How Anti-Intellectualism Is Destroying America

OffHeGoes29

This thread is ridiculous.

_

godpt3 wrote:

It's only a Catch-22 for the ignorant. Do you question and disagree because of the evidence, or simply because you don't believe in what he's saying? There is a VERY direct link between belief in creationism and W's failed search for WMD in Iraq. Rather than fitting your beliefs to what the evidence shows to be true, you try to manufacture the evidence to fit your beliefs.

I see this as a huge and growing problem these days and it's really starting to irritate/scare me. (See my thread about the uninformed electorate.) I talk to more and more people who think their opinion is as valid as scientific fact. Unfortunately, this ignorance is fueled when they can find one obscure, obsolete scientific study - even if it has already been proven wrong - and then think they have valid scientific evidence to back them up. It's also fueled by all these interest groups that exist these days and try to pass themselves off as scientists or medical professionals. And, most unfortunately, it's fueled by the media who seem more and more to present the "other side" of an issue, as if that makes their reporting fair, balanced, and objective, thereby giving legitimacy to total BS. And people believe it because they trust the media.

But how to do you reason with someone who disregards scientific evidence as just a difference of opinion? They say, "You just think anyone who disagrees with you is wrong!" Uh, no, but I think the opinions of those who disagree with the preponderance of scientific evidence are far less valid. It's funny how those same people won't let me operate on them because I'm not a doctor. Pfft! What? Isn't my opinion just as valid as theirs? :rolleyes:

know1

godpt3 wrote:

What evidence is that??? By it's very nature, there can't be any EVIDENCE to support creationism. To be legitimately called SCIENCE, your beliefs need to make a prediction which is testable through either experimentation or by direct observation. Creationism is based of FAITH, and faith alone.

It's no different than in the dark ages, when anything the populace didn't understand was automatically attributed to magic, witchcraft or the work of God. And those who dared to speak fact were called heretics... or WORSE. Hell, it only took the Vatican 400 years to apologize for their treatment of Galileo when he dared to question the notion that the Earth was the center of the universe. Creationists are still stuck in that ancient, ignorant and backwards mindset.

And there you go. Intelligence isn't just stating that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.

godpt3 wrote:

The best argument creationists can come up with to oppose teaching evolution is that it's only a "theory." And they're exactly right. But once again, the creationists show their stupidity in that statement. Because ALL of science is based on theories. You make predictions based on the available evidence. And as the evidence changes, so does the theory. It's the basis for all scientific discovery.

Creationists can't even call their beliefs a "theory." There is nothing to test or observe. NOTHING. And until they can bring that to the discussion table, creationists need to go to the back of the classroom and shut the fuck up. Because their ignorance has NO PLACE in education!

Have scientists PROVEN that evolution is what created the life on this planet? If not, then your faith in them is no different.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

know1 wrote:

And there you go. Intelligence isn't just stating that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.



Have scientists PROVEN that evolution is what created the life on this planet? If not, then your faith in them is no different.

did you even read the godpt quotes you posted? it pretty much answers your question.

godpt3

know1 wrote:

Have scientists PROVEN that evolution is what created the life on this planet? If not, then your faith in them is no different.

You really have no intellectual grasp on how science actually works, do you? Evolution can and HAS been observed in nature countless times. The same cannot be said for the mysterious hand of God. Because, inherently, it can't. Faith is what you have in the absence of evidence to show otherwise. Proof denies faith. And without faith, God is nothing.

know1

godpt3 wrote:

You really have no intellectual grasp on how science actually works, do you? Evolution can and HAS been observed in nature countless times. The same cannot be said for the mysterious hand of God. Because, inherently, it can't. Faith is what you have in the absence of evidence to show otherwise. Proof denies faith. And without faith, God is nothing.

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.

redmosquito10

know1 wrote:

Have scientists PROVEN that evolution is what created the life on this planet? If not, then your faith in them is no different.

Can we please, once and for all, establish the fact that evolution is NOT a theory on how life was created, but a theory on how the variety of life came to be. It's called Origin of Species, not Origin of Life, because it attempts to explain the diversity of life. Creationists (well, the ones that understand that evolution is not a theory on the origin of life) have a problem with evolution because it is a process that , in their eyes, takes the hand of God out of literally creating the various forms of life we see now, and makes them a product of a scientific process.

know1

MrSmith wrote:

did you even read the godpt quotes you posted? it pretty much answers your question.

No - I don't think they do.

know1

redmosquito10 wrote:

Can we please, once and for all, establish the fact that evolution is NOT a theory on how life was created, but a theory on how the variety of life came to be. It's called Origin of Species, not Origin of Life, because it attempts to explain the diversity of life. Creationists (well, the ones that understand that evolution is not a theory on the origin of life) have a problem with evolution because it is a process that , in their eyes, takes the hand of God out of literally creating the various forms of life we see now, and makes them a product of a scientific process.

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

redmosquito10

know1 wrote:

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

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

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