Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
questionmark

A lesson in American ignorance

81 posts in this topic

How does every single thread somehow end up about evolution?

Edited by Kazoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice try. You made a post that you used as bait. You then responded 7 times in one day to keep an off topic subject going.

Fine, believe what you will. Keep disliking me...I am here to stay...

So because some people belive one theory (evolution) while others believe a different theory (creationism) America is the most ignorant? Since neither are proven, hence the word "Theory of Evolution" and "Theory of Creationism", how do you know who is right. Only by the Theory you choose to believe.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are ignorant. Your hubris knows no bounds.

This was exactly the point I am making...You believe that due to ignorance. A theory in science in a fact...creationism is not an accepted theory in the scientific world. This has been proven in court cases and is accepted by the scientific community. This is a matter of scientific fact, and evolution is a scientific fact, the same as heliocentrism, gravity, plate techtonics, big bang, ect. They are not ignorant because they do not agree with me, they are ignorant because they do not accept or understand 8th grade biology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you name some?

Intelligence without education isn't worth much in some cases.

Well thats really the saddest part about the whole thing. Guys, some who were top in thier field, instantly became garbage to the scientific community soon as they expressed doubt in parts evolution. You cant find much on these men. They have been black balled into completion. The smear attacks are relentless. Personaly I think there are probably alot more scientists who have doubt, but consider working more important then sharing those beliefs. There is no room to even debate the subject. These men were never even given a stage for 5 mins to express why they believe what they believe. They were instantly labled crazy and swept under the rug. I could give you names. Names with a long list of acomplishments. Then you in turn will dig up insane amounts of dirt of them from men who just cant conceive being questioned regarding thier beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thats really the saddest part about the whole thing. Guys, some who were top in thier field, instantly became garbage to the scientific community soon as they expressed doubt in parts evolution. You cant find much on these men. They have been black balled into completion. The smear attacks are relentless. Personaly I think there are probably alot more scientists who have doubt, but consider working more important then sharing those beliefs. There is no room to even debate the subject. These men were never even given a stage for 5 mins to express why they believe what they believe. They were instantly labled crazy and swept under the rug. I could give you names. Names with a long list of acomplishments. Then you in turn will dig up insane amounts of dirt of them from men who just cant conceive being questioned regarding thier beliefs.

The reason for this is people that do not believe in evolution do not understand biology correctly. This is not always their fault. I have learned that biologists are not required to learn the history of science or even read Darwin's actual theory. Many screw it up...we call them bad scientists.

HOWEVER, there is never a problem with question a theory and putting forth evidence. Michael Behe's theory of irreducible complexity was a fair and valid question. I do not fault him for this idea, no one does. The problem is, it was proven incorrect time and time again but he, and others, still hold on to the idea. That is the same as one holding onto Lamarkian evolution, proven incorrect. No only is it incorrect, it is not science because it cannot be tested (an court cases support this.) The problem is not that they theory is questioned, it is that they hold on when their views are considered incorrect.

Has anyone ever heard of Albert Einstein? You know why you have heard of him? Because he disproved a scientific theory...if anyone could convincingly disprove Darwin's theory of evolution, a theory that has stood for over 150 years, they would be a house hold name. Yet I be most people could not name one person that objects to, let alone tries to disprove, his theory. There is a reason for that...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason for this is people that do not believe in evolution do not understand biology correctly. This is not always their fault. I have learned that biologists are not required to learn the history of science or even read Darwin's actual theory. Many screw it up...we call them bad scientists.

Thats true with some people, but it certainly doesnt explain every case. You have been pre programed to assume those who dont believe in every part of the evolution theory to be "bad scientists". That in and of itself is very telling.

HOWEVER, there is never a problem with question a theory and putting forth evidence. Michael Behe's theory of irreducible complexity was a fair and valid question. I do not fault him for this idea, no one does. The problem is, it was proven incorrect time and time again but he, and others, still hold on to the idea. That is the same as one holding onto Lamarkian evolution, proven incorrect. No only is it incorrect, it is not science because it cannot be tested (an court cases support this.) The problem is not that they theory is questioned, it is that they hold on when their views are considered incorrect.

I personaly find irreducable complexity to be very vailid. I have seen good arguments on both sides, but I havent seen anything that out right disproves it.

Has anyone ever heard of Albert Einstein? You know why you have heard of him? Because he disproved a scientific theory...if anyone could convincingly disprove Darwin's theory of evolution, a theory that has stood for over 150 years, they would be a house hold name. Yet I be most people could not name one person that objects to, let alone tries to disprove, his theory. There is a reason for that...

The only reason its stood for 150 years, is cause it doesnt look anything like the original theory. Problem with the theory is it started out assumed that its right, and what ever new information comes, its molded to the theory without even considering that the new information may change the situation.

Now Im not going to get into a long debate with you on whether or not the theory of evolution is right or not. Heck I believe in half of it myself. My only point is just cause someone doesnt believe in the entire theory, that in and of itself does not mean someone lacks intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats true with some people, but it certainly doesnt explain every case. You have been pre programed to assume those who dont believe in every part of the evolution theory to be "bad scientists". That in and of itself is very telling.

I personaly find irreducable complexity to be very vailid. I have seen good arguments on both sides, but I havent seen anything that out right disproves it.

The only reason its stood for 150 years, is cause it doesnt look anything like the original theory. Problem with the theory is it started out assumed that its right, and what ever new information comes, its molded to the theory without even considering that the new information may change the situation.

Now Im not going to get into a long debate with you on whether or not the theory of evolution is right or not. Heck I believe in half of it myself. My only point is just cause someone doesnt believe in the entire theory, that in and of itself does not mean someone lacks intelligence.

*smacks head* I will PM you when I finish my thread on the topic...

No, the people that do not believe in evolution do no understand it correctly. Many scientists that DO believe it do not understand it correctly. The reason for that is they are taught biology, or the theory, NOT the history of the theory and how it came about.

Many times the hypothesis of irreducible complexity has been disproven, mostly because it is not proper science. The theory basically says "this part cannot be reduced, therefore it is designed." One of my professors personally spent time with Behe and asked him "Well did you try to see if it could not be reduced any further?" His resonse was "It would be pointless." To say doing something is pointless is not science. Things that have been considered as irreducibly complex have been proven not to be manh times. The bacterial flegellum and the eye are a couple examples. Also if you look at the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover, in which Behe testified, they mocked him by using a mouse trap as a tie clip. Irreducible complexity means that a system, such as a mouse trap, is designed for a single purpose, and if you remove one of those parts, it does not function, or serves no purpose. But actually when you take 3 of the 5 parts of a mouse trap away, it serves as a perfectly functional tie clip, which means it has a function and can serve a purpose. Saying something is irreducibly complex without trying to reduce it is the same as saying "God did it..." That is not science...

Actually Darwin's theory is the same now as it was before...here is Darwin's theory...

A. Observation: There is potential for rapid reproduction. (For a quick example look at bacteria or the cells in the human body, for a slower example look at the population growth of the world.)

B. Observation: There are relatively constant resources and population sizes over time. (As stated above, resources are limited and any given area only has so many resources. It is observed in nature that animal populations stay relatively constant over the course of time due to the limited resources.)

C. Conclusion based on A and B: There is competition for resources to survive and reproduce.

D. Observation: There is variability in structures and behaviors. (This is obvious because no 2 people are alike unless they are identical twins but even they differ. People and animals are different.)

E. Conclusion: Natural Selection-On average the “fittest” organisms (Fitness in Biology refers to the number of offspring or the amount of genes passed on to future generations,) or those with the most beneficial structures leave the most offspring.

F. Observation: Some variability is inherited. (This is obvious because we inherit traits from our parents. Genes had not been discovered at this point so Darwin did not know what they were. His theory of “genes” is the part of his theory that was wrong but when we discovered genes, they supported his theory.)

G. Conclusion: Evolution-The genetic makeup of the population changes over time, driven by Natural Selection.

It is the same...the one part he messed up on was he did not know the detail to inheritance...which he almost figured out...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the evolution-creationism controversy supports my statement that America is the most ignorant. You guys could have left it at that...and the last time I posted in this thread was the 29th...Don't blame me for keeping it going...

So do most of the people in Italy or Spain believe in evolution? Since there are a majority of Catholics in those countries I wonder if the majority believe in evolution or creationism? If the majority believe in creationism wouldn't they be just as ignorant, according to your definition?

You know I looked at a lot of definitions of "ignorance" and not one had your critera of believing creationism over evolution as proof of ignorance.

So I will just say that my new definition of ignorance is anyone that uses "EtAl" in their screen name. :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*smacks head* I will PM you when I finish my thread on the topic...

No, the people that do not believe in evolution do no understand it correctly. Many scientists that DO believe it do not understand it correctly. The reason for that is they are taught biology, or the theory, NOT the history of the theory and how it came about.

Many times the hypothesis of irreducible complexity has been disproven, mostly because it is not proper science. The theory basically says "this part cannot be reduced, therefore it is designed." One of my professors personally spent time with Behe and asked him "Well did you try to see if it could not be reduced any further?" His resonse was "It would be pointless." To say doing something is pointless is not science. Things that have been considered as irreducibly complex have been proven not to be manh times. The bacterial flegellum and the eye are a couple examples. Also if you look at the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover, in which Behe testified, they mocked him by using a mouse trap as a tie clip. Irreducible complexity means that a system, such as a mouse trap, is designed for a single purpose, and if you remove one of those parts, it does not function, or serves no purpose. But actually when you take 3 of the 5 parts of a mouse trap away, it serves as a perfectly functional tie clip, which means it has a function and can serve a purpose. Saying something is irreducibly complex without trying to reduce it is the same as saying "God did it..." That is not science...

Irreducable complexity goes into far more detail then what you have explained here. Bacterial flegellum is a great example. I watched a entire documentary on the subject that went into great detail on why it could have never been anything less then it is. Broke down each part, its function, and why it exists, and why it couldnt have been any less then what it is. If all you know regarding this is a conversation your professor had (which no offense, but I find very hard to believe, not saying you are lieing about it, but I think your proffessor did) its no wonder you dismiss it so easily.

You dont have to PM me. Ive had these conversations a hundred times. Neither of us is going to change the others mind. And being we are totaly off topic, and in the wrong section to even be having this conversation, Im going to save this for another time and place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do most of the people in Italy or Spain believe in evolution? Since there are a majority of Catholics in those countries I wonder if the majority believe in evolution or creationism? If the majority believe in creationism wouldn't they be just as ignorant, according to your definition?

The Catholic Church from my understanding accepts the theory of evolution as fact and have now gone more towards the "clockwork universe" idea for the origins of man.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Catholic Church from my understanding accepts the theory of evolution as fact and have now gone more towards the "clockwork universe" idea for the origins of man.

correct and following this link you will see the evangelical reaction.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do most of the people in Italy or Spain believe in evolution? Since there are a majority of Catholics in those countries

yes they do. Their religion doesn't enter into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes they do. Their religion doesn't enter into it.

That is because the Catholic church had its Galileo, the evangelicals are still looking forward to that embarrassment :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a deistic position which most people now follow. it accepts that the mechanism's of life are evolution, as described by science - but because God partakes in everything he ultimately is responsible for evolution. I personally don't buy it at this stage (though I am still agnostic on the matter), but it is a position which allows most mainstream Christians to accept the theory of evolution lock stock and barrel.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well except apparently those in the US, which have proven their ignorance time and again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well except apparently those in the US, which have proven their ignorance time and again.

Well except that the US does not lead all countries in the percentage of people believing in creationism.

% of people that believe in evolution:

Sweden 68%

Germany 65%

China 64%

Mexico 34%

US 28%

Russia 26%

Saudi Arabia 23%

So even by HuttonEtAl's definition of ignorance the US is not last.

I also found these:

% that believe in creationism

Saudi Arabia 75%

Turkey 60%

Indonesia 57%

Brazil 47%

US 40%

Russia 34%

Once again the US is not last (or first in this case).

HuttonEtAl's claim is refuted and shown to be false, even by his measuring critera, which is ridiculous in the first place.

I shoot, I score! :yes:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well except that the US does not lead all countries in the percentage of people believing in creationism.

% of people that believe in evolution:

Sweden 68%

Germany 65%

China 64%

Mexico 34%

US 28%

Russia 26%

Saudi Arabia 23%

So even by HuttonEtAl's definition of ignorance the US is not last.

I also found these:

% that believe in creationism

Saudi Arabia 75%

Turkey 60%

Indonesia 57%

Brazil 47%

US 40%

Russia 34%

Once again the US is not last (or first in this case).

HuttonEtAl's claim is refuted and shown to be false, even by his measuring critera, which is ridiculous in the first place.

I shoot, I score! :yes:

Might be, but I hardly would take pride in being slightly ahead of Saudi Arabia, a place where culture is still rewarded by throwing rocks at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be, but I hardly would take pride in being slightly ahead of Saudi Arabia, a place where culture is still rewarded by throwing rocks at it.

I don't think anyone is taking pride in it. Just proving that hutton was posting inaccurate information.

I take pride in many things about my country. The education system at the ground level is not one of them (University - yes, public elementary - no). 2 party political system - No. Space program - yes. Innovation - yes. The vast number of churches - yes. I say yes to the churches because most do not teach creationism anymore. They stay away from it. Most churches are filled with very kind-hearted people who would help you out in a second if a tornado took your roof. I don't believe in all they believe in, but I am very happy to have them as friends.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone who is interested, I thought that this was really interesting:

edited because I put in the wrong video, sorry!

Edited by Gummug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then there's this also (sorry I had the wrong video posted for a bit):

Edited by Gummug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thats really the saddest part about the whole thing. Guys, some who were top in thier field, instantly became garbage to the scientific community soon as they expressed doubt in parts evolution. You cant find much on these men. They have been black balled into completion. The smear attacks are relentless. Personaly I think there are probably alot more scientists who have doubt, but consider working more important then sharing those beliefs. There is no room to even debate the subject. These men were never even given a stage for 5 mins to express why they believe what they believe. They were instantly labled crazy and swept under the rug. I could give you names. Names with a long list of acomplishments. Then you in turn will dig up insane amounts of dirt of them from men who just cant conceive being questioned regarding thier beliefs.

This is just a fantasy. No one attacks anyone with a different idea in science, that is what science is all about. The problem with creationists is the constant lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do most of the people in Italy or Spain believe in evolution? Since there are a majority of Catholics in those countries I wonder if the majority believe in evolution or creationism? If the majority believe in creationism wouldn't they be just as ignorant, according to your definition?

You know I looked at a lot of definitions of "ignorance" and not one had your critera of believing creationism over evolution as proof of ignorance.

So I will just say that my new definition of ignorance is anyone that uses "EtAl" in their screen name. :innocent:

Catholics usually accept evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irreducable complexity goes into far more detail then what you have explained here. Bacterial flegellum is a great example. I watched a entire documentary on the subject that went into great detail on why it could have never been anything less then it is. Broke down each part, its function, and why it exists, and why it couldnt have been any less then what it is. If all you know regarding this is a conversation your professor had (which no offense, but I find very hard to believe, not saying you are lieing about it, but I think your proffessor did) its no wonder you dismiss it so easily.

You dont have to PM me. Ive had these conversations a hundred times. Neither of us is going to change the others mind. And being we are totaly off topic, and in the wrong section to even be having this conversation, Im going to save this for another time and place.

Bacterial flagellum is the worst example since the parts exist in many different forms, so it is many other things else.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personnally I don't think "unreducable complexity" or whatever it is called Prooves Creationism. If anything it simply cuts back on our understanding of how evolution happens. Proof of Creationism would require direct and recorded data collected from a verified Deity. Only God can proove Creationism.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do most of the people in Italy or Spain believe in evolution? Since there are a majority of Catholics in those countries I wonder if the majority believe in evolution or creationism? If the majority believe in creationism wouldn't they be just as ignorant, according to your definition?

You know I looked at a lot of definitions of "ignorance" and not one had your critera of believing creationism over evolution as proof of ignorance.

So I will just say that my new definition of ignorance is anyone that uses "EtAl" in their screen name. :innocent:

Looks like your question was answered...The Catholic Church accepts evolution as scientific fact.

Irreducable complexity goes into far more detail then what you have explained here. Bacterial flegellum is a great example. I watched a entire documentary on the subject that went into great detail on why it could have never been anything less then it is. Broke down each part, its function, and why it exists, and why it couldnt have been any less then what it is. If all you know regarding this is a conversation your professor had (which no offense, but I find very hard to believe, not saying you are lieing about it, but I think your proffessor did) its no wonder you dismiss it so easily.

Who was the documentary by? These are things we need to know because I have seen arguments for the opposite. Of course I explained it simply because I am not trying to write a book in this thread.

Because no one takes the time to click on the damn links in my sig, I will explain it here. I am a Religious Studies major, a History major, an Education major, and a Jewish Studies minor. The main area of my study is the evolution-ceationism controversy (because it covers all of my areas and I am going into teaching.) I have taken many classes that cover these issues, not just had a few convos with professors. Here are some of the classes I have taken related to this topic...

Biology (BIOL)

The Evolution and Biology of Sex (BIOL)

Scientific Reasoning (PHIL)

Religion and Ethics in Educational Policy (EDU)

The Darwinian Revolution (HSCI)

Understanding the Evolution-Creationism Controversy (BIOL)

Currently taking Philosophy of Biology (PHIL)

and will be taking Darwin and Design (PHIL)

Philosophy of Religion (PHIL)

I have had classes in a number of different departments, with a number of different professors that have very different beliefs. The professor that got me into the topic was my Religion and Ethics in Educational Policy teacher, Professor Osburn. He is an Evangelical Protestant...we are good friends to this day. Randy Moore a biology professor has written a number of books on the topic and is a great scholar in the area. Alan Love, the professor for the PHIL classes (except PHIL of religion) has a BS in Biology (with a minor in philosophy from MIT,) a MA in Biology, and a Ph.D. in Philosophy. The other PHIL professor is an existentialist, and creationist, with a Ph.D. from Harvard in Philosophy. I also have a whole stack of books and DVDs about this topic...What I am saying is this is not some crap that I quickly Googled...

Well except that the US does not lead all countries in the percentage of people believing in creationism.

% of people that believe in evolution:

Sweden 68%

Germany 65%

China 64%

Mexico 34%

US 28%

Russia 26%

Saudi Arabia 23%

So even by HuttonEtAl's definition of ignorance the US is not last.

I also found these:

% that believe in creationism

Saudi Arabia 75%

Turkey 60%

Indonesia 57%

Brazil 47%

US 40%

Russia 34%

Once again the US is not last (or first in this case).

HuttonEtAl's claim is refuted and shown to be false, even by his measuring critera, which is ridiculous in the first place.

I shoot, I score! :yes:

If you are going to refute me and show me to be false, please read what I say...

Valid point but I think Americans are a lot more ignorant than most of the West. Don't believe me...look at the numbers of how many people in America do not believe in evolution...

Since you had to Google "ignorance" to figure out the meaning, I suggest you also Google the word "most" and also what people consider the "West."

So let me get this straight...Your argument against me is that 28% of Americans believe in evolution and 40% believe in creationism? That is kind of the point I am making...Apparently our biggest rivals in ignorance are Russia and Saudi Arabia...the home of the greatest of the world's scholars...

Thanks for that poll though...you supported my statement 100% Not a single country that is listed, that supports your argument is in the West...

Here are some things you might find interesting...

http://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/the-us-ranks-33rd-in-acceptance-of-evolution/

"According to a 2006 study first published in the magazine, Science, the United States ranks thirty-third out of thirty four nations (32 in Europe plus Japan and the United States) in acceptance of evolution. Iceland ranks first. Only Turkey ranked lower than the United States in the acceptance of evolution."

In addition to that the US is ranked 23 in the world in science according to multiple articles.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/jun/14/world-laps-us-in-math-science/

Here is one. So who are the 23 countries better than the US at science? Why are we so bad at science? I wonder if it has anything to do with the acceptance of evolution...

Edited by HuttonEtAl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So because some people belive one theory (evolution) while others believe a different theory (creationism) America is the most ignorant? Since neither are proven, hence the word "Theory of Evolution" and "Theory of Creationism", how do you know who is right. Only by the Theory you choose to believe.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are ignorant. Your hubris knows no bounds.

repost from another thread where the same misconception arose;

Ah, the ever so popular faux-argument of "It still is just a theory". It expresses no more than a lack of insight in what a scientific theory trully means. Of course the theory of evolution, like the theory of relativity is in a way, just a theory. But for ppl from your background this automatically entails that this is no more than an unproved belief, which can be replaced by any alternative "theory" out there. Like the theory of genesis. But these two meanings of theories are being unjustifiably equated.

A scientific theory is more than just a presumption. If it holds truth it explains a series of facts, coherently and is also entwined with several other theories from other scientific fields. For example: theory of evolution is linked to chemistry, paleontology, geology and many more fields. If the theory of evolution would be so wrong, like you claim, then all these other fields have to be wrong too. Which is not the case.

Of course there are still unsolved things in science. But instead as taking that as proof that everything must be wrong, science does whatever it can to fill in the blanks.

Your pseudo-scientific view focusses on an isolated presumption and takes that as evidence that the entire theory is flawed. Which proves a severe misunderstanding of scientific theories as a whole.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.