Creationism's Legacy: Anti-intellectualism

reply to post by MCoG1980


haha thats funny

over 3% genetic variance between different racial groups? a potatoe is only 2% different

his understanding of genetics is tragic

one race group shows a 15% increase in genetic suseptablity compared to others ..... yes if a large portion of your ancestors lived in a area with a prevalent disease its not suprising thier immune system fights it better then someone who has never been exposed so why only 15% id ask

when he is throwing his 3% different species thing about a)different species couldnt interbreed b)i know if my dna ancestrey is checked out its going to have traces of black asian arabic oriental and probabily every other distinct racial group genetic marker in it

he is workin his premise from the wrong end. we didnt start out as different species we were becoming divergent species of homosapien, then we all wondered around and interbred and stopped that happening, had we lived in isolated small groups yes different species we would have become but we didnt start that way other wise we couldnt all breed together

his arguments are the same as any creationists

i dont believe, i dont know how, i dont think, it doesnt seem possible

his ignorance of the subject doesnt make his beliefs accurate


and still we must have evolved to the point before said aliens came along and did the dna magic, and those aliens must have evolved to be comlex enough to tinker with our dna


[edit on 1/11/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
There is a big difference between intelligence and intellectualism. One can be smart but still be uneducated. These polls were showing the connection between education level and belief in creationism.

Yes I know.
And I agree.
I just don't want this to turn into something ugly...
I mean, putting it the way you did is like opening a can of worms in my opinion.
I just wanted to make sure that people reading that understood that it doesn't suggest you're 'stupid' if you're a creationist.
Even though that's not what you said, a lot of people might read it as that. Especially with you calling them "sheep in the flock"...

reply to post by TruthParadox


Yea, he tends to come across like that.

Unfortunately, I think, the anti-intellectual sentiment in the US runs much deeper than the evolution debate. There's a much bigger phenomenon going on. Somehow we learn at a very early age to pick on the "brainy" kids at school, before we have any idea what evolution is! That doesn't happen in other countries. Then many of us grow into adults who have a huge chip on our shoulers about others who have had the priviledge of a better education. I'm not sure why this happens, but I think it's all very independent of the evolution debate. Something else is going on.

reply to post by Distractions4Nothing


Wow I didn't know about that. but yea absolutely. I've never seen it here in NZ anyway.

reply to post by Distractions4Nothing


weve got it to some degree here in the UK

thats why i learnt to be the funny kid fast, they loved me casue i was funny and if they could copy my work or i could help em out even better lol

by the time i hit secondry school (high school) i was well versed in bieng the funny smart kid not the nerdy kid to be hit

even now im considered a lovable nerd ^_^ and as ive got older ive got the galsses to go with it hahah





[edit on 1/11/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by TruthParadox


I guess I should have been clearer with that. In no way did I mean to implicate that they are stupid, just tend to be less educated. Part of the higher education process is learning to think for yourself and not be one of the pack, hence the 'sheep' comment. In most fundamental religious denominations, thinking for oneself is not considered a desirable trait. One is not allowed to question doctrine or dogma, which is what led me to leave the Church and seek truth on my own.

I also have to agree with the comment about picking on the smart kids. It happened to me when I was in school. Somewhere along the line, it became very 'uncool' to be smart. This could be one of the reasons for the 'dumbing down of America' that you hear so much about.

reply to post by nj2day

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...

compared to whom, what cultures, and what time period? Ancient South American cultures (specifically the Mayans) were highly technologically advanced in comparison to their other local cultures of that time - but what about when compared to the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, etc of their time period? Perhaps their most noted accomplishments were their prowess with astrology and construction - fields of study that many other cultures of their time excelled, or surpassed them, in as well. For instance, the Mayans believed that the Sun was a planet - whereas the Greeks knew that it wasn't several hundred years before the rise of their civilization.

Apparently you fail to recognize that technology grows exponentially when multiple cultures meet up and share ideas...

Not at all. However, what prevented Native Americans in both the Northern and Southern hemisphere from interacting and trading with each other in a similar fashion to how the Europeans, Asians, and Middle-Eastern cultures did? I was simply trying to illustrate that there are multiple reasons for a culture or a species (in a larger sense) to have not achieved a high level of culture and society (in comparison to contemporary human civilization). Brain size alone wouldn't determine how fast or slowly a species develops - and I attempted to illustrate this by showing the divide in the technological and cultural divides between the various cultures of our own species despite all having the same basic potential.

Whether you're aware of it or not, this sounds like a very racist remark

Clarified above, I would hope. I would also hope that you or others don't see that as a racist remark, especially considering that I, myself, am part Native American. Believe me, it was not my intention. However, I will not be chained by the bonds of "PC" to say that tribal life was not more savage than contemporary modern society. Conditions and traditions in many tribes were quite savage. Just as life in the 16th century were more savage than life in the 20th.

If you cannot, or will not, understand this basic precept as anything other than racism - then I really don't see the need to explain it any further.

Our skull size wasn't too big for childbirth before we became bipedal... Evolution has made childbirth more difficult.

Actually, yes it is. If you compare the skull of a human fetus to that of a pelvis from our early non-bipedial ancestors, you'd find that even while walking on fours we would have had considerable trouble trying to pass a head of that size (even adjusting for changes in size). If it could be passed at all. However at the time our ancestors were still walking on all fours, or primarily on fours, our skulls (as well as proportions of the fetus in general) were much smaller.

Hwy guys, I just found a book called 'Denying Evolution' that talks about creationism-form anti-intellectualism.

www.sinauer.com...

Denying Evolution aims at taking a fresh look at the evolution–creation controversy. It presents a truly “balanced” treatment, not in the sense of treating creationism as a legitimate scientific theory (it demonstrably is not), but in the sense of dividing the blame for the controversy equally between creationists and scientists—the former for subscribing to various forms of anti-intellectualism, the latter for discounting science education and presenting science as scientism to the public and the media.

............

The last part of the book discusses long-term solutions to the problem, from better science teaching at all levels to the necessity of widespread understanding of how the brain works and why people have difficulties with critical thinking.

Seems it the sum of all the discussions on this board, really.


This book act's like a counter to Ben Stein's propaganda film, it can be approached by people ignorant to evolution theory and science in general according to the reviews.

[edit on 11/3/2008 by Good Wolf]

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Hwy guys, I just found a book called 'Denying Evolution' that talks about creationism-form anti-intellectualism.

www.sinauer.com...

Denying Evolution aims at taking a fresh look at the evolution–creation controversy. It presents a truly “balanced” treatment, not in the sense of treating creationism as a legitimate scientific theory (it demonstrably is not), but in the sense of dividing the blame for the controversy equally between creationists and scientists—the former for subscribing to various forms of anti-intellectualism, the latter for discounting science education and presenting science as scientism to the public and the media.

............

The last part of the book discusses long-term solutions to the problem, from better science teaching at all levels to the necessity of widespread understanding of how the brain works and why people have difficulties with critical thinking.

Seems it the sum of all the discussions on this board, really.


This book act's like a counter to Ben Stein's propaganda film, it can be approached by people ignorant to evolution theory and science in general according to the reviews.

[edit on 11/3/2008 by Good Wolf]

w00t, my university has a copy of this in the library. I'll check it out post my thoughts on it whenever I get it done.

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


That would be great of you. I'm very interested to hear about some solutions to the spread of creationism and logical bankruptcy!

[edit on 11/3/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Yea I would agree with you it is the same here in New Zealand but I guess it is right across the planet to some extent or other.

I remember back into the 1980's when I started Designing and Manufacturing Automotive Control Computers for the Auto Industry people at first ask what do you do for a living and so I would inform them but about 80% would disbelieve me denying the fact that this could be done in New Zealand being unable to compete on the world market. People are very strange at times and are unable to accept those that make the extra effort.

Even now I notice the negativity and disbelief that I have been involved with Optical Interfaces that Interface with the True Mind for some 15 to 16 years now.

I even had one member accusing me of not being truthful when I mentioned that I had partaken in Lectures overseas regarding this, he progressed to becoming rather insulting in fact. Strange how people will deny reality when it suits them because they are unable to grasp some subjects.

So I guess in many cases Childhood behaviour extends into the later years of many.

Per haps the result of dumbing down in the education system in order to bring about a level of conformity in society. It has a smell of Communism to me.

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

 

Yea I would agree with you it is the same here in New Zealand but I guess it is right across the planet to some extent or other.

Your a Kiwi?! Wow, that two in a day on here that I've talked to. Where you from?

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller

I remember back into the 1980's when I started Designing and Manufacturing Automotive Control Computers for the Auto Industry

now we know your lying you all ride around on giant kiwi's like chocobo's in final fantasy ^_^

Optical Interfaces that Interface with the True Mind

sorry might have to hijak the thread a little here

i have no clue what your talking about here beyond optical interfaces bieng somthing you look at

mind telling me more about what it is an what it does? and what the true mind is? im familair with concious/unconcious mind in psychology terms (behavioural and NLP) but this doesnt sound like that

Originally posted by noobfun
now we know your lying you all ride around on giant kiwi's like chocobo's in final fantasy ^_^

They were called Moa *_^

reply to post by Good Wolf

they are officailly extinct (fair few crypto sightings reported though) so i went with kiwi's

least i didnt say you were a bunch of sheep riders that could have been taken badly lol


[edit on 3/11/08 by noobfun]

haha well to be fair there are 10 sheep here to every 1 person. BTW, chocobo sized kiwis are just as "alive" as Moa are today

Yeah good grief who really cares anyways, I mean seriouslly -- science is flawed everyway shape and form. Sure, a good 60-90% of it is correct, but who knows how much of that will be changed. I'd say Christianity, Judism, Muslim and all the other religions are JUST as against science as an anyother. Bottom line, you don't see very many "religious" scientists.

Teaching creationism in schools is a little far though.

reply to post by AlienGhandi


Science is self-correcting and ever-refining. The current evolution theory is not wrong, it's just not as accurate as it will be.

And there are plenty of religious scientists - my mate Dr. Steve is a Christian, but he's also a nanobiologist. The two are not mutually exclusive. What you will have a hard time finding, though, is a Young-Earth Creationist who is also a biologist or geologist. They'd have to spend their entire careers with their fingers in their ears screaming "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA".

reply to post by dave420


Those YECs who are also scientists, IMHO, ingage in doublethink in order to keep their sanity and credibility.