15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense(sciam.com)
sciam.com
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&print=true
7 comments
Mind that your average religious nutjob is in its way to a Black Swan: they are breeding at a faster pace than the rest of us. They will outnumber us, and at some point quite dramatically (growth is exponential, but one doesn't feel it until it's too late and the new nutjob majority too sudden).
Yeah but this assumes that children will believe just like their parents. It ain't necessarily so!
I vote for religion vs atheism topics not to be discussed here in HN.
I don't know man.. if the mods want to remove it, its up to them. I'm just following the submission guidelines.. submitting what 'gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.' This goes beyond hacking and start-ups, from what I've read.
Yes, I get your point and I also do not feel strongly against this submission. If it climbed to the frontpage, so be it, I am fine.
What I am against is to regularly have such topics here on HN, since except of intellectual curiosity, there is also a wide range of very personal issues involved. People have different perceptions about what is a fact, proof or superstition, they went through different experiences etc. And, when those topics are discussed on the internet, it usually leads to nowhere, because it is very hard to even agree on basic assumptions.
It is fine to discuss this stuff in general, but I just think that the Internet is not a good medium for it. In my experience, it's usually better just to respect everyones right to ones own belief and focus on other things.
What I am against is to regularly have such topics here on HN, since except of intellectual curiosity, there is also a wide range of very personal issues involved. People have different perceptions about what is a fact, proof or superstition, they went through different experiences etc. And, when those topics are discussed on the internet, it usually leads to nowhere, because it is very hard to even agree on basic assumptions.
It is fine to discuss this stuff in general, but I just think that the Internet is not a good medium for it. In my experience, it's usually better just to respect everyones right to ones own belief and focus on other things.
Could we make this post: dead
If you want this kind of discussion, go to http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/
If you want this kind of discussion, go to http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/
I actually didn't realize that I was this misinformed about evolution. Even the first example they bring up about "theory" not meaning what Creationists purport it to mean was enlightening.
Good article. Though I actually don't like their answer to objection #2 -
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
My response would be that this is a mischaracterization of the theory of evolution. My knowledge is grade-school level, unfortunately, but I always thought that the theory of evolution was that random mutation, filtered by natural selection, let to speciation.
That is a refutable hypothesis - ie., something that can be supported or refuted by the evidence. To me, the circular thing seems true, but irrelevant.
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
My response would be that this is a mischaracterization of the theory of evolution. My knowledge is grade-school level, unfortunately, but I always thought that the theory of evolution was that random mutation, filtered by natural selection, let to speciation.
That is a refutable hypothesis - ie., something that can be supported or refuted by the evidence. To me, the circular thing seems true, but irrelevant.
Science says X, and creationists sat 2+2=5, they also say that X is wrong, even if it is, 2+2 is not 5, even if big brother says it is, its not! We have nothing to prove or disprove, there is no creationist theory, 2+2=5 is not a theory! And if god exists(we can't be sure) isn't it possible that he created the universe, so that life can spontaneously emerge and evolve? Im not religious at all, but evolution doesn't disprove god(nothing does, and nothing proves it either), it just disproofs creationism. And here is a good question: Who created god?
I've flagged this as well. In my opinion, it's inflammatory.
My personal philosophical problem with it is that you can be an ID'er without being a religious creationist. But we all get lumped in together. I don't like that.
A second problem is that religious creationists are going to be emotionally moved to respond, and the other side is already prompted to give the religious guys a pounding. Everybody will be talking past one another.
So nothing gets accomplished except for a bunch of posturin and noise.
Thanks but no thanks.
My personal philosophical problem with it is that you can be an ID'er without being a religious creationist. But we all get lumped in together. I don't like that.
A second problem is that religious creationists are going to be emotionally moved to respond, and the other side is already prompted to give the religious guys a pounding. Everybody will be talking past one another.
So nothing gets accomplished except for a bunch of posturin and noise.
Thanks but no thanks.
Pull these arguments out for things like schoolboard meetings and the local PTA/PTO. As long as we can keep evolution in schools, we can always hope that children will end up smarter than their parents.