Darwin is an idiot.

I love how a lot of people tend to think of science as infallible, self-correcting, and altruistic.

It's a human institution and therefore IS corrupt. I can't think of a single human institution that isn't corrupt.

Peer reviewed scientific studies sure haven't thwarted big pharma and its attempts to turn our populace into zombies with no cares or emotions. In fact they seem to be gaining steam.......

Wouldnt just a wonderful institution such as science be able to see the BS in what's going on?

Do this many people really need mind altering drugs at the expense of sobriety? An enormous percentage of Americans are on "prescription" mind altering drugs and I think most people would agree that it blunts a persons ability to care. If you're flooded with serotonin all day are you really going to be operating at the level you should be? Will you ever learn anything when you're just artificially happy all of the time?

Just one data point to show that science is intertwined with academia which is intertwined with the government(and its funding). Can we really trust these powerful human institutions with so much vigor? Do we really think the outputs of scientific academia are all pure truth? Are the decision makers at the top really all that objective?

They want us to be confused and complacent. Both sides of this topic should consider joining hands because there is certainly merit on both ends. It's dumb to think that it's one way or the other. It's akin to democrat vs republican; and it's ridiculous.

Divide and conquer yet again......

reply to post by sdb93awd

So evolution isn't wrong, just science is evil? Is that the gist?

reply to post by iterationzero

So evolution isn't wrong, just science is evil? Is that the gist?

No. That isn't the gist. Science is far from evil. I adore science.

The evil lies within the institutions. People talk about science in ways that make it seem like it's free from corruption or agendas. This is simply not true. The people at the top of any institution have agendas and are generally not as objective as they should be.

I'll use the same example as I was using before:

Scientific studies and peer reviewed papers are a part of the medicinal science community as well. Why then is big pharma allowed to push dangerous medications on the populace with almost no repercussions? Why is almost half of our population on psychotropic medication? Why is it ok to prescribe a 6 year old amphetamines? Because they can back up their racket via studies and peer review. The cycle perpetuates itself. I've personally been addicted to a medicine that was specifically labeled non-narcotic. That was its whole selling point. It was the most hellacious experience of my life. They are making billions off of this drug......

I'm not sure anybody can argue that this is a good thing. I think the polls about the NSA and things like that show just how complacent Americans are and I point a huge finger at big pharma for taking away peoples emotions(you know, those feelings that entice people to act or at least care).

It's all firmly rooted in institutional science and who are we to argue right?

At the end of the day all I'm trying to convey is that all human institutions are inherently filled with corruption(see: catholicism).

Academic science is an ENORMOUS human institution that has its hands in almost every arena and I think that any rational person may want to temper their enthusiasm about what this giant institution puts out. It really isn't actually more insane to believe in a creator than it is to believe in the things that science has as explanations for existence. Science knows nothing(relatively) about this universe or existence in general. And Genesis isn't as black and white as some creationists might be brainwashed into believing(another institutional fail).It is in fact quite vague and up for interpretation when it comes to aging of the earth and the creation process itself.

Just like catholicism, most people involved in these institutions have their hearts in the right place but it ultimately doesn't mean anything to corruption of said institution.

I love nuns but I despise Catholicism because of what humans have done to it.

reply to post by sdb93awd

The evil lies within the institutions. People talk about science in ways that make it seem like it's free from corruption or agendas. This is simply not true. The people at the top of any institution have agendas and are generally not as objective as they should be.

I agree with you, but science isn't an institution. It's a methodology. When institutions seek to pervert that methodology, it's ultimately discovered by scientists who are seeking to replicate the condition of a particular experiment. I don't think anyone ever claimed that science is instantly self-correcting.

reply to post by iterationzero

I agree with you, but science isn't an institution. It's a methodology. When institutions seek to pervert that methodology, it's ultimately discovered by scientists who are seeking to replicate the condition of a particular experiment. I don't think anyone ever claimed that science is instantly self-correcting.

Just as our constitution can be perverted, scientific methodology and the output from the institution can be perverted by those who are in control.

People need to quit thinking of science as exempt from corruption. Science is up there as one of the most influential(and thus a great candidate for perversion) institutions known to man.

I

reply to post by Anttyk47


Well said. Put so simply, even an 'idiot' like me could understand it.

To add to the discussion though, keep in mind that Darwin merely came up with a theory and was the first to really put it out there like this. What is the alternative theory?

I've always believed that Intelligent Design is just so biblical-believing scientists can sleep at night. Go Evolution! Darwin rules!

reply to post by sdb93awd


The problem with what you are saying is that you need to look at each institution individually. You are generalizing that because certain ones might have corrupt people calling the shots, that it must apply to all other scientific institutions or a vast majority of them. There's no basis in reality for that argument.

Originally posted by CandiceZ




I dont know, but Im not just going to go on some random guys perception on how we became to be.

I think I'll just leave it there.
If Darwin is 'some random guy', then that tells me enough about the OP.
For all intents and purposes, Darwin was not an idiot. His life's work, whether one agrees with it or not, clearly shows his intellectual capacity.

reply to post by Barcs

The problem with what you are saying is that you need to look at each institution individually. You are generalizing that because certain ones might have corrupt people calling the shots, that it must apply to all other scientific institutions or a vast majority of them. There's no basis in reality for that argument.

If you can think of a significant human institution that isn't filled with corruption let me know.

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by CandiceZ




I dont know, but Im not just going to go on some random guys perception on how we became to be.

I think I'll just leave it there.
If Darwin is 'some random guy', then that tells me enough about the OP.
For all intents and purposes, Darwin was not an idiot. His life's work, whether one agrees with it or not, clearly shows his intellectual capacity.

Gave you a star for that, if only because it beggers belief how the OP has got so many for this thread, shocking. Calling Darwin a "random guy"..oh dear. Hopefully Darwin was right, as in a few generations this lack of intelligence will be filtered out...for the sake of humanity I hope so.

reply to post by doorhandle

Hopefully Darwin was right, as in a few generations this lack of intelligence will be filtered out...for the sake of humanity I hope so.

Anybody who thinks that we as a species are increasing in intelligence(not knowledge) couldn't possibly be more blind.

We will not be getting any smarter as a species. In fact, our complete stupidity and fascination with all sorts of new and dangerous technology has pushed us to the brink of extinction.

We like to pretend that there won't be nuclear warfare one day.

We evolved to be so smart that we're actually the dumbest of all creatures. We are the only species that goes around and willfully destroys its own natural habitat. It's because we're so smart these days.

Or maybe evil has something to do with it. I'm not sure.

Originally posted by bon3z
God is like santa (to be nice), not saying aliens did it, althou its still more plusable than god, all im saying is we are diffrent, and a lot. Why?

Survival... the closest beings to humans were killed off millions of years ago, I believe? We would not be here if it wasn't for the barbarism.

Originally posted by amazing
reply to post by Anttyk47

 

Well said. Put so simply, even an 'idiot' like me could understand it.

To add to the discussion though, keep in mind that Darwin merely came up with a theory and was the first to really put it out there like this. What is the alternative theory?

God did it.

Originally posted by sdb93awd
reply to post by Barcs

 

The problem with what you are saying is that you need to look at each institution individually. You are generalizing that because certain ones might have corrupt people calling the shots, that it must apply to all other scientific institutions or a vast majority of them. There's no basis in reality for that argument.

If you can think of a significant human institution that isn't filled with corruption let me know.

Re-read my original reply. You need to look at each one individually or be more specific. There are hundreds if not thousands of scientific institutions. Some are privately controlled, Some are run by the government. Some are non profit. Some work off grants. Some are sponsored by corporate interests. You can't just lump them all together because you think all institutions are corrupt. Corruption is caused by immoral humans, taking advantage of a situation to benefit themselves, not the science itself. Science is what exposed the frauds, which is why it is a great method of fact discovery. You need to post some evidence of biology or genetics research institutions being "corrupted". You can't just generalize like that.

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
reply to post by CandiceZ

 

You're right. If Darwin is so smart, then why is he DEAD.

lmfao

a reply to: Cosmic911

Keep in mind all the historical proof there is in the Bible. Even if you don't believe it (you should), everything is PERFECTLY historically accurate. You could just say, oh, the Bible was written later so that it lined up. But the Old Testament has been proven to be translated to Greek 2,000 freaking YEARS before 0 A.D. And don't you find it easier to believe that you have a purpose, and are not here by chance?

a reply to: DashingFreak

No the bible isn't 100% proven accurate by any stretch of the imagination.

Nor does it matter what we find easier to believe or our feeling that we have a purpose. Neither of those have anything to do with an accurate history.

Haha, here's a blast from the past. Yeah, that dumb Darwin guy that discovered evolution! He's just as dumb as Newton, Einstein, Hawking, etc! What a bunch of idiots!!! I don't like their ideas, so they are automatically wrong and unrealistic!!! Waaaaah!