Creationism's Legacy: Anti-intellectualism

reply to post by solomons path


Well, I wish more fundamental Christians would follow suit. But I would have to ask if Orthodox Jews are a minority or majority of practicing Jews? I don't know the answer, so that's why I'm asking. I do know that non-Orthodox Jews do not buy into the creation myth from personal experience.

Hey there all!

Good to see this topic up on the home page!

I have been caught up in discussing this whole election thingy ... which turns out to be quite appropriate.

Because this whole Creation/I.D. thing is politics ... smear politics.

Originally posted by Good Wolf

Anti-intellectualism

Anti-intellectualism describes a sentiment of hostility towards, or mistrust of, intellectuals and intellectual pursuits. This may be expressed in various ways, such as attacks on the merits of science, education, art, or literature.

[Wikipedia] (Bold added by me)

Firstly:
The Creationism/I.D. movement is also predominantly an American phenomenon.

45% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." and 58% of American's believe that Creationism should be taught in science classes in one way or another.

Taking into consideration the religious demographics of America and the influence they have on American politics, I take this viewpoint:

The reality about the Creation/I.D. movement is that it is a politically, not scientific or intellectually motivated movement.

Their agenda is to replace the teaching of evolution with Creation science or, at the very least, offer it as an alternative SCIENTIFIC explanation for evolution/abiogenesis.

This is to encourage a greater level religious belief within our population which will therefore give political strength to the conservative political movements in American society therefore increasing the chances of religiously based legislation's to be passed and made law.

This is what the far right religious movements in America want.

Let me be clear with this - America is NOT clearly a secular society.

It constantly rests on a knife edge of being a theocracy.

As stated before, a huge level of the American population believe in the Creationist version of the origin of species.

A large percentage of these believers, and this is fact not opinion, have a low level of education.

These believers also, unfortunately, through pride and ego, have a mistrust, dislike and even hatred of the educated, intellectual and scientific world.

The leaders of the Creation/I.D. are acutely aware of this and, like any good campaign manager, will always try to secure and reenforce the support of their base.

This is why the use anti-intellectual propaganda ... quite simply ... smear politics!

This excites and unifies their base, giving them more power to try to fulfil their agenda's.

Ya see ... Unlike what Thunderf00t suggests, I think that Creationist leaders know exactly what they are doing.

Lets take Ben Stein for example.

Stein is very aware that what he is saying is pure dis-information (that "Darwinism" can't explain thermodynamics, gravity or the origin of lifw so it's validity has to be questioned ... HAHAHAHAHAhahahaah ... heh) and he is very aware that anti-intellectualism will make him money.

He does this on purpose, on Christian TV shows and FOX news, because he knows the believers watch these shows, and then they will buy/watch his documentary.

Now the fundamental Christians take full advantage of Stein's perceived intellectualism to say to their base "See! This smart guy here, a lawyer and a speech writer for our glorious presidents, even says that evolution and the scientific community should be questioned."

Creationist leaders even go so far as to suggest that there is an anti-religious agenda within the scientific community!

SMEARS!

They say these kind of things regularly because they know that their base will feel threatened ... and they know nothing gets the American people motivated than needing to protect their way of life!

The Islamic empire held these values too, up until fundamentalists rose to power.

Fundamentalism ... where ever it is and in what ever guise it comes in is the scourge of our society and the number one threat to peace, love and mung beans

Like you have posted already, mate:

No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

[Answers in Genesis] (Bold added by me)

This sums up the Creationists attitude towards science, knowledge and freedom.

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by riggins44

 

As Aurthur C Clark said "the universe is stranger then we imagine, and stranger then we ever could imagine"

Thats a rather bleek sentiment im going to have to throw my hat in with einstein on this one he said

"the most incomprehensible thing about the universe, is that it is comprehensable"

Originally posted by Good Wolf

Anti-intellectualism

Anti-intellectualism describes a sentiment of hostility towards, or mistrust of, intellectuals and intellectual pursuits. This may be expressed in various ways, such as attacks on the merits of science, education, art, or literature.

[Wikipedia] (Bold added by me)

I do not think that it can be understated how much creationism is anti-intellectualism in a religious context. Creationism has a long history of attacking science, not just evolution but also astronomy, cosmology, chemistry and geology with equal fervor and prejudice.

Funny thing is over 55% of SCIENTISTS say that evolution is tripe, trash, impossible, didn't happen, can't happen, won't happen...

So much for your whole theme, the scientists are saying that the evolution theory and its pushing by ignorant scientists as well as dishonest ones with those afraid to lose their job, is INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.

Read the QUOTES of those mainstream and greatly renowned scientists on evolution-facts.org

I love the irony of the ignorance on a site that is supposed to claim a motto of denying ignorance. If one was intellectually honest as those many scientists on that site, they would admit that evolution is stupid, dangerous, and insane. But maybe you love your evolution for those reasons, Darwin's book was called "the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
maybe you spew this dishonest crapola because you want to be like Hitler or Quiggley and get rid of those Races of HUMANS you think are "Inferior" or "Less Evolved." Since this is the only thing this dangerous crapola has given us since it's inception with the Greek Philosophers, but then you probably thought Darwin thought of it. Actually Darwin plagiarized his racist grandfathers book in his book on "Favoured Races."

So tell me who do you think is less evolved, is it the Jews as Hitler thought? The Blacks as the Mormons think? or is it those pesky Muslim/Arabs? Maybe it's the white man, maybe the other races should decide to wipe us out in preservation of their races.

More racist tripe being spewed as science by another ignorant lemming, I didn't expect much more once I saw the Wikipedia link. Someone should tell you, Wikipedia is NOT a CREDIBLE site to use as evidence for your points. Hope that helps and I can't wait to hear whom you think is less evolved if you have the courage of your convictions to tell us all in the pen whom you want to wipe off the face of the earth...

IMHO

Originally posted by Good Wolf

Originally posted by OldThinker
You are a good man...pls look further... ok...here.. www.tonycampolo.org... top one...

PASS. Another sermon is not going to change anything. BTW I was fundamental then I was very liberal on biblical interpretation (I didn't even believe the Jesus was a divine dude), then I was agnostic.

GW....????

Afraid of the truth ru?

OT sad!!!!

Great post though...lot's of energy here...

Pls reconsider...it's quite funny, you would be amused...and maybe challanged...evidentually

reply to post by theindependentjournal



your figures are way wrong

a few years back only 7% of scientists involved in earth sciences believed in a god, when you looked at just biologists it fell to 5% so if only 7% beleive in a god of any sort why would 55% of them beleive in god creating the universe?

also he mentioned several studies that appeared to show but wernt 100% conclusive a link between education levels and belief in god .. the better educated the less inclined to beleive .. maybe thats why stein calls them fortresses of what ever he said (he is to dumb to memerise and quote)

(im quoting Dawkins here from what is now know as his Athiest call to arms talk and he seems the kinda guy to find that stuff out before hesays it)


Hitler was an agnostic not an athiest the moto for the german army was for god we server or words to that effect and over 80% of all nazi's were christians .... but hey lets all blame the athiests

[edit on 29/10/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 29/10/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by theindependentjournal


Oh, yeah! Quote a creationist website for your 'statistics'! I think you need to read your avatar again, because it's apparent that you've bought the creationist party line, hook, line and sinker!!! Welcome to the flock, the grazing field is over there! I would also add your site name and avatar are misleading in a BIG way.

reply to post by noobfun



I just don't see what any of this has to do with the OP . . . this is why I despise those that try to base philosophical ideologies off of the physical world . . . they never add up.

Clearly Riggins is talking about Einsteinian Relativity . . . unfortunately, others have seen these flaws and are doing something (research) about it . . . e.g. quantum model, super-string, etc . . . For instance . . . the speed of light is not even a constant. It travels slower through a medium (glass, plastic, etc) due to reflectivity . . . so, taking one piece of one theory and turning to show science's faux-paux's, actually only shows the strength of science over psuedo-scientific claims . . . science is continually evolving, testing, advancing.

But again . . . proving something doesn't explain something 100% is not providing proof that the metaphysical or supernatural exist or "there must be more to it" . . . it only proves we don't know everything yet. AND . . . if we don't know everything yet . . . there are NO truths, which would only disprove most religious thought.

(The longer I argue with people of faith, the better my circular logic becomes . . . to the detriment of my critical faculties!! )

[edit on 10/29/08 by solomons path]

reply to post by OldThinker


Afraid of the truth? Don't be like that. I've sat through more sermons than I care to count. They don't do anything for me. Although I must admit, even being agnostic bordering on atheist the Mosaic sermons. They are some good messages, but even they are only feel good sermons.

Originally posted by solomons path
(The longer I argue with people of faith, the better my circular logic becomes . . . to the detriment of my critical faculties!!

)

aint that the truth brother ^_^

your absolutley right very little of this has anything to with the op like most of this thread unfortunatley

but if im going to take time to bash the trolls with a big stick i may as well answer unrelated posts too

Originally posted by theindependentjournal

Originally posted by Good Wolf

Anti-intellectualism

Anti-intellectualism describes a sentiment of hostility towards, or mistrust of, intellectuals and intellectual pursuits. This may be expressed in various ways, such as attacks on the merits of science, education, art, or literature.

[Wikipedia] (Bold added by me)

I do not think that it can be understated how much creationism is anti-intellectualism in a religious context. Creationism has a long history of attacking science, not just evolution but also astronomy, cosmology, chemistry and geology with equal fervor and prejudice.

Funny thing is over 55% of SCIENTISTS say that evolution is tripe, trash, impossible, didn't happen, can't happen, won't happen...

So much for your whole theme, the scientists are saying that the evolution theory and its pushing by ignorant scientists as well as dishonest ones with those afraid to lose their job, is INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.

Read the QUOTES of those mainstream and greatly renowned scientists on evolution-facts.org

I love the irony of the ignorance on a site that is supposed to claim a motto of denying ignorance. If one was intellectually honest as those many scientists on that site, they would admit that evolution is stupid, dangerous, and insane. But maybe you love your evolution for those reasons, Darwin's book was called "the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
maybe you spew this dishonest crapola because you want to be like Hitler or Quiggley and get rid of those Races of HUMANS you think are "Inferior" or "Less Evolved." Since this is the only thing this dangerous crapola has given us since it's inception with the Greek Philosophers, but then you probably thought Darwin thought of it. Actually Darwin plagiarized his racist grandfathers book in his book on "Favoured Races."

So tell me who do you think is less evolved, is it the Jews as Hitler thought? The Blacks as the Mormons think? or is it those pesky Muslim/Arabs? Maybe it's the white man, maybe the other races should decide to wipe us out in preservation of their races.

More racist tripe being spewed as science by another ignorant lemming, I didn't expect much more once I saw the Wikipedia link. Someone should tell you, Wikipedia is NOT a CREDIBLE site to use as evidence for your points. Hope that helps and I can't wait to hear whom you think is less evolved if you have the courage of your convictions to tell us all in the pen whom you want to wipe off the face of the earth...

IMHO

first off, what quotes? the link you provided leads to a picture of a hammer encased in rock...probably found in a cave or mine where it was engulfed by calcification which does happen( that may not be the correct word, any cavers here?) and a picture of footprints.

secondly, where do you get this 55% thing from? and i'd like some sources...more accurately some non-biased sources.


thirdly, who the hell is talking about racism? we're talking about evolutionary theory, and how creationists(the literal kind) are trying to attack it without even understanding what they're attacking. nobody and i mean nobody in this thread has said anything about getting rid of one race or another, or purifying races or any of that garbage. that right there was a blatant attempt by you to derail the thread. ignorance personified. read the thread before you go spoutin off about something that wasn't even said OR IMPLIED.

reply to post by noobfun

Um dude...have you read Darwin? he was very racist, and could be considered, in a way, the father of eugenics....

Originally posted by optimus primal
thirdly, who the hell is talking about racism? we're talking about evolutionary theory,

guess he/she accidentally just by accident failed to notice the only hatred/bigotry being thrown around was homophobia by some clown who hates catholosism(who we put right) and a god fearing jesus loving christian

reply to post by saturnine_sweet


so what if he was? that makes him a bigot, but it doesn't negate the evidence that supports evolutionary theory. and honestly it's offtopic.

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet

Um dude...have you read Darwin? he was very racist, and could be considered, in a way, the father of eugenics....

yes i ahve and no he couldnt .. not even close

he is cousins with the guy who termed the phrase eugenics but its based on slective breeding somthing we have been doing in animals for thousands of years and guess what plato was a big proponent of its use

so that makes it a couple of thousand years older then Darwin ..do your home work

yes by todays standards Darwin was a Racist blame the church of england and society for that not a single man who lived within its values

Phew. Well I gotta go do some jobs round the house. This thread is moving very fast so I hope I don't miss too much.

Later

reply to post by Good Wolf
its 4am lol i should have been asleep way way back

i feel i may need to sleep and refresh my troll bashing arm ready for a fresh wave of ignorance to deny when i wake up

reply to post by noobfun


interesting, i was not aware of those two facts. i love learning new things. and you're quite right, as i said to that poster myself, it has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. i'm not sure where this idea comes from, or why people jump to this conclusion. it's scary and sickening.

reply to post by optimus primal

its a myth spammed about by the religeous folk

its so they can make Darwin evil

same with the hitler was an atheist . he was agnostic he blieved in a god

they also over look the german army moto included god and that most nazi's and soldiers in the german army under the nazi party were christians

if they can make him evil they can just write it all off as thedevils work and not have to be beaten senseless by its facts

demonify all athiests and the good god fearing folk will run away from us on sight so we cant corrupt them with our sense and logic


[edit on 29/10/08 by noobfun]

RED HERRING:
One particular character is described or emphasized in a way that seems to throw suspicion upon that character as the person who committed the crime: later, it develops that someone else is the guilty party.

reply to post by saturnine_sweet



55% of this . . . (made up by the way)

Racist eugenics . . .

The OP is about creationism . . . if you can't argue FOR it . . . just make up or parade out things that have nothing to do with the issue to convolute and demonize the discussion . . . GREAT TACTICS! And you are the same people that say this should be taught in schools next to topics that have been upheld under rigorous testing?

What does Darwin's beliefs, regardless of morality judgement, have to due with what was/is being observed and the data collected to back it up. This is why creationism and I.D. fail in the realm of science . . . they can't stick to the subject. "Yeah . . . well Darwin was a racist" . . . yep that discredits, not only his, but every researcher since and the work they have done.