Creationism's Legacy: Anti-intellectualism

There is no such thing as survival. Nobody is going to survive. That is a scientific fact.

Hawking will tell you, if you ask him nicely, that force exists outside of space and time and that force can not be experienced directly (empirically) but only indirectly, through its manifestation (the whole universe, matter and various forms of what we call energy).


Spinoza will tell you that time is the means of thinking (thinking is linear and we can't think everything at once, we have to stack single thoughts in linear fashion), and movement is the means of existing in space.

Movement is discerning - by discerning you create 3D space (that's what Zeno's aporia is about), which means that each point in 3D space has its own, DIFFERENT coordinates. It's as simple as that, and because of that, space cannot be deformed, twisted, stretched or any such nonsense which comes to us from Einstein and such people who don't understand basic principles. You cannot bend principles, those are abstract, unique, absolute things. And, also, you cannot travel through time, because you only travel, by definition, through space.

Because of this, time and space continuum is a matter of perception and it's objectiveness is questionable the moment you apply analytical method (that is the scientific method (Descartes will tell you about this).

In perception "things" pretend to be, but once you use force upon them (which is the analytical method) they fall apart. So the empirical universe is of such nature, it is just a manifestation of force - its image. And to believe that there is one single thing which cannot be disassembled withing t/s continuum is very unscientific - the only thing with such characteristic is this, highly evasive must admit - force.

And creationist story is about this, not about how Bible interprets it and all alike nonsense in most religious scriptures, where things get easily distorted.

Force is characteristic by one thing only - it cannot be affected, it is the force that affects everything. When force affects matter, there is no procedure, and it does not happen in time or in space, it actually acts instantly. We can only perceive the effect. It is very misleading to believe that force is immanent to mater.

So if we want an answer on "how" does force do what it does, the only sensible conclusion is that it KNOWS HOW, so force is knowledge.

Now comes the interesting part...

Men have both sides united. The force (the ability to know) and physical (t/s existence) which is transient (and cannot survive). So this is why it is said that God created man in his IMAGE.

In order for man to apply his knowledge within the physical sphere, unlike force or call it God if you wish) he needs procedures and space and time. But the knowledge itself originates from (as) force.

Why scientists are allergic to word God, I can understand. But I'm not quite sure they really understand what God actually is (certainly not an old, bearded patriarch, which is obviously and ideological and apologetic image created to justify patriarchate system among Jews).

If you remove this ideological nonsense, you will arrive to the simple truth, that God is the force, the absolute, the meta-physical, etc. etc. - there are many synonyms... singularity, existence, and so on and so on - which all expressions signify something abstract.

But, this is what I really want to expose.
I once saw a TV show on polar wolves. It was about a pair of wolves and they had cubs. Now, one of them will go and hunt, the other will stay and take care of the little ones.
The hunter catches a hare and brings it home. Now both grown wolves start tearing the hare in two.
The voice-over tells us that they are FIGHTING over it, and explains to the audience that this is normal instinctive behavior which purpose is SURVIVAL.

Do you really believe this?
I thought they were simply splitting it with intention to SHARE it. (Wolves don't have hands and tools, knifes, to split it like humans). They have to use their teeth and jaws...

But in modern human ideology, there is no such word - sharing. There is only fighting over everything with the false excuse of survival.

Homo homini lupus....

This is such a powerful idea, isn't it? And is it really impossible to get rid of its influence once and for all?

reply to post by DangerDeath


I gave my word I'd stay on topic and not re-butt response to my other post

Just wondering what sources are you using to speculate on a "force" outside the continuum of existence? can you link them?


But in modern human ideology, there is no such word - sharing. There is only fighting over everything with the false excuse of survival.

--That is a very critical and pessimistic view of your human brethren. Is that your ideology? or a copy/paste?

that one sentence speaks more about your personality than any other post ever could

Good Morning ATS!!

Man ... just got through all the pages that magically appeared over night ... maybe God did it!


Good to see those trying to keep this on topic ... we all know how these EvC debates can go ... and amazingly we are still pretty much on track after nearly 20 pages!


I don't know where to start ... so I will start here ... maybe I will go back a re-ignite some of the arguments I started but didn't finish ... but maybe we can just start some brand new ones!

Originally posted by DangerDeath

And creationist story is about this, not about how Bible interprets it and all alike nonsense in most religious scriptures, where things get easily distorted.

I agree totally that creation has nothing to do with the bible ... 100% ... however, the movement that some of us here are trying to resist and/or debunk does believe 100% that the bible explains everything to do with creation ... and that the bible is Gods word and has no distortions ... and they want to teach this, in mainstream schools, instead of or as an alternative to evolution.

Why scientists are allergic to word God, I can understand. But I'm not quite sure they really understand what God actually is

When you ponder these questions, take into consideration that 45% of scientists believe in a god in some form or another ... 5% of those are in fact Creationists.

If you remove this ideological nonsense, you will arrive to the simple truth, that God is the force, the absolute, the meta-physical, etc. etc. - there are many synonyms... singularity, existence, and so on and so on - which all expressions signify something abstract.

Right on here my friend, right on ...

Although personally I would remove that little generalisation - "God"

Edit - formatting



[edit on 30/10/08 by Horza]

reply to post by DangerDeath


I think you present some very intresting ideas in your first post, regardless of the fact that you take shots at those (Einstein, et. al) that had a much better grasp on Spinoza, Descartes than you. Einstein modeled his personal philosophy mainly on Spinoza and his pantheistic view.

And while that would be an interesting topic range to share coffee over, it's not science. It's philosopy. I have no problem teaching kids philosophy . . . I think it would go along way in making these gen x kids more "human". However, it doesn't belong in science as "competition" to evolutionary theory. That's the crux of the debate. What will be the legacy of trying to force this esoteric philosophy into the natural realm of science? I'm not sure if you are arguing for the purposes of the thread or just against a competing view . . .

As far as your second post . . . maybe it was determined that they were fighting over the kill by their expressions and body language. Lupine researchers have a pretty good grasp on solitary and pack body language and signals. Perhaps . . . the script was written by someone that KNEW they were fighting over it . . . not just throwing that word in based on their world view. As above, I wholeheartedly disagree with your "sharing" assesment.

Were those wolves (a couple, married) fighting over that hare, they would have attacked each other and try to chase him or her away. But no, this is clearly how people behind these "educative" stories try to indoctrinate and condition people...

And theory of survival doesn't really hold water. It is now just a convention or stereotype to believe that that is a scientific theory. No, it was, by constant and intentional effort, embedded into science in order to justify existing human (social) behavior.

This kind of embedded things, ideological, not natural, rule human opinions because humans stopped being cautious long time ago... Now, at this point we get to real ATS conspiracy theory, and I want to see if we can find evidence of it in apparently "normal" or "natural" things from our everyday life.

Such as, take it for granted: science has nothing to do with God. Period.

But don't forget, science is a modern replacement for philosophy, and there is a good reason why...

As for Einstein, I'm not thy only one... Tesla did, Hawking did (he did it covertly in his book Black Holes Baby Universes, exposing the idea of "imaginary time" - time understood as projected orthogonally on the existing (objective?) time line, which can be used as a workable model of the Universe in vitro, as a predicting tool... And especially quantum physicists take it on him because he said: God doesn't throw dice! (sorry if I am not accurate, I read those in translation). But all evidence says that God does play dice...

DD, please refrain from derailing this thread.

Originally posted by Horza
Good to see those trying to keep this on topic ... we all know how these EvC debates can go ... and amazingly we are still pretty much on track after nearly 20 pages!

Lol. It pretty much went off topic from the get go. It didn't return again until around page 4.

Originally posted by DangerDeath
Were those wolves (a couple, married) fighting over that hare, they would have attacked each other and try to chase him or her away. But no, this is clearly how people behind these "educative" stories try to indoctrinate and condition people...

And theory of survival doesn't really hold water. It is now just a convention or stereotype to believe that that is a scientific theory. No, it was, by constant and intentional effort, embedded into science in order to justify existing human (social) behavior.

I will only have to use two word to counter that position: Donner Party!

Another more current example: Go see the movie 'Alive!'

If push comes to shove, humans will eat each other to survive. Ask anybody who has studied psychology will tell you nothing trumps the survival instinct! After all:

That's right! Humans are cannibals, nothing more than that...
Thank you for clarifying this.

Originally posted by nj2day
Time and space can't exist without each other... where there is space, there is time... so the assertion that something is outside of time doesn't work... if its outside of time, it can't exist... (You should read Steven Hawking's "A Brief History Of Time"... It is truly fascinating)

That's in our pocket of the universe.
Look at it like a circle. We're on the inside of the circle, so of course we can't comprehend the outside of the circle.
I'm not stating science fact, I was merely stating where creationists (most anyway) come from in this regards. I believe that infinity encompasses more than time, and could therefor be seen as outside the bounds of time .
I see what you're saying, but I doubt that space and time is all - in that I think we are in a bubble of infinity, and our universe is merely a reaction to a cause which we can not comprehend.

Originally posted by nj2day
The fact that people believe that something must have created everything is the result of a natural human instinct to quantify, or reject that which cannot be quantified.

Agreed. It's a human error.

Originally posted by nj2day
anyway, This has led me WAAAY off topic... If you feel like re-butting this, go ahead, its fair... but in the best interest of staying on topic, I shouldn't respond back...

Yep. I understand.
And sorry about going off topic. I do it more than I should. Then again it always spices things up in my opinion.
I have ADHD - what can I say?
Oh look, a cat!

oooh a cat? where? hehehe

anyway, in the best interest in getting back on topic... I still remain asserted that IDers can be intellectual.

Wikipedia defines Intellectual as one of 3 things...

1) An individual who is deeply involved in abstract erudite ideas and theories.

2) An individual whose profession solely involves the dissemination and/or production of ideas, as opposed to producing products (e.g. a steel worker) or services (e.g. an electrician). For example, lawyers, professors, politicians, entertainers, and scientists.

3), “cultural intellectuals” are those of notable expertise in culture and the arts, expertise which allows them some cultural authority, which they then use to speak in public on other matters.

by these definitions, calling Creationists and IDers Anti-intellectual is not fair...

Its like saying that if you believe that a magic man done it.. you're brain damaged

Its a borderline Ad Hominem attack...

reply to post by nj2day


But by wiki's definition of anti-intellectualism, the actions and behavior of some creationists, those with the agenda, is. I've said numerous times that I didn't mean creationism by it's self is not anti-intellectual, but in a broader sense the spread of creationism is seriously risking the spread of anti-intellectualism.

Originally posted by Good Wolf

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)

reply to post by Good Wolf


as far as the spread of the beliefs, I would assume those new believers are converts...

I wouldn't think that as the percentage of believers hypothetically increases, the percentage or instances of anti-intellectualism will increase... I would have a tendency to believe that people that engage in this behavior, were inclined from the get go...

Most of the time when I try to debate someone and debunk their belief in ID, I usually get told that they have to ask their pastor... or their parents, or look into it...

That could either be taken at face value, and they truly don't understand the implications of their own beliefs, and have to consult with their cult leaders before they can offer rebuttal... or it could mean they don't even want to engage in that conversation, and find a way to politely defer the conversation somewhere else...

its actually pretty rare to find people that will engage in debate on the subject... and even rarer to find someone with the knowledge under their belt to argue without deferring to circular logic and straw men...

But, also by that definition, there are alot of people on ATS that fit the discription of an anti-intellectual... second guessing science and what they've been taught is scientifically valid... so as ATSers grow in numbers, would that be considered anti-intellectualism spreading?

or would you consider that the people who become "anti-intellectuals" we're predisposed to assume that position from the beginning, and just needed a prod...

reply to post by nj2day


Well that goes contrary to my experiences. Many people with fundamental faiths that I've met respond to science with hostility. As far as it goes on ATS, of course you are going to find anti-intellectualism but for the most part it's fine. That is until you get to the origins board where you find a wealth of anti-intellectualism.

There's no excusing the tampering with the education system to suppress science.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
I have ADHD - what can I say?
Oh look, a cat!

Really? You do well to contribute as much as you do on ATS. How bad is it?

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by nj2day

 

There's no excusing the tampering with the education system to suppress science.

Completely, unequivically, unconditionally agree 100%

I don't think the one's that do that though are anti-intellectuals, I just think they want to inject their own propaganda into the brainwashing of our youth...

Its easier to keep a church going if the next generation has already been brainwashed into thinking their views are legit, or scientifically valid

reply to post by DangerDeath


I really don't think you should be pushing the creativity angle. After all, varying degrees of creativity have been found in nearly all species - and some are remarkably clever despite huge divides in the evolutionary path. Crows, Dolphins, and Octopodes all have remarkable intelligence levels and problem solving skills. Not to human levels, perhaps, but still quite impressive. Speaking of humans, Neanderthals and many of our closest relatives (Homo Sapiens Idaltu was our closest sister species, IIRC) were highly intelligent as well. However, we simply do not know why they never apparently rose to our current level of technological advancement despite being similarly intelligent. We know it's not uncommon. Despite having the same mental capacity as the rest of the species, many cultures in the world today still have not advanced much past what our distant relatives had. Especially those had been geolographically isolated from the outside world. Imagine, for example, what America would look like today if Europeans had never settled here. Would Native American tribes, left to their own devices, have our current level of technology, art, industry, etc?

Why not? They have the same mental capacity and creativity as all humans. What held them back? Think about that for a bit.

As for why many of our parent/sister/cousin species died out despite having similar or larger brain capacities in some cases - it may just be that intelligence is an evolutionary dead end. It may not seem that way now, sitting at your computer desk in a warm room, with plenty of food, safe from predators and disease... but ask yourself, where are our hominid bretheren? The brain is a highly energy expensive organ. I think I read somewhere than nearly 1/4th of all the calories you should intake in a day go towards sustaining this one organ. Due to our bipedal nature, the increased brain size is also a huge problem for childbirth - and throughout history it was not uncommon for it to be the cause of death for both the mother and the child. Our current human species is only about 200,000 years old - and we already currently have the technology to drive our species damned neared to extinction - ready at the press of a button in some cases.

As for the Aquatic Ape theory, I do subscribe to this theory despite the lack of apparent evidence to prove it's validity. It simply makes sense to me that a species living within close proximity to water - that could and did harness it's resources - would acquire some physical traits indicative of a semi-aquatic species.

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by DangerDeath

 

Despite having the same mental capacity as the rest of the species, many cultures in the world today still have not advanced much past what our distant relatives had. Especially those had been geolographically isolated from the outside world. Imagine, for example, what America would look like today if Europeans had never settled here. Would Native American tribes, left to their own devices, have our current level of technology, art, industry, etc?

They would have had a different technology structure all together... remember, the South Americans were very technologically advanced, and were very astute at some of the sciences...

Apparently you fail to recognize that technology grows exponentially when multiple cultures meet up and share ideas... The Chinese were technologically superior to the Europeans less than 700 years ago. Where would Europe's technology be if Marco Polo never set sail? Where would northern Europe be without Julius Caesar and Rome? when Caesar got to Gaul, it was inhabited by people using stone age technology... same with the British Isles.

There were already complex cities here in the Americas when the Spaniards showed up... it looks like you have the premise that Native Americans were "savages". which they were not...

Why not? They have the same mental capacity and creativity as all humans. What held them back? Think about that for a bit.

Whether you're aware of it or not, this sounds like a very racist remark... please explain what you mean?

Due to our bipedal nature, the increased brain size is also a huge problem for childbirth - and throughout history it was not uncommon for it to be the cause of death for both the mother and the child.

This shows that evolution is not perfect... Our skull size wasn't too big for childbirth before we became bipedal... Evolution has made childbirth more difficult.