falsifiable, supported by evidence
Creationism / ID = religion: unfalsifiable, supported by dogma

Keep science in science classes and religion in church. Then we have no problems.

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 11:08 AM by OldThinker

Here's just a FEW more scientists who were followers of God...

This debate holds no water...

ANTISEPTIC SURGERY
JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)

BACTERIOLOGY
LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

CALCULUS
ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)

CELESTIAL MECHANICS
JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)

CHEMISTRY
ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)

COMPARATIVE ANATOMY
GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

COMPUTER SCIENCE
CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)

DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)

ELECTRONICS
JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)

ELECTRODYNAMICS
JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)

ELECTRO-MAGNETICS
MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)

ENERGETICS
LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)

ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS
HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)

FIELD THEORY
MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)

FLUID MECHANICS
GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)

GALACTIC ASTRONOMY
WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)

GAS DYNAMICS
ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS
GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)

GLACIAL GEOLOGY
LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)

GYNECOLOGY
JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)

HYDRAULICS
LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)

HYDROGRAPHY
MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)

HYDROSTATICS
BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)

ICHTHYOLOGY
LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)

ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY
WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)

MODEL ANALYSIS
LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)

NATURAL HISTORY
JOHN RAY (1627-1705)

NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY
BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)

OCEANOGRAPHY
MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)

OPTICAL MINERALOGY
DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)

PALEONTOLOGY
JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)

PATHOLOGY
RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)

PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY
JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)

REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS
JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)

STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS
JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)

STRATIGRAPHY
NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)

SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY
CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)

THERMODYNAMICS
LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)

THERMOKINETICS
HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)

VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY
GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 11:10 AM by Good Wolf

reply to post by OldThinker

He calls Stein a fool because he is. Stein makes totally foolish claims. But these vids aren't simply ad hominem because thunderfoot demonstrates how Stein is wrong as well as ad hominems. The point is that Stein is demonstarbly wrong and then called a fool. Tough but fair.

And if you look at when those people practiced science you'll find that most of them were around before the theory of evolution. But you are right many scientists do believe in god, but only a tiny amount of scientists believe in creationism.

Your missing the whole point of this thread.

[edit on 10/29/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 11:10 AM by karl 12

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by karl 12

OH MAN, that's pretty much the same conversation that my christian dad had with me when I was little. Fortunately a love of science that I had made me "get real" as it were. Thanks for that.

I´ve had similar conversations myself

I think out of all the creationist quotes and quips,this one is my personal favourite:

"I have determined, after extensive surveying, tabulation, and data analysis, that the average creationist in the US earns $21,387.29 in family income; owns 1.2 cars; 1.8 TV's, and 2.3 kids; and has, at some stage answered to the name "Bubba". He has less than one year of college. Yet he knows more about paleontology than Bakker or Horner (or he thinks that what they know is wrong--same thing). He knows more about the definition of evolution than Gould or Dawkins. He knows more about Biology than Dobzhansky or Mayr. He knows more about cosmology Hawking, Smoot or Witten and more about fossils than Jhanson or the Leakeys. He knows more "true" geology than geologists, more psychics than physicists, more astronomy than astronomers--and more about everything than atheists like Asimov or Sagan"

Cheers Karl

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 11:13 AM by OldThinker

reply to post by Good Wolf

Thanks,

good points!

OT

Still wish it all was more civil?

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 11:18 AM by pieman

reply to post by dave420

oh ffs, the theory of evolution is not, not not a fact and should not be taught in isolation, it should only be taught in relation to the other theories that use it extensively.

as long as you teach the theory of evolution as a stand alone item, i would include the big bang here, you have to teach alternative explanations.

it seems to me that there are two possible solutions, either quantify the probability of all theories and only use the highest probability or teach no origin theories at all.

the teaching of anything as a scientific fact, especially in this case, is anti intellectual. to single out creationism is wrong.

i have absolutely no interest in discussing the merits of creationism as opposed to evolutionary theory. it is a waste of time, way off topic, i am not qualified enough to discuss either constructively and i don't hold with either opinion.

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 11:20 AM by Good Wolf

reply to post by pieman

Well think about this then, Evolution does occur, we have seen it in the lab, but theory is the highest level of "True-ness"you can get in science, that's why gravity and atoms are still theoretical. The reason for this is that absolute truth regarding the laws of nature is unattainable by us. Evolution is still being examined by biologists, paleontologists, etc so the theory as it stands is a collection of facts (like speciation, mutations and natural selection) and hypothesis pertaining to the areas still being studied. So we can't call it fact, only theory.

[edit on 10/29/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 11:23 AM by pieman

reply to post by karl 12

expertise nor intelligence are any yardstick to measure realism of belief, or in other words, "yeah, and einstein thought quantum theory was utterly ridiculous".

it is possible to be stupid and correct.

reply to post by Good Wolf

exactly, i agree. but theory is too broad a term on which to base education. at this point it would be far better to say evolution is a theory with a probability of X.

for instance, the probability of gravity is 99.9999999999999999999999999%
the probability of the theory of evolution and natural selection are, by my estimation, between 85 and 90%. christian literal creationism is perhaps 3% but ID could be argued to be 80 to 85%.

this would be my proposal.

[edit on 29/10/08 by pieman]

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 11:40 AM by dave420

reply to post by pieman

I never said the Theory of Evolution is a fact. Please show me where I said that. I did say that evolution is a fact - it has been witnessed repeatedly in laboratories. There are no competing scientific theories for how species came to be, though, so it is not taught in isolation because people think it to be the unassailable truth, but because it is the only scientific theory out there on the subject. The only one. Creationism/ID are not scientific, as they can not be falsified, so they can't be taught in a science class any more than early French literature should be taught in an English class.

Please just understand the difference between an observable phenomenon (in this case evolution, or, say, gravity), and the scientific theory that explains it (the "theory of Evolution", or "theory of general relativity"). As clearly you are arguing from a point of ignorance, coupled with a deadly arrogance that you are right, which seems to preclude you learning anything more on this subject. You assume you are right, and as such will not adjust your position.

Deny ignorance. Don't let it move in with you.

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 11:49 AM by Good Wolf

reply to post by pieman

You need to understand that "Theory" means one thing in science and another thing completely in casual speak.

In science, it means that the given explanation of an observed phenomena (from the theory) explains all the facts related to the phenomena and makes accurate predictions when tested. Quite specific.

In casual language it means a proposition or an idea of an explanation for something. In science this pretty much equals the definition of "Hypothesis".

People outside of science rarely understand that this difference exists.

Now the phenomena of evolution has been observed but the theory of evolution is not perfect, that's why it's theory.

Originally posted by pieman
and each theory should be quantified according to it's probability when it is published.

The probability is implied because a value for it is completely unattainable. Theories are always getting updated as new experiments are done and new findings are discovered, so there really is no point. This ongoing self correction is a major aspect of science.

[edit on 10/29/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 11:53 AM by Good Wolf

Originally posted by OldThinker
Still wish it all was more civil?

Well tough. Thunderf00t loves science and has an amazing grasp on many of the sciences, but People like Ben Stein, attack science with baseless, erroneous and nasty assertions that science is bollocks. He misrepresents so much of it and uses the editing room to make renown scientists look like imbeciles. Thunderf00t doesn't appreciate that much, I can tell you.

[edit on 10/29/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 12:14 PM by pieman

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by pieman

I never said the Theory of Evolution is a fact. Please show me where I said that.

i didn't say you did, i implied you did in the same way that you implied it was fact. if you're going to play semantics then at least apply the same set of rules to both of us.

the idea that evolution is a fact but the theory of evolution isn't is utter rubbish.

change in living organisms may be observed but by calling this change an evolution you imply that the mechanism of change is the mechanism described in the theory of evolution.

As clearly you are arguing from a point of ignorance, coupled with a deadly arrogance that you are right, which seems to preclude you learning anything more on this subject. You assume you are right, and as such will not adjust your position.

seeing as you know my mind so well can you tell me weather i'ld prefer pizza or pasta for supper.

i assume i am ignorant, i have stated this numerous times. i do not believe the theory of evolution is correct, but cannot suggest an alternative. i am perfectly willing to admit evolution is correct but i need to be convinced. i have changed my opinion and position at least twice in the last five years. my position is fluid.

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 12:30 PM by Good Wolf

Originally posted by OldThinker
PS: TIME and CHANCE are far from scientific, right?

PARDON?!

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 12:31 PM by pieman

why are we discussing what is actually meant when something is described as a theory? it doesn't matter weather a scientist designates something a theory or a spanking pink hippopotamus, if it is not quantified as to it's probability then it is an ambiguous description.

The probability is implied because a value for it is completely unattainable. Theories are always getting updated as new experiments are done and new findings are discovered, so there really is no point. This ongoing self correction is a major aspect of science.

science is about the quantification of the universe, scientists spend their whole lives in pursuit of the quantification of nature. although the quantifications would fluctuate endlessly, do you really believe that the theories cannot be quantified.

implied probability isn't very scientific.

[edit on 29/10/08 by pieman]

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 12:47 PM by Good Wolf

reply to post by pieman

???

Science doesn't seek to quantify the universe and nature, it seeks to explain the universe in nature. The reason the probability is implied is because when a theory is submitted, the theory is subject to new findings, so it doesn't matter how likely or unlikely it is fact, it's the best explanation there is. That's the point theories are taught, they are the best explanation.

They really don't need to have a probability attached to them, it's really up to the individual to decide that.

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 01:09 PM by Good Wolf

Originally posted by OldThinker
Have you seen the movie EXPELLED with Ben Stein?

Not meaning to pick on you, but if you want to indulge in examining the criticism of the Expelled movie check out Expelled Exposed

"There is more to this story..."

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 01:27 PM by pieman

reply to post by Good Wolf

thats a nice idea but it isn't true. newtonian physics is taught because it is simple and it explains things accurately enough to be a good working model, not because it is the best theory we have.

relativity and quantum mechanics are undoubtedly both incomplete or incorrect and do not explain things perfectly, but they are both held to be theories, even though it is acknowledged by everyone in the know that they are both incorrect.

the truth is that science uses the word theory to describe different levels of correctness and then the education system teaches the science subjects in a way that suggests these theories are fact.

this has led to what can only be described as faith. i've been attacked on this thread, called uneducated or ignorant, for saying the theory of evolution is so full of holes and so inelegant that i believe it to be incorrect and no better than creationism when used as a way to describe nature.
why?
i've been wrong about things before, i didn't get attacked for it.
usually, the reason i get attacked is because i've cast doubt over an aspect of a persons faith.

[edit on 29/10/08 by pieman]

reply posted on 29-10-2008 @ 01:42 PM by Good Wolf

reply to post by pieman

Show me this. I've not ever seen it this way. Evolution is taught in schools as fact because we know it happens, what is also taught as part of evolution is all the bits where it says "It is thought that" or "Scientists believe". Theories that are held by the scientific community will be taught, not as fact but as science.

Also, hate to point this out to ya but you have been ignorant. Not only did a few of us have to explain the different between theory and hypothesis but the whole scientific method.

[edit on 10/29/2008 by Good Wolf]

[edit on 10/29/2008 by Good Wolf]

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^