Creationism's Legacy: Anti-intellectualism

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.

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)


Creationism once just preached literalistic interpretations of the bible, but now it seeks to undermine and suppress the science which contrasts such interpretations. Creationists want schools to teach creationism and creation "science" in place of real and substantiated science, and failing that want to "Teach the controversy" despite that being non-existent. These behaviors, those that deal with education and science, cannot be tolerated at all.

Creationism is no longer just exercising freedom of speech and religion, but now it is also exercising anti-intellectualism, the very thing that makes us better than medieval Europe. There are a few values that the west holds dear that are central to our freedoms and our success as a society.
Among them are the freedom of speech, the freedom of thought and the freedom of religion.

The Islamic empire held these values too, up until fundamentalists rose to power. Since then, the majority of Islamic nations have slipped into a dark age where prejudice and the restraint of freedoms are as bad as ever. This is the point of separating church and state. I'm no scholar on American history but from what I do understand, early America was the most secular society in the world and the founding fathers, being deists, knew that to have freedom of religion you needed freedom from religion, and the anti-intellectual persecution that lingers around it. (Happy to hear objections from those more scholarly on that history)

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.

It must be stressed that there is nothing wrong with religion in general, so long as it's contributions to society are positive (charity and all that), but there is nothing positive about modern creationism encroaching on freethinking.


Anti-intellectualism is a sociological virus, not dissimilar to the flu, it changes form every time and becomes invisible to the immune system. An infection or corruption like this is what brings down societies every single time.

If it takes hold of America, there will be spore-er missionaries sent to our nations (UK, NZ, Oz, Cand etc.) and a pandemic could throw western society into the next dark-age. The Islamic nations are a modern day example of what an anti-intellectual infection can do to a society.

Left unchecked, anti-intellectualism posses a real threat to all that I hold dear.

Mod-Note: Edited at OPs request.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Good Wolf


I could not agree more.

And people wonder why the US is falling way behind in the areas of math and science. We as a society should not tolerate such non-sense. Creationism is a BELIEF, evolution is a SCIENCE...there is a big difference.

reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary


Indeed, Science is a method of building accurate knowledge, a methodology that been developed and honed for thousands of years.

Religion is anything but that, and is no authority on truth.

Edit: Readers note that the discussion has only just begun on page 4 at the time this edit was made, so just skip ahead.

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

Good morning you two. Have you seen the movie EXPELLED with Ben Stein?

There is more to this story...

OT

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]

i always feel a need to say this, so i'll say it now. i am not a creationist.

there is little or no quantifiable difference between the creationism belief and the various theories of creation put forward by science.

there is no way that science can possibly say, with anything approaching certainty, how the universe was created. there is no physical record or verified experimental data to add proof to the evolutionary theories. there is still well grounded dispute in the scientific community about the basic nature and structure of the universe itself.

while i agree that creationism shouldn't be taught as science, it clearly isn't, neither should science be taught as fact, it never can be.

creationism isn't, by it's nature, anti-intellectual to any greater an extent than to claim that scientific belief is, by it's nature, any more authoritative than religious belief. the difficulty is always going to be adding balance to teaching when the scientific theory has no more authority than religious belief, while not advancing any religious belief.

if theology cannot be taught, as such, in schools and science has no authoritative answers then perhaps the easiest solution is for education to make no specific claim as to the origin of the universe, seeing as no hard facts are available. then, should it be required, in the context of a particular subject or system, the relative theories can be taught.

[edit on 29/10/08 by pieman]

Originally posted by pieman
there is little or no quantifiable difference between the creationism belief and the various theories of creation put forward by science.

there is no physical record or verified experimental data to add proof to the evolutionary theories.

To say this, you must be poorly educated on the subject. No quantifiable difference? Perhaps that one is falsifiable and makes accurate predictions and the other can offer nothing in the way of science at all should. Genetics by it's lonesome proves evolution, there is no other explanation for just about all of genetics.

Science is only as good as our current knowledge. Scientific evidence is not infallible. As our knowledge changes, so do our interpretation of scientific evidence. Evolution, Creationism and ET seeding are all theories of our origins. Remember back when Neanderthal man was considered part of the human evolution tree? Now they are recognized as a separate branch. Arguing science against religion is pointless. You cannot use science to prove or disprove matters of faith. Let the schools teach science and let the churches teach religion. Then let the parents teach their children how to research all the evidence so that they may reach their own conclusion.

i wouldn't say poorly educated, i'm not an expert but i have a good working understanding of both systems of belief.

genetic inheritance doesn't play much of a role in evolution by itself, the idea is that any genetic mutation that is advantageous is inherited, producing evolution. this requires mutation, which is a malfunction. because this malfunction is required, genetics couldn't be said to be proof of evolution.

in saying that, genetic mutation leading to evolution may have been shown experimentally, but, as far as i know it hasn't been replicated yet. this being the case, proof doesn't exist to date.

genetics, all of it, can easily be explained, equally validly at the moment, by saying it is the god sanctioned mechanism by which a species propagate themselves. similarities in design arise from the fact that it all has a single creator with a single design style.

[edit on 29/10/08 by pieman]

reply to post by Good Wolf

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Genetics by it's lonesome proves evolution, there is no other explanation for just about all of genetics.

Genetics merely suggests evolution, it does not prove it. It also suggest creationism i.e. all designed by one hand. Genetics is evidence not proof. Interpretation of that evidence depends on your focus.

reply to post by pieman


Great answer pieman. You beat me to to punch

reply to post by darkelf


Lets go back to the meaning of theory. A theory is something that explains all the evidence and thusly gives accurate predictions falsifiable by tests, and if it can't, it is only a hypothesis.

Evolution explains all of the diversity of life, creationism doesn't even come close. Specifically genetics, or even more specifically, "Junk DNA" and "ERV" are only explainable by evolution and creationism again doesn't come close. There are certain requirements from science for a hypothesis to not be binned, and creation doesn't meet them.

The evidence we do have rules out creationism outright. That is why there is no debate or controversy about creationism and evolution in the scientific community. None.

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

reply to post by Good Wolf


Good post.
It´s interesting that a Roper Poll as late as 1999 said that 47 per cent of Americans beleived that god created human beings pretty much in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

I think this just about sums up some people´s mindset:
thebizzare.com...

Dad, did dinosaurs really exist?
Sure they did, son. The Bible says so. They didn’t call them “dinosaurs” back then, but instead they were known as “leviathans” or “behemoths”.
But, my science teacher says dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. Is that true?
Of course not, son.
Then how old are they?
Well, let’s see. The Bible tells us [from Adam and Eve's family tree] that the Universe is only a few thousand years old. So dinosaurs had to have lived within the past few thousand years. That’s simple logic, son.
Oh. So that means they were on Noah’s Ark?
Absolutely! The Bible says two of every animal were brought [by God] to the ark. Dinosaurs were animals. So, using your logic again son, dinosaurs had to be on the ark.
Huh. So how come scientists say they’re older than that? and died way before Jesus?
Well, son, they just make that up. Dinosaur bones don’t have labels on them to tell how old they are. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist saw dinosaurs die-
Dad!
No I’m serious. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.
That’s sad. But I thought scientists were smart?
Sure, but they don’t know everything. So they have to make stuff up to fit their beliefs. While you and I, we have the facts, straight from the Bible.
I don’t want to be a scientist!
Ha! That’s ok, son. It’s better to be right, than smart. C’mon, wanna learn how to flip burgers like your Dad?
Yeah!

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.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by darkelf

 

i hope this doesn't exclude me from the conversation!!!

Lets go back to the meaning of theory. A theory is something that explains all the evidence and thusly gives accurate predictions falsifiable by tests, and if it can't, it is only a hypothesis.

please provide the tests, the fact that i haven't seen these fabled tests is the basis for my opinion, if i am happy with the provided tests i am happy to change my stated opinion.

Evolution explains all of the diversity of life, creationism doesn't even come close.

"god did it" explains the diversity, perhaps not to your satisfaction, but it does explain it.

Specifically genetics, or even more specifically, "Junk DNA" and "ERV" are only explainable by evolution and creationism again doesn't come close.

genetics doesn't claim to understand the purpose of every single nucleotide of DNA, until they do they cannot say for sure which is junk and which is vital. given the lack of a link between complexity of dna structure and the complexity of the organism this should be self evident.

There are certain requirements from science for a hypothesis to not be binned, and creation doesn't meet them.

The evidence we do have rules out creationism outright. That is why there is no debate or controversy about creationism and evolution in the scientific community. None.

1.please outline these criteria.

2.the evidence can only rule out creationism as described, it cannot rule it out completely, if i describe the universe as we understand it and simply insert gods hand into the areas we presently don't understand it must be ruled as plausable. to do otherwise is unscientific.

Originally posted by pieman
"god did it" explains the diversity, perhaps not to your satisfaction, but it does explain it.

Sure it does but "God did it" is not the same thing as fundamental creationism which adds the very important "-as describe in Genesis". After all there are many (most evolutionists actually) who say evolution is absolutely real, 100% AND "God did it" "-via natural processes"
Look at this. www.locolobo.org...

genetics doesn't claim to understand the purpose of every single nucleotide of DNA, until they do they cannot say for sure which is junk and which is vital. given the lack of a link between complexity of dna structure and the complexity of the organism this should be self evident.

It's called junk DNA cos it has no function, and they do know where it is, they'd have to to quantifiably say 90% of our DNA is junk. For instance, they took mst of the junk DNA out of a mouse zygote and they still got a fully formed healthy mouse. Now go look up ERVs.

1.please outline these criteria.

If the hypothesis is completely contradicted (or almost completely) by the evidence, then it gets scraped.

2.the evidence can only rule out creationism as described, it cannot rule it out completely, if i describe the universe as we understand it and simply insert gods hand into the areas we presently don't understand it must be ruled as plausable. to do otherwise is unscientific.

That's what most people do but that isn't creationism or science. The supernatrual is not examinable by science because by definition, it is not natural. Science only ever has anything to say about the natural. Science is not atheist or theist as theism has nothing to do with science.

I wanted to look at this last:

please provide the tests, the fact that i haven't seen these fabled tests is the basis for my opinion, if i am happy with the provided tests i am happy to change my stated opinion.

Well what kind of test would you want? Off hand how about observed speciation in the lab? Hell, speciation in the field would be just as good, TalkOrigins have examples of them both.
www.talkorigins.org...(scroll down to '5.0')
www.talkorigins.org... (a few more)

Also evolution predicts beneficial mutations, those have been found too.
www.gate.net...

For some speculation:
Think about the fact that speciation occurs as do beneficial mutations. Imagine if there was no theory of evolution (as in it hadn't been hypothesized yet), with those two things alone, someone would think "Hmm, this could make one species change completely over a long enough period." Then imagine they find fossils. Champagne bottles would be popping open in all biological science instituations all round the world.


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

reply to post by Good Wolf

sound bites are hardly a good substitute for intelligent argument. if you wish me to consider ERV's then explain them to me, so that i can benefit from your wisdom rather than having to do the research myself. i thought that was the point of discussion, to learn from each other.

also, i would say that the name "creationism" is a wide umbrella term used to describe any theory that requires premeditated creation to function, you seem to be describing a particular form, literal christian biblical creationism.

For instance, they took mst of the junk DNA out of a mouse zygote and they still got a fully formed healthy mouse.

who did and where did they publish their findings and who repeated the experiment?

is your hypothesis/theory differentiation an official policy of any of the major scientific institutions or is it something you are proposing?

i would still like to know more about these falsifiable tests that add weight to evolutionary theory.

EDIT for your EDIT: i've scanned this material and i have seen it or simular before, hybridization and mutation do not prove evolutionary theory but are only evidence, as dark elf mentioned earlier, evidence could quite easily be reinterpreted to provide a deist explanation.

this argument has been going on for quite some time, i'm not willing to argue one opinion against the other, suffice to say it is a matter of opinion. i hold none so see no need to argue for either.

my point is that to confuse opinion with fact is the basis of anti-intellectualism, not creationism or evolutionary theory in particular.

[edit on 29/10/08 by pieman]

Originally posted by pieman
if you wish me to consider ERV's then explain them to me, so that i can benefit from your wisdom rather than having to do the research myself. i thought that was the point of discussion, to learn from each other.

I wasn't meaning that to sound like a nob. Alright I have an ERVs for dummies vid round here somewhere. Ah yes, here it is.

also, i would say that the name "creationism" is a wide umbrella term used to describe any theory that requires premeditated creation to function, you seem to be describing a particular form, literal christian biblical creationism.

Yes you are absolutely right, but this thread is in the context of literalistic fundamentalist christian creationism (say that 10x fast!) I also said in successive posts Fundamental creationism (the rest was implied).

who did and where did they publish their findings and who repeated the experiment?

The findings of this experiment were published in New Scientist magazine which you need to have membership to view the whole thing which I don't but I found another article that references it and talks about the mouse experiment.

The article concludes by reporting the efforts to delete large amounts of mouse DNA in order to test whether they are junk or not. The results show that much of the conserved bits of DNA can be removed without any harmful effects. Some researchers urge caution by pointing out that very small effects may not be observed in laboratory mice but may be important for evolution in the long term.

[Sandwalk]

So it's not as simple as I explained it.

is your hypothesis/theory differentiation an official policy of any of the major scientific institutions or is it something you are proposing?

No, it's a major part of the scientific method.

The way of which scientists prove what they find is accurate is the ‘Scientific Method’.

Let’s look at that next:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Here’s a flowchart.

Originally posted by pieman
i've scanned this material and i have seen it or simular before, hybridization and mutation do not prove evolutionary theory but are only evidence, as dark elf mentioned earlier, evidence could quite easily be reinterpreted to provide a deist explanation.

It's the equivalent of tests though, for evolutionary theory requires beneficial mutations and speciation (among other things) to be factual for the theory to be valid. This is the "falsifiable" bit because if scientists could not prove these things to be factual then the theory is false. I put them forward not as "Proof" like you said, rather as the tests you asked for earlier, so you misunderstood my intent.

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