|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 08/08/2007 : 11:21:51 [Permalink]
|
Ricky said:
| Dude, you seem to be assuming that everyone has studied science. |
You don't need to have studied science to have an informed opinion on a specific matter. If you did, then 95% of the members of this forum would need to shut the fuck up about most of the things we talk about. Have you studied climate science, biology, astronomy/cosmology, etc?
The concept of evolution, the scientific conclusions, and the evidence for it, are common knowledge. It exists freely in the public domain.
Anyone who is aware that there is a conflict between religious creationism and evolution has to be aware of the fact that evolution is the scientifically accepted explanation for the diversity of life.
If you know the word "evolution", then you are privy to atleast that much info.
I don't see how it can be called anything besides lying.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2007 : 11:36:52 [Permalink]
|
What about calling it "The most fiendish plot ever conceived by the Devil to subvert our minds and steal our souls by making us doubt our creator" It not worth the risk, according to the over-quoted Pascal...
But seriously, if you believe that this is the explanation, then you would be a fool to believe the scientists.*
*In addition to being a fool in general. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2007 : 13:31:35 [Permalink]
|
You don't need to have studied science to have an informed opinion on a specific matter. If you did, then 95% of the members of this forum would need to shut the fuck up about most of the things we talk about. Have you studied climate science, biology, astronomy/cosmology, etc? |
When I say studied, I am referring to having taken a class on it or looked at material for a reasonable amount of time. I don't mean at any professional level such as looking through peer reviewed scientific journals, which you seem to be implying. For example, I have studied biology and parts of astronomy in high school, and some climate science due to my undergraduate classes in geology.
| I don't see how it can be called anything besides lying. |
We tried to discuss the meaning of lying here in the thread, and I'm fairly certain it was mostly agreed upon that intentional deceit must be involved. I'll be assuming that is the case, but if it isn't, please correct me on your meaning. So then you are stating that 55% of Americans are trying to intentionally deceive others about evolution, no? While this to me is unbelievable, it does not point to anything wrong with your statement. I just wanted to make sure you understand the consequences of the above statement.
Can a person believe in something that is contradicted by science without being a liar? Can a person go through life being completely oblivious to science without being a liar? I think it is wrong to say that just because someone does not care about science or have any interest in hearing what it has to say automatically makes them a liar. But this is what you are saying, is it not? |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 02:55:25 [Permalink]
|
Ricky said:
| We tried to discuss the meaning of lying here in the thread, and I'm fairly certain it was mostly agreed upon that intentional deceit must be involved. |
If a person knows that evolution is the explanation supported by evidence, as they must if they are even remotely aware of the concept and especially if they reject it in favor of religion, and they refuse to acknowledge it.... how can it be anything other than intentional deceit?
| I think it is wrong to say that just because someone does not care about science or have any interest in hearing what it has to say automatically makes them a liar. But this is what you are saying, is it not? |
I'm saying that if they know enough about evolution to advocate against it, then they are a liar. ToE has been accepted science for 150+ years, it has been argued in the public domain (especially here in the US) to the point of tedium, including highly publicized court cases going back 60+ years. It is not possible for anyone who stands up and claims that "I didn't come from no monkey" to NOT have a rudimentary understanding of ToE and NOT be aware that it is supported by massive evidence.
When they hand-wave away all that evidence, without even bothering to look at it most times, then they are practicing intentional deceit.
| So then you are stating that 55% of Americans are trying to intentionally deceive others about evolution, no? |
Yes.
If the evidence for evolution wasn't so ubiquitous and freely available, or if there were some legitimate question about the science, then I'd have a different opinion on the matter. As it stands, its like saying that a person who tells you that a red traffic light means GO isn't telling you a lie, if the anti-evolution crowd aren't telling lies.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 04:50:08 [Permalink]
|
If a person knows that evolution is the explanation supported by evidence, as they must if they are even remotely aware of the concept and especially if they reject it in favor of religion, and they refuse to acknowledge it.... how can it be anything other than intentional deceit? |
I don't see why they must. I learned about the concept of evolution about a year before I saw any hard evidence for it. Especially if one is to hear about evolution through the television news. They certainly don't take the time to establish evolution as well grounded in evidence.
| If the evidence for evolution wasn't so ubiquitous and freely available |
But it isn't. Sure, you can get it if you use the internet and go to the right websites. But how many people don't use the internet? How many people don't go to Talk Origins? And of course there may be some shows on TV, but they are few and far between. Often they don't talk about evidence for evolution, but merely note its presence and effects.
Furthermore, just because there is evidence does not mean people see it as such. Many like Hovind dismiss evidence for various (wrong) reasons. But to the layman, a person who doesn't understand the actual science behind evolution, it looks like what Hovind is doing is more valid than a science geek who can't explain the process in a 5 second phrase. They fall victim because they trust in Hovind where as they mistrust science. I would say it is reasonable that a large amount of the US has a general mistrust of science, especially those in the Republican camp, but I don't have any statistics to back this up. Add on to this Hovind et al, and the fact that evolution goes against everything they've been brought up on, can you really blame them for siding with Creationism? Can you really call them liars? No. Rather, the victims of Creationist scumbags like Hovind and a poor science upbringing.
| As it stands, its like saying that a person who tells you that a red traffic light means GO isn't telling you a lie, if the anti-evolution crowd aren't telling lies. |
I wish evolution were that well known. It's not. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 08/09/2007 04:53:32 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 06:40:42 [Permalink]
|
| They will trust what a "man of god" says any day over a non-religious scientist, no matter what the evidence or logic says. And if the scientists is religious, but what they say goes against what the sacred text says, then the scientist isn't a real [insert religion] believer. They suffer from incredible amounts of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. How can one expect these people to think rationally and objectively view the data? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 08/09/2007 06:42:59 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 08:56:24 [Permalink]
|
Ricky said:
But it isn't. Sure, you can get it if you use the internet and go to the right websites. But how many people don't use the internet? How many people don't go to Talk Origins? And of course there may be some shows on TV, but they are few and far between. Often they don't talk about evidence for evolution, but merely note its presence and effects.
|
I disagree.
But my point doesn't rest on the evidence for evolution being widely available. It rests on the fact that if you are aware of the word, then you must also be aware that the evidence exists, even if you don't know what that evidence is.
pleco said:
| They suffer from incredible amounts of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. |
Which is intentional deceit directed at themselves, and when they tell another person that evolution is false it is an outward manifestation of their deceit. A lie.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Baxter
Skeptic Friend
USA
131 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 12:34:57 [Permalink]
|
| It is not possible for anyone who stands up and claims that "I didn't come from no monkey" to NOT have a rudimentary understanding of ToE and NOT be aware that it is supported by massive evidence. |
I can't help but see this as an under-estimation of their naïveté. Having been raised in a fundie church, in a fundie family in the bible belt, I feel confident to at least speculate that it's very likely for those who don't "come from no monkey" to have this lack of understanding and awareness. I think it's often the case, as I've seldom met one of them that did have a rudimentary understanding of ToE.
No, some are not aware of ToE being supported by anything, much less evidence. They might ask you what that word even means.
Perhaps they're just so dishonest that they're just pretending to be ignorant? I doubt it. I had a sticker depicting a "Truth fish" eating a "Darwin fish" on my car at one time. I wasn't pretending. Just ignorant.
One recurring thing I hear from the fundies I know is that scientists are "just trying to prove the bible wrong." This may be something that hinders them, they seem very cynical of the motives of scientists.
But let's not be too cynical regarding their honesty.
However, point taken Dude. There are some that deceive themselves because of their allegiance to a literal interpretation.
(I'm not a regular poster, hope you guys don't mind my jumping in here.) |
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." ~from Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know." ~Robert G. Ingersoll
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/09/2007 : 12:49:44 [Permalink]
|
I think that one point we are missing here is that we are speaking of one hell of a lot of people that will cheerfully accept metaphysical goobledegook over scientific fact, every time. They believe in angels and demons, and, probably, dowsing & telepathy & channeling dead relatives & Benny "Suck 'Em Dry" Hinn. And, of course: God. They believe this, and no amount of contrary evidence, however firm, will change their minds.
How many times have we seen it here on these boards? And how many of these folks have we convinced that the ToE is the best explanation, thus far, for the current diversity of life on earth?
Exactly none.
So when they state, with a straight face and in the even straighter face of solid facts in dispute of that statement, that "God done it all at once and evolution is a crock," are they lying?
I think not. I think that they are just being human, and no human likes being told by a bunch of raggedy-assed skeptics that the world view he/she has held since childhood is wrong. No, the lie belongs to the pedagogues that shaped that person's world view.
These are not, for the most part at least, dishonest people. They don't cheat on their taxes (any more than the rest of us) nor jump out of alleys to mug passersby, nor covet their neighbor's ass donkey. They're just scuffling along, trying to get by like the rest of us and what they were taught works for them in that they have "Hope," whatever that might mean. They are not about to let that be taken away by any sort of science, that they don't fully understand in the first place.
So who are the real liars, then? Dig it:
Pat Robertson: liar.
Bill Dembski: liar.
Ken Ham:liar extraordinaire.
James Dobson: liar.
Jerry Falwell: defunct liar.
Kent Hovind: locked down liar.
Tony Perkins: liar.
Benny Hinn: lying pickpocket
Jonathon Wells: lying moonie.
Jonathon Sarfati: liar, but a damned good chess player.
Tim Lahaye: liar.
Gary Bauer: liar.
Charles Colson: lying thug.
Sun Mung Moon: liar and the "Father" of many other liars.
And so forth. The list is far too extensive to entirely reproduce here, so, to those liars I've left out, well, maybe next time.
There in microcosm is where the blame for virtually all of the misguided statements concerning "faith & evolution" that appear here and elsewhere. These are the dedicated enemies of scientific fact, not the folks that visit us and too often leave in anger and despair.
I think that we should be a lot more careful in bandying the word "liar!" about.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 13:08:38 [Permalink]
|
I've always said that you can't be a creationist without lying, at the very minimum to yourself. But I've done so with the understanding that most creationists aren't consciously aware that they are lying, they're just deluded. But at the same time, it goes beyond simply being mistaken. Most creationists will also work very hard to purposely misunderstand the evidence for evolution and against their adopted mythology. So their delusion is usually something they actively and continually prop up--it isn't some passive state they have no direct control over.
It is as Dawkins said: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Lies and the Assorted Types Who Tell Them
