Creationism's Legacy: Anti-intellectualism

reply to post by pieman

---

Now you're clutching at straws. Seriously. It's embarrassing.

Evolution happens. We have seen one species turn into a new species. That is evolution - what do you mean by evolution, if not the standard definition used by the rest of the world? The theory behind it, since its very inception, has not been overturned by any newly-discovered evidence, even the massive discovery of DNA. It is constantly being refined, making it more and more accurate. If it was bunk, that wouldn't be possible - it would be thrown out and whatever had better evidence would supplant it as the de facto standard theory on where species come from.

You need to be convinced the theory of evolution is correct? Read the wikipedia article on it. Seriously. It cites all its sources, and is objective and rational. Read it. Learn something. Better yourself.

You admit you are ignorant, yet do nothing to fix it. You are embracing ignorance.

Sigh. This thread got derailed almost from the get go. Can we please actually comment on the subject introduced in the OP, please?

we haven't.



the modification of a species through the process of natural selection through subsiquent generations!! what do you describe it as?

the same argument could have been made for many of the beliefs of the 15th century, it hardly makes them correct. evolution is a good working model but i doubt it will still be in place in 200 years time.
there is no full fossil record, is there?
there is no reproduceanble evolution of any species through natural selection, is there?
the two most important facets of the belief are missing, everything else is circumstantial evidence.


i have read numerous studies of the theories of evolution a hell of lot more authoritative than wiki and have discussed it with real, bonafide experts in the field, it isn't that i don't know, it's that i don't agree. there is a difference.



[edit on 29/10/08 by pieman]

[edit on 29/10/08 by pieman]

Yes we have. That's already been established. See pg1.

evolution cannot be shown, mutation can be shown. the reason i say it is taught as if it were fact is because it is not made clear the extent to which holes exist in the theory. i am not a teacher, i may be incorrect, but i believe i am not. the holes weren't pointed out to me in science.



hate to point this out to you but i was asking you to expand on your misleading and dishonest spin. i was pointing out the spin involved in scientific proposal. was i too subtle for you? let me explain seeing as you didn't work it out all by yourself.

the difference between the usage of a word in the general population, students for instance, and the scientific community is very important in regard to education. explaining something to a lay person using misleading professional terms is duplicitous. requiring anyone to make an informed decision on something after offering only one perspective is duplicitous. providing the corroborative evidence while obscuring the opposing evidence is duplicitous. by having you and others provide examples to this effect by asking leading questions is more constructive to my argument.

i think perhaps you missed the reasoning for why i pointed out the attack, my point wasn't that i am not ignorant and shouldn't be attacked (ignorance is a state of not knowing, i am not ashamed that i do not know everything), my point was that i was attacked for ignorance, or rather that there was an attempt to diminish me because of my ignorance.

this is typical of the psudo-science priests of our culture. a real man of science shouldn't be afraid of questions and should be delighted to be given an opportunity to educate.

as regard to off topic posts, you are just as guilty, or more so, of de-railing the thread, despite my having stated it more than once, you have not expanded on the point i have repeatedly made, a single minded attempt to put forward only one perspective is anti-intellectual, not the attempt to promote creationism. not offering an alternative nor a quantification of the probability of a theory is anti-intellectual.

no we haven't, we see mutation through forced hybridisation and we assume evolution of animals through observation, but we have not seen, to my knowledge, any evolution due to natural selection over generations.

all we actually have is conjecture and observations. thatt does not qualify in my book as seeing one species become another. it is no more evolution than genetic manipulation or cloning.

sorry for the double post.

[edit on 29/10/08 by pieman]

Creationism has been put in it's place, it has been shown to be factually bankrupt. That's why it get's eviscerated when proponents makes threads like "Evolution proven false" and reason that thermodynamics disprove it. Such an exercise is not anti-intellectual, far from it.



I don't know why your hung up on this. We do not need quantification of anything period! The theory is accepted and taught not only because it is the best explanation for the diversity of life but because it is the sole theory on the diversity of life. That's it. No probabilities needed. None. But I fail to see how these academics are anti-intellectual. What definition are you going by, cos it isn't the one from wikipedia.



What the hell are you talking about?! Forced hybridization? What hybridization? Speciation doesn't involve any form of hybrids.

Simply put, the need to teach Creationism is a product of multiple factors. The decline in Science standards, and science teachers in general in public schools. The religious fundamentalism that has gripped the United States in recent decades, and the stigmatism that Evolution=Satan or Evolution=Atheism. While I am an atheist, that does not mean the two are incompatible. Where have almost all of the major creationist movements come from? The deep rural South. These areas have the poorest public educations and as such they usually don't even understand basic scientific principals. Simply put, these are the type of people who then are preyed upon by the Ken Ham's, Kent Hovind's, and Ray Comfort's of the world. Even the one creationist who could actually walk into an academic discussion without being laughed at, Michael Behe, is ignorant of many aspects of evolutionary Biology. There is no defense of Creationism unless your blind to everything except a contradictory collection of books that were written several thousand years ago.

i don't follow you, at all. what has this got to do with my point?



the definition is in the name, anti, meaning against and intellectualism meaning the exploration of the universe using the mind in a rational way.

the anti-intellectualism isn't in the fact that evolution is proposed as the best explanation we have, it is in proposing it as if it is the only explanation that exists or will ever exist. this is the impression i get from your quote. quantification would remedy this as it would make it perfectly clear that not only is a better explanation possible, it is inevitable.



your links on page one, for example, one example among many


calm down and take a deep breath mate, it's only words on a screen.

[edit on 29/10/08 by pieman]

No pieman, anti-intellectualism isn't just proposing different explanations out of thin air and figuring out which one is right. The theory of evolution has been around for 150 years, through bannings of teaching it in public schools, and other legal challenges. To say that Creation needs to be taught alongside Evolution for the sake of "Intellectualism" is to say that a Geocentric model of the universe also needs to be taught or that Holocaust deniers be allowed to present their case to high school students.

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse

---

i disagree, i believe the rise of creationism being taught in schools is because the lack of any other viable explanation offered by science creates a vacuum in which it is possible to propose that creationism be taught as an opposing view point to the hopelessly flawed theory of evolution.

i am not saying that creation should be taught, i am saying evolution should not be taught except in reference to quantifiable theory, it is not strong enough to stand alone or as a base. i truely believe it is not a whole lot stronger than certain strains of creationism.

i have made the quantification point with reference to this.


[edit on 29/10/08 by pieman]

The theory of evolution is only hopelessly flawed to those who don't understand it. The theory of evolution is the bedrock on which modern Biology is based on. And to be fair, those who take a standard high school Biology class may not be able to grasp all that is necessary about the theory of evolution. However, when EVERY credible scientist says it happens, it does for a reason.

the whole "you only say that because you don't understand it" argument has been used by the religious institutions for centuries. it's intellectually dishonest. i've been over this, the evidence is circumstantial, it can be variously interpreted.



the reason is that it hasn't been seriously questioned for a couple of generations and because it is the best explanation we have to date. it doesn't mean it is the correct explanation or even a good explanation.



[edit on 29/10/08 by pieman]

Oh I see. But you've missed something. Cross breeding doesn't induce mutation (your remark that confused me). The only thing that can induce mutations is radiation, which they use on flies. But there are other examples that are clearer evidence for evolution. Bacteria found in a dumpster that eats nylon, which technically could not have lived before the 30's. Or the subway mosquito in England. They are not just adapted mozzies because they can't breed with their above ground relatives .

Mutation + natural selection = speciation, therefore evolution.



But it is a good explaination, best there has ever been. And it's accurate too.

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

that is cracking evidence, as long as it is impossible that the bacteria consume anything like nylon or it's constituents in nature, i'll absolutely increase my estimation of the probability of natural selection up 5 points.

i know it's good, as i said i find it compelling, but i'm not convinced. i question it. there is nothing wrong with pointing out, in school, that there are many flaws in the theory.

it is still not strong enough to stand up on it's own, although nylon eating bacteria is a good one, i'ld prefer a half decent fosil record to be fair. and why don't crocodiles evolve anymore, at all apparantly. i find that odd.

there are too many inconsistencies and oddities to make me believe in it unquestioningly. i think a new theory is needed.

[edit on 29/10/08 by pieman]

They do, everything does technically. It's the niche they are in. They are in such a beneficial position that moving away from it results in less successful crocodiles which get breed out though competition. The crocs can eat anything meat, since they live in and around the water and all animals have to drink sometime, the croc design is one that works in almost any ecosystem. Same as the shark.

The rate of evolution has never been observed to be constant in all species. Those vulnerable to small changes in the environment are prone to faster evolution that those who are barely affected by change (like the croc).

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

reply to post by darkelf

---

Yet the scientific method is valid. It's use allows us to progress our knowledge; besides, scientists rejoice when their proved wrong by evidence published in peer reviewed journals. You ever seen a creationist concede that they might be wrong.

Anyway, OP is correct. Creationism and I.D are a stain upon the education system and they should NOT be allowed in the science lesson. There is NO evidence for I.D/Creationism, while there is a wealth of evidence for current scientifically accepted theories.

Go to a natural history museum, note shared characteristics between species, or gradual elimination of a characteristic over time by species. This, good sir, is evolution.

reply to post by Good Wolf

---

sharks are specialised in different ways in the same ecosystem.

crocodillians, generally, don't. also they spend quite a while as prey during their lives, they only become top of the food chain preditors when they are big. consequently, a lot more are hatched than survive to adulthood. i would expect this to be the area of evolution.

just an observation, lets not get hung up.

that comment, good sir, is a result of not having read the entire thread. this is explainable by other means. ID would say this is meerly the result of a lazy creator.