How Anti-Intellectualism Is Destroying America

know1

redmosquito10 wrote:

Proven, no, and I have no problem with people having their own interpretations for how life originally began. If you want to believe that God reached out his finger and touched some primordial ooze and life began that's fine, if you want to believe that free-carbon went through chemical transformations, that's fine. However, saying that we don't know how life began is not a valid criticism of evolution. And if you're willing to accept that evolution is an observable process, it makes it difficult for me to understand how you can hold a fundamental-creationism view, because God created the world, as-is. This interpretation leaves no room for evolution, even though, as you said, it is an observable process

I don't hold that interpretation. I hold the interpretation that God created the world and that process is still taking place.

redmosquito10

That's fine with me, I was just defending evolution from what seemed like a normal criticism of it that doesn't really apply to it. I've spent too much time trying to understand and work with evolution on a daily basis to not defend it when I can

baraka

know1 wrote:

Huh? Notice that I very carefully said the evolution CREATED life on this planet. I know evolution can be observed and I believe in the process although I do not think there is any proof that is how life began.

The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Your question above is one of the many straw man arguments against evolution.

Evolutionary Theory only addresses how things have evolved AFTER life started, and also doesn't address how that life actually came to exist. Abiogenesis (the formation of life where none existed before) is still poorly explained by science. There are theories around about it, but strong evidence is lacking. In other words, science does not provide an answer as to how life originated; it is only conjecture at this time.

godpt3

know1 wrote:

I hold the interpretation that God created the world and that process is still taking place.

How do you define "world"? Because if you go with a literal argument of "God created the HEAVENS and the Earth" then you could conceivably argue that God caused the Big Bang. And Hawking himself would probably have a hard time arguing against that.


But then, the question is: So what? What relevance does something which happened a few trillion years ago have today?

sponger

I think it's a matter of what a person wants to believe.

By that I mean that I don't think it's a coincidence that people who believe in creation also happen to love jesus and praise the lord.

It's not that they one day decided to ponder evolution versus creation, and decided creation was more believable and was more reasonably sound.

Rather, it just so happens that creation fits into this beautiful little fairy tale that makes these people feel all warm and fuzzy inside, and that warm, fuzzy feeling is what matters more than what common sense is telling them.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

i'd like to hear from a non-judeo/christian scientist who believes in creationism.

sweetpotato

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Terrence McNally should be tarred and feathered for the stupidity of his introduction to this "interview".

He takes what is essentially a partisan free analysis of why America as a whole has lost its brain, and tagged on to the beginning of it a stupid, baseless assertion about Republicans (or "the right" as he calls it) being to blame for the underwhelming intellectual prowess of the American consciousness.

Did he miss the fact that the interview actually STARTS with a DEMOCRATIC example of raving stupidity, or did he just feel that (having just been told that Americans are overwhelmingly politicaly helpless) that he had the option to further extend the duping and hack journalism that passes for political analysis in this country?

Because it seemed pretty fucking ridiculous to me.
But maybe i'm a mental midget?
:rolleyes:

you finished? :rolleyes: did you read the whole interview, or did your tiny republican brain stop there?

sweetpotato

know1 wrote:

It looks to like the author has a biased agenda and his method for pushing that agenda is to call people who do not agree with it stupid.

It's a catch-22, though. If I just believe an go along with what he says, does it show I'm less intellectual than if I question it and disagree?

first of all, the author is a woman.

and as far as you being less intellectual than a person who accepts evolution as the very best explanation for how we have gotten to where we are now- yep, you are. sorry. truth hurts sometimes, but i feel compelled to speak it nonetheless.

sweetpotato

know1 wrote:

OK - then I'll ask my question differently: Have scientists proven how life was created on this planet?

you know, GRAVITY is still considered a "theory", too. do you doubt its validity as well?

godpt3

sweetpotato wrote:

you know, GRAVITY is still considered a "theory", too. do you doubt its validity as well?

Obey Gravity! It's not just a good idea... it's the LAW

mostdefiled

I'm a biochemist by training, and a volunteer lobbiest, so I understand a lot about science, and while I can't say that I really understand politics, I've at least sat there and watched bills get debated on the NY floor. And let me tell you- these guys are stupid! Not really, but they were debating a bill that had to do with making insurance companies finance certian medical procedures, and it was painfully clear that they didn't know what they were talking about. Now, that's fine, in my book. You can't elect someone who knows everything about everything, that's just not possible. But you hope that you can elect someone who understands the difference between scientific evidence and anecdote, between double-blind study and speculation. And we don't do a very good job at that. And when people whip religion into things, well... it's like saying "I'm forbidden to look at it that way". It's scarry. But, at least when it comes to social services (I lobby for child welfare/child abuse prevention/mental health issues) we waste our time and resources chaseing our tails on things that sound like they should work, and ignore things that we know actually do work. And it trickles down to the lowest levels of government, to direct service providers, and to regular-old citizens.

Thanks for the chance to vent!
Mostdefiled
quote coming soon

know1

sweetpotato wrote:

you know, GRAVITY is still considered a "theory", too. do you doubt its validity as well?

I don't doubt its current validity, but I also don't doubt that it's possible for it to be proven wrong tomorrow.

sweetpotato

know1 wrote:

I don't doubt its current validity, but I also don't doubt that it's possible for it to be proven wrong tomorrow.

so can i drop you on your head tomorrow? please??