Evolution vs Creationism

Remove all ads!

I think he is saying that the general populous just eats what they have been told, rather than trying to learn about concepts themselves (within their abilities). It is at the point where it is almost faith based, in that people are just believing what others do is correct.

As I said though, this is just the general populous, not those in the research community (I would assume).

 

You have it on something good there

It is how it is with religion, people 'just believing' something is right because of how they were raised, or the social group to which they belong. It is the same tribal mentality that helped humanity in the dawn of our lineage, but which is now a hindrance in more ways than it is a benefit.

I cringe every time I see an ad on tv and it says that such and such is scientifically tested, or dermatological, or clinical or whatever, because it is just a gimmick, and the average lay person has no idea. People see something that has 'scientifically formulated' and think 'oh wow this has to be good', or 'scientific breakthrough' or any other of the catch phrases employed. People blindly follow what they are told to follow.

As for myself and my experience with science, I still remain skeptical about chemistry and a lot of physics, but it is not because of my beliefs hindering my understanding, it is simply that I am not a chemist or a physicist, and have not really had much time to study them indepth. Im especially skepitcal concerning social sciences...theres just something not quite right about it...

 

I couldn't resist posting this.

 

Have any of you guys ever played the game Victoria? It's like Europa Universalis, but for the industrial revolution period. Anyway, it has an interesting concept in the game, about how to govern your people through altering their consciousness.
Basically, you can use clergymen to lower your population's consciousness, so that they are more tolerant to being mistreated (taxation, but also democracy etc.). It can go so far actually, that the population react negatively to more rights and personal freedoms, because of their low consciousness. You can experience this when you observe that much of the middle-east isn't ready for democracy - they don't know what to do with it: who must they blindly follow? It's mainly about the middle class and science here: You can create a religious country, but your middle class will be mostly craftsmen and very few clerks, which means your scientific progress will be slower.
What I mean to say by this, is that NOG's observation:

Illustrates the low consciousness culture present in the States, when even supporters of evolution aren't thinking scientifically. But in general this culture will be beneficial to religion and not to science. Why? You can feed the populus all sorts of tripe, and they won't check any of it, because their primary (read: only) source of information is the TV they watch. It's dogmatic not through forced indoctrination, but through complacency. People are free to watch TV, and if they voluntarily misinform themselves, where's the dogma?

Silvery, it was a great article, but the conundrum about the evolutionary past of pink iguanas sooner questions the geographical earth history of the islands in the archipelago, than that it questions the fundamentals of evolution theory. Great link anyway.

 

Yeah, you guys have pretty much gotten what I meant, except that it's far more pervasive. It's not just limited to my perception of the controvercial topics like evolution, global warming, etc. I hear a random comment from someone in the supermarket about astronomy and they say 'It's a fact, I saw it on the Discovery Channel', and I, with my very limited knowledge of astronomy, know that it's near-complete BS, but this person has accepted it on faith. I've tried talking with some of these people, and they refuse to listen, or even to go and look it up online themselves, because I'm young and so I must not be an expert. What really scares me is when it is applied to practical things like medicine. The whole 'organic foods' market scares me a little, and the lengths to which some people go to 'eat healthy' all but makes me crap my pants. I suppose you could say 'survival of the fit' is still a factor in the USA in that respect.

 

Organic food bugs me...Why pay extra when so little effort is put into growing the stuff?

 

The term organic food is redundant...all food is organic if it contains carbon.

 

I think the term is short for "organically grown" -- the idea being that only "natural", organic fertilizers and processes were used to grow or create the food. My question is where is the line there? I mean, when does a fertilizer material or insecticide become no longer "organic" and therefore "unnatural, made in a lab by geeks in white coats"? I mean, certainly the extremes like DDT are easy to point out but what about manure that has been dried or come through some sort of minor chemical process -- does that make it an "unnatural additive"?

I'm all for not ingesting truly toxic chemicals with my food but I am deeply suspicious of people who claim their produce is so superior to the other guy's that it merits such a huge difference in price.

 

If you're talking about chemical processes then manure shouldn't be used at all. The whole digestive process is a chemical process!

 

This is my point exactly...organic food is anything with carbon, organically grown food is anything grown using carbon. The whole terminology is abused by my less than informed hippy brethren.

What I think is worse than even my well meaning but misinformed fellow hippies is the ignorant beyond ignorant christian friends I have who think the most ridiculous things about the world. They not only believe the bible as being 100% literal in every way, including the fact that women cannot be trusted with anything because they are deceitful, they leave themselves open to pseudoscience in the extreme. The latest trend with them is what they call Vitamin B17. Ive told them that its not a vitamin, its some cyanide molecule, but they wont have any of that...they think its a bona fide cancer cure, fix everything that ails you vitamin. Recently some of them bought lots of apricot kernels so they could eat many of them a day, I dunno how many exactly, I switch off when they talk their mumbo-jumbo science. They also think that colloidal silver is the best way to stop getting sick...despite it turning at least one man into something out of Star Trek. Nothing I say to them can convince them that this pseudoscience is nonsense, they fully believe it...and yet when I talk evolution to them, its satan talk. Im at my wits end with these people, gone so far as banning them from my house. One of them was my flatmate, but isnt now. Hes a nice guy, a good theoretical physicist, but is a young earth creationist...it makes no sense.

To me it just seems that when you do not have your beliefs about the world grounded in facts - ie reality - and instead put your belief in beliefs themselves which can never be empirically proven or even proven a priori, then you are opening the door to magical thinking which comes from a distorted view of reality. When you expect mythological figures to 'come back' during your life time...what sort of plans do you make for the future. When a good majority of the population of your country believe that their imaginary friend will come back in their life time to take them to a place that is equally imaginary, what sort of planning for the future does that create? When the leader of your country talks to himself every day believing that he is talking to someone, why is he not put in an asylum? When you place belief in beliefs which are based on beliefs that are based on beliefs...ad infinitum (it seems) - above fact, does that not open you up to magical thinking and a distorted view of reality?

 

The whole idea that 'natural is good and man-made is bad' is inherrantly faulty. Where do you draw the line? Cianide is a naturally occurring chemical. So is Cocaine. The man-made processes related to these simply concentrate them. Is that 'natural' or 'man made'? What about the digestive juices of creature X that are used to modify corn syrup into high-fructose corn syrup? Is that natural, since it's natural chemicals, or unnatural, since it's directed by humans? I'd guess 95% of the chemicals used for processing and preservation are either naturally occuring (though we may synthesise them for simplicity's sake) or the result of mixing naturally occuring chemicals. Give it a name like Dioxytritholene, though, and it must be unnatural and evil, even if that's the fancy chemical name for the oil that comes out of your hair follicals.

Anyway, as to the religious aspects you brought up, Nataraja, things get a little more hairy, but there are still clear lines to be drawn. If it's science, I trust scientists, and I trust them as much as they can prove it to me. I trust my communion with God because He's never led me astray and He's never been disproven. If God told me the world was actually made of cheese and all I had to do was dig deeply enough to eat all the cheddar I wanted, I'd talk to a shrink. Some religious groups fall into that, 'Whatever our chosen one says' mentality, but that doesn't mean you should tar all spiritually minded folk with the same brush.

 

From what I can remember from school, as it rains, the nutrients from manure are taken through the soul and into the roots of the plant, while the rest of the crap decomposes into dirt. The perception that the "organic food movement" is trying to foster is that the chemicals in haturally occuring fecal matter are more desirable than the chemicals designed specifically for agricultural purposes. This is convenient, because some of you are calling what they peddle a load of **** anyway...

But what if the facts don't explain everything? Without the "prime mover" or "first cause" there is something logically inconsistent within the world.

Interesting thing about that. First off, nobody knows the exact date and time of the return of Christ. Sercondly, you prepare as if He wasn't coming back in your lifetime--you owe that to your posterity.

Exactly the point. It's not about blindly following, but about trying to do that which is right. Do you really think that if religion was as whacked out as some claim it is that it would have survived?

 

To be fair, the far left can do some really silly things. I heard that Greenpeace launches widescale protests against genetically modified food. All the while, people are starving in desperate countries. I'm sure there are *some* people in Greenpeace who know enough about genetic modification to tell you that the scare is not necessary, and is mainly based on language, and limited knowledge of genetics. The astronomically unlikely theory, is that a resistance gene added to a foodcrop plant will cross over into a retrovirus when it replicates itself inside a plant cell. But the chances of a retrovirus 'accidentally' including the entire working gene into its replication, and being able to apply this resistance properly, is too small to even consider.
And there are many other reasons people object to them, like direct health risk, which is total nonsense.

You must simply accept the fact that we don't know everything, and never will. And that not everything happens for a reason, at least, not one you would understand or be satisfied with.

 

I think at one time Greenpeace tried to have a world wide ban on chlorine...

Im a member of Greenpeace, donate $20 of my limited income to them a month...but I dunno...its too full of nutters for my liking these days.

Also, as far as first causes go, what was the first cause of your god/gods? What caused the Christian god and what caused the original original original Mormon god, like the one that got busy and made elohim etc, and the god that got busy to make him and so on...theres no end. This I find problematic, almost as problematic as the oscillating universe model proposed by hindu sages, and also reincarnation, which I think is nonsense too.

And another 'also'...humans are mammals, humans are almost chimpanzee, and all that really differs is a few changes here and there, such as the fusion of two separate great ape chromosomes in humans...so if humans have souls, do the other animals do too? Humans are animals much the same as a dog, or a cat, or a cow, or a sheep, or a whale or any other mammal. Same basic 'everything'. So what then, really, separates humans and gives us the right to pretend like we are separate from animals? And dont say its the soul, thats nonsense. The soul doesnt exist, nor does any sort of spirit.

 

With that mindset there is nothing we can say to convince you & to try would be fruitless. Sorry

 

You mean, with a mindset of a biologist? Of course not, nothing will sway me or any other biologist worth their salt. Humans are animals, plain and simple.

 

No, just simply with the mindset of "there is no soul".
Not attempting to belittle you or anything however you have made up your mind at far too young of an age.

I'm almost a decade & a half older & still not old enough to claim to know whats what with any certainty

 

Well there simply isnt one, its a fact. There are no souls, there are no spirits. Fact.

Evidence...



...amongst other things...

 

No, not fact, just your BELIEF in the religion of Atheism.
Nothing wrong with that just a bit of narrow-mindedness in not realising it.
Sorry but you are as fervent in your beliefs as any christian in their belief of what they feel is true.

 

Um, it is actually a fact, and I have given evidence. If it was just my belief then there wouldnt be hard scientific evidence in support of it.

Also, Im not an atheist, and I wont ever be one.