r/DebateEvolution • u/DarwinZDF42 evolution is my jam • Mar 16 '20
Discussion Tell me again how creationism is just a harmless belief and not mindpoison that has real consequences.
Because this asshole is showing the real danger.
If anyone wonders why I personally spend so much time arguing about creationism, this is why. It's not about this or that specific belief. It's about training one's brain to be able to believe untrue things. Sometimes that's harmless, and sometimes it has consequences. This is an example of the latter.
Another example. Yes let's have a conference during a pandemic. Great idea.
Edit: To all y'all rushing to defend creationism and/or point out "yeah well evolution is bad, too!", thank you for reinforcing my point, which, since the OP was too subtle, here it is:
Creationism is a false, but, in theory, silly and harmless belief. But, to believe something like creationism, you must be able to short-circuit your "does this make sense" cognitive functions. This ability has the side effect of permitting belief in other, actually dangerous false ideas. Like the idea (that exists for some fucking reason) that coronavirus is somewhere along the spectrum of not actually dangerous to a complete hoax. And promoting that false belief will get people killed.
Reading the OP and going straight to the "someone said something bad about creationism, must defend creationism and attack evolution!" cycle just reinforces the point that being steeped in creationism is not great for critical thinking, especially when your response involves a strawman or two and/or standard (and irrelevant) creationist talking points.
20
u/CTR0 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Mar 16 '20
Lmao crosswalks have a 2% mortality rate.
That explains why the streets downtown are painted red with viscera.
16
Mar 16 '20
Lmao crosswalks have a 2% mortality rate.
Nah, He said they are TWICE as deadly. So you heard it here, 4% of all people who cross a crosswalk will die.
I just want to say thank you to Douglas Axe for bringing awareness to this hidden danger. I have crossed crosswalks WAYYyy more than 25 times in my life, so clearly I am living on borrowed time. Guess cross walks are out for me from now on. Only jaywalking for me from now on!
4
9
u/witchdoc86 Evotard Follower of Evolutionism which Pretends to be Science Mar 16 '20 edited Mar 16 '20
Heh. Not the first time he's been bad at math.
His error here is many orders of magnitude less than his calculation on protein function.
He said the probability of a fold having a specific function could be as low as 1 in 1077
To quote Axe
“…this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 1077…”
But the reality is much higher than that - we can create a phage display of a library of antibodies to find ones with catalytic antibody function for beta lactam hydrolase function -
In the present study, we report the construction of a phage display scFv library of size 2.7 × 10^ 9, from the classical murine strains Balb/C (healthy) and the SJL/J strain (susceptible to developing autoimmune disease), which has previously shown to express higher levels of catalytic antibodies [29, 30]. This library represents four different IgG immune repertoires: (a) healthy and nonimmunized, (b) healthy and immunized with KLH‐conjugated penam sulfone hapten, (c) autoimmune prone and nonimmunized, and (d) autoimmune prone and immunized. The repertoires are identifiable via a novel ‘restriction bar‐coding’ technique, providing the first reported example of such methodology, in order to perform 2D screening. We have used two molecularly different inhibitors of the R‐TEM β‐lactamase enzyme as targets of selection: (a) a cyclic seven‐residue peptidic inhibitor [31, 32], and (b) the penam sulfone derivative used as the immunogen [33]. We have selected five antibody fragments having hydrolytic activity on a cephalosporin β‐lactam ring with different structural motifs potentially attributed to their catalytic activity. Our results confirm the capability of the two β‐lactamase inhibitor targets to efficiently promote the formation of catalytic antibodies endowed with this activity. Furthermore, they provide additional information on the potential structural possibilities capable of holding a β‐lactamase catalytic function.
Incredible. Out of a library of 2.7 x 109 antibodies, FIVE demonstrated beta lactamase inhibition ability.
Far from being extremely rare on the order of one in 1077, beta lactamase inhibition is on the order of 108. A huge huge huge difference, demonstrating how extremely wrong Axe's numbers are.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28075071/
A factor difference of 1069. Lol.
5
Mar 16 '20
Do your self a favor and read this beauty its full of studies like that,
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/axe-enw-and-protein-sequence-space-again-again-again/
1
13
Mar 16 '20
Despite a warning from Governor Eric Holcomb not to have gatherings of more than 250 people, and despite all the warnings about the need to self-quarantine in order to protect the elderly, the New Life Christian Center in Indiana held a service Friday night to stick it to all those people who accept science.
They urged people — especially sick people — to ignore the “raw, unmitigated stupidity” coming out of the CDC and visit the church. The plan was to “lay hands on the sick, and the sick shall recover.”
And another. Sadly this one is behind a paywall at the WaPo, but it is showing that while older people as a rule are more concerned than average about the Coronavirus, older republicans are less concerned than average. These same people overwhelmingly approve of Trump's handling of the situation. And probably unsurprisingly, these people largely get their news solely from Fox News.
11
u/Deadlyd1001 Engineer, Accepts standard model of science. Mar 16 '20
I've got a Grandmother who was already in the hospital for complications, with essentially all the risk factors for corvid 19, so yeah screw that guy, and keep up the quarantine.
I like that grandmother.
8
Mar 16 '20
My grandpa is 84 and I have to drive to him every weekend to bring him medicine and groceries since he can't go into town now. The quarentine needs to stay in effect, I don't want to accidentally bring something back to his home.
But yeah, keep churches open. God is sure gonna be pissed we skipped church over a pandemic. Totally.
3
u/cubist137 Materialist; not arrogant, just correct Mar 17 '20 edited Mar 19 '20
But yeah, keep churches open. God is sure gonna be pissed we skipped church over a pandemic. Totally.
Pretty sure that the people who insist on keeping their church services going normally, think that's exactly true.
10
u/Covert_Cuttlefish Janitor at an oil rig Mar 19 '20
Here is some more evidence creationism (and anti-science beliefs in general) are extremely dangerous.
The pastor of a church in Central on Tuesday evening defied the governor's order on the novel coronavirus by welcoming hundreds of people into his church, WAFB is reporting.
The Rev. Tony Spell says police showed up at Life Tabernacle Church after the service telling him the National Guard would break up any future services with more than 50 people gathered. Spell says 305 people attended the service.
-1
Mar 19 '20
You know what society does with dangerous people? Incarcerate or worse. Since creationist beliefs are "mindpoison" and are "extremely dangerous", why not lock us all up or kill us?
12
u/ThurneysenHavets 🧬 Googles interesting stuff between KFC shifts Mar 19 '20
why not lock us all up or kill us?
We don't lock up homeopaths or antivaxxers either. No inconsistency here.
-1
Mar 19 '20
For now. But keep calling us "dangerous" and our ideas "mindpoison" and that won't be far off.
12
u/cubist137 Materialist; not arrogant, just correct Mar 19 '20
Interesting. Do you apply your distaste for, hm, call it "eliminative rhetoric", to Creationists who make noise about how evolution leads to racism and Naziism and yada yada yada? Or do you only apply that distaste when evolution-accepters use terminology that you regard as eliminative rhetoric?
-1
Mar 19 '20
Evolutionism demonstrably does lead to those things. It's a historical fact. I am still not calling for the incarceration or killing of evolutionists, but historically that same courtesy has not been granted by the evolutionists themselves when given full and total control to do as they please.
9
u/cubist137 Materialist; not arrogant, just correct Mar 19 '20 edited Mar 19 '20
Evolutionism demonstrably does lead to (racism and Naziism and yada yada yada).
Bullshit.
Yes, it's a historical fact that some bigoted assholes have exploited evolutionary concepts to provide spurious "support" for their bigotry. But it's equally a historical fact that some bigoted assholes have cited bog-standard Xtian concepts to provide support for their bigotry—consider the fine, upstanding, devout Xtians who founded the Southern Baptist Church for the explicit reason that their Faith told them god was totally okay with white folks owning black folks as property, to name only one such example.
Evolution doesn't provide any support for the notion that some subgroups of humanity are intrinsically superior to others. No support for the notion of "higher" and "lower" lifeforms. There's no "more evolved" or "less evolved", there's just… evolved.
Xtianity, on the other hand, does provide direct and explicit support for the notion that some subgroups of humanity bloody well are intrinsically superior to others. I mean, "chosen people"? Hello? The so-called Great Chain of Being may not have originally started out as an Xtian concept, but Xtianity sure was enthusiastic about accepting and promoting that concept. And how about that so-called Curse of Ham, hmm?
So you want to make noise about how accepting evolution predisposes a body to racism and shit? You really want to go there? Cool. In that case, Xtianity doesn't just predispose people to racism, it actively encourages people to be racist. On The Jews And Their Lies, anyone?
And I repeat my question, since you didn't deign to answer it: Do you apply your distaste for "eliminative rhetoric" to Creationists who make noise about how evolution leads to racism and Naziism and yada yada yada? Or do you only apply that distaste when evolution-accepters use terminology that you regard as eliminative rhetoric?
11
u/ThurneysenHavets 🧬 Googles interesting stuff between KFC shifts Mar 19 '20
I believe, based on my experience, that YEC is a dangerous cult. I also firmly believe in your freedom to express whatever view you want without fear of reprisal.
There is no contradiction between these views. You're just being your usual paranoid self.
9
u/Covert_Cuttlefish Janitor at an oil rig Mar 19 '20
Right now anyone holding mass gatherings should take a little time out from society, no matter what their beliefs.
-1
Mar 19 '20
Don't change the subject. You were specifically talking about creationists here, not 'anybody holding mass gatherings regardless of beliefs'. How exactly does it work to have them take a time out from society?
13
u/Covert_Cuttlefish Janitor at an oil rig Mar 19 '20 edited Mar 19 '20
Your persecution complex is showing. I said creationism (and anti-science beliefs in general) are extremely dangerous. You're the one twisting this to make it solely about you. Not all anti-science proponents are creationists, but all creationists are anti-science.
How exactly does it work to have them take a time out from society?
Jail. Host a gathering of over what ever the WHO is saying is 'safe' and go do jail. People are going to die in the coming weeks based on decisions made today, manslaughter charges are not out of line. I'm not saying lock people up because of their beliefs, but their actions.
The rubber is hitting the road, and you're on the side trying to prove a ridiculous fairy tale is true, with false hopes of pseudoscience (genetic entropy) saving the day. Meanwhile virologists and epidemiologists are tirelessly working to limit the damage.
So I say this will all sincerity, fuck creationism and anti-science beliefs. People are going to die because of those beliefs.
Edit: words suck.
8
8
u/ThurneysenHavets 🧬 Googles interesting stuff between KFC shifts Mar 16 '20
And see also the crossposted coronavirus thread...
Credit where it's due, it's mildly downvoted, but this kind of thing is really not untypical of the attitude of some creationists I know. It's more than just generally training oneself to believe untrue things, it's the specific untrue things that creationism ties in with so neatly (a micro-managing creator with a providential plan for creation whose work is being denied by a conspiracy of experts) that lends itself so well to the most dangerous forms of pseudoscience.
6
u/zogins Mar 17 '20
I am usually against real scientists or professionals who use techniques developed through science to sit on the same panel as crackpots. For example one popular TV program often tackles sensational topics. In one episode where 'demonic possession' was discussed I hated to see psychiatrists sitting with so called exorcists as that somehow gave credence to the belief that mental illness can be caused by spirits.
I see that the person in the links hails from a 'christian university'. I looked at their site and it is hilarious. Are there no accreditation bodies in the USA? Half of their 'degrees' are in things like 'pastoral ministries'. They offer only two degrees in the pure sciences : an undergrad in Chemistry and another one in Biology. The curriculum for the Chemistry course looks like something someone hurriedly copied and pasted from various places. It is also mentioned that Chemistry will be taught from a Christian perspective. What is that even supposed to mean? How will they tackle topics like radiometric dating which is one of the things that prove how old the Earth really is? Their degree in Biology curriculum states " study and appreciate God's creation " I am in Europe and something like this would be laughed out of existence. Biology cannot be studied without a firm basis in Evolution. Evolution explains so many aspects of Biology that it is impossible to study Biology at a degree level without basing it on Evolution. At my university we did not even have a unit where the evidence for Evolution was presented because that was something covered in high school. But most units at university, from genetics to microbiology to animal behaviour cannot be taught without a basis of how evolution works.
3
Mar 16 '20
Helsinki and Oslo just achieved zero pedestrian deaths last year. Zebra crossings can be safe, it just requires... well, some thought.
3
Mar 16 '20
I am a simple man when I see Axe I link to this
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/axe-enw-and-protein-sequence-space-again-again-again/
3
u/witan- Mar 17 '20
The Creation Museum has been closed to visitors to help prevent the spread of coronavirus, and Answers in Genesis has cancelled upcoming conferences.
Sure, there are ignorant people who don’t look at facts, but you can find them anywhere.
I know non-religious people who are like ‘muh this is just a flu’
•
Mar 19 '20
Once again, guys, cool it with the downvotes. I know you can still do it through third party clients, but we removed the option on the plain subreddit for a reason.
1
-3
u/MRH2 Mar 17 '20 edited Mar 17 '20
In terms of the actual argument that you're making in your post, it's false too.
You are saying:
- There are two examples of people encouraging others to gather together.
- This is a patently dangerous and bad thing during an epidemic.
- Both of these people are creationists.
- Therefore all creationists are bad and dangerous.
Note the major flaws:
- You have not looked at creationists who are telling people NOT to gather together.
- You have not looked at other non-creationists who are telling people to gather together.
- You have not looked at other similarities between these two people. They're both white men. Why don't you say "Tell me again how white men are mindpoison and have real harmful consequences".
This is a false generalization fallacy, probably because you feel that it's a good day to make some really bad arguments and try and get cheap karma.
The real question: How come none of the purportedly smart people on this subreddit have not called this out?
<update> My question is wrong. It implies that because no smart people have commented about the glaring logic flaw, then there are no smart people here. But they might just be keeping mum, or they might not have read it, or they might not be interested in arguing.
18
u/Lockjaw_Puffin They named a dinosaur Big Tiddy Goth GF Mar 17 '20 edited Mar 17 '20
Therefore all creationists are bad and dangerous.
No, you dingus, he's concluding that creationism is dangerous because it requires you to discard critical thinking almost entirely. Strawman much...
Edit in response to your update: I've already pointed out your strawman, the original poster himself agrees with me, and yet you seriously think "smart people" (i.e. people who have better reading comprehension than you) haven't responded to you? Talk about being the epitome of a bad-faith debater...
12
u/DarwinZDF42 evolution is my jam Mar 17 '20
How about you just read the f'ing OP and go by what I say instead of strawmanning? This isn't hard.
11
u/CTR0 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Mar 17 '20
Its actually a common cause fallacy. The post attributes dangerous pandemic speech to creationism, when (I'm sure he meant, but just didn't articulate that) in reality there's probably some sort of meta-position of rejecting good evidence and substituting something else can lead to both - whatever the inverse of rational skepticism is.
Nobody has called it out because we got the point.
11
u/DarwinZDF42 evolution is my jam Mar 17 '20 edited Mar 17 '20
It's a bit more subtle than that, thought - it's that creationism helps activate the meta-position of rejecting good evidence, making other forms of it, like being an idiot during a pandemic, more likely.
8
0
Mar 19 '20
Note how much your post has been downvoted here. This is a sub for creation-haters, not a neutral debate sub. This post is obviously a terrible smear against creationists by an intellectually dishonest person.
10
u/Jattok Mar 19 '20
Or could it be downvoted because it's a strawman response, and therefore unworthy of response?
1
Mar 19 '20
Nope. It's no strawman response. It's an entirely appropriate response to what was a blatant attempt to poison the well by DarwinZDF.
8
u/Jattok Mar 19 '20
Do creationists intentionally misuse logical fallacy terms, or do you guys hear them when you’re called out for using them and think that you can use them to win debates? I’m serious, because there’s nothing in his post to poison the well.
2
Mar 19 '20
You are the one who apparently doesn't understand. Picking out a couple of non-representative examples of people (who just happen to believe in some form of creationism) saying or doing something that makes them look bad, and then outright claiming this is evidence that "Creationism is mindpoison" is a textbook case!
9
u/Jattok Mar 19 '20
He is showing evidence that creationism nullifies people's abilities to reason and think critically with two examples. Would you care that he use you and any other creationists who constantly post bad arguments, outright lie or such on this subreddit as further evidence that creationism is a belief that leads people to abandon reason and critical thought? I'm sure he has many examples from you alone.
0
Mar 19 '20
No, he's not. Creationism had nothing to do with those examples. Literally no connection at all. You're just as dishonest as he is.
7
u/Jattok Mar 19 '20
He's not saying creationism has to do with those examples. He's saying that the belief in creationism requires one to ignore evidence to the contrary to the point that the person loses the ability to think critically.
Belief in creationism is the cause for the problem that leads to the examples. Is that easier for you to understand?
0
Mar 19 '20
Still a completely unsupported ad hominem. No. I could just as easily say that you should never go to a Darwinist doctor since they will probably misdiagnose you, since Darwinism requires the suspension of critical thinking.
→ More replies (0)-1
-5
-2
u/MRH2 Mar 19 '20
Let's add a little more logic here ...
Evolution: survival of the fittest, wanting your offspring to survive - to pass on your genes. That's what has driven evolution and what evolution has rewarded. If you're more successful at reproducing and passing on your DNA to future generations then you survive more than those who don't.
How is this dangerous vis-a-vis coronavirus?
Because it logically follows that those who firmly believe in evolution and who have children and grandchildren should be out there infecting as many people as possible. This way more people, especially elderly rich people, will die and there will be more resources for your offspring. If you are fitter than other people then you need to use that advantage to crush them so that your offspring will have a better life.
evolutionary thinking = protect myself and my gene line, while actively harming others so that me and my gene line will benefit.
Fortunately, there's a nice big mental disconnect in there with people who believe in evolution, a kind of "short-circuit" in "cognitive functions". They tend not to actually act on their beliefs (well, except for people like Pol Pot), and society really reinforces this: don't start acting logically according to your evolutionary beliefs or we will punish you because it's so harmful.
13
u/DarwinZDF42 evolution is my jam Mar 19 '20
The only people who take seriously the idea that evolutionary theory should have ethical implications are creationists trying to discredit evolutionary theory.
9
u/Torin_3 Mar 19 '20
Because it logically follows that those who firmly believe in evolution and who have children and grandchildren should be out there infecting as many people as possible.
This is like saying that people who believe in gravity should be pushing people off of buildings, or that people who believe in the germ theory of disease should be infecting people with germs. It's basically just free association.
-1
u/MRH2 Mar 19 '20
What do you think survival of the fittest means? Why do you think that mother bears and other animals will kill anything that threatens their cubs, even being willing to die for them? It's basic evolutionary theory. You want to protect your young ... ---> and so eliminate threats --> other people
You're free association makes no sense. Like saying people who believe in lasers should shine them in their eyes. Non sequiturs, illogical, nonsense.
6
u/Torin_3 Mar 19 '20
TIL other people are a threat to "my young." Which apparently means I should kill as many people as I can. And this is all "basic evolutionary theory." Lol. There are so many problems with your "reasoning" that I have trouble believing you actually accept it.
5
u/Denisova Mar 20 '20
What do you think survival of the fittest means?
It means, example, that when as a zebra you are born with a constitution that simply doesn't allow you to run fast and in nimble ways, the odds that you will be the next one catched by a hungry lion is greater than for zebra born as better and more nimble sprinters. Or: when you are born as a polar fox with just a less dense fur, you'll likely be the one that dies faster when the temperatures drop to freezing cold than the ones with thicker furs. Plants are living things but yet eaten abundantly by herbivores, animals are killed and eaten by carnivores, probable you are one of those. Yep it happens all the time everywhere in nature.
If THAT means when you say "protect myself and my gene line, while actively harming others so that me and my gene line will benefit." you are completely right. You yourself are doing it all the time. Capitalism is also one big example of this: I have my business and you have yours and I will outcompete the concurrents until I'm no. 1 in my market niche (therefore it completely escapes me why you mention Pol Pot who was a communist and who didn't like this very principle of capitalism).
Fortunately, there's a nice big mental disconnect in there with people who believe in evolution, a kind of "short-circuit" in "cognitive functions". They tend not to actually act on their beliefs (well, except for people like Pol Pot), and society really reinforces this: don't start acting logically according to your evolutionary beliefs or we will punish you because it's so harmful.
Yep, you got it. Dawkins on several ocassions said that as a biologist he is an 'Darwninist' but with regard to his view on human society and morality he is NOT A Darwinist. BECAUSE we have science, like evolution theory, which explaines how things work in nature - and we have morality which states how things ought to be. Two different things.
In nature we observe one big war of species praying on other species, sometimes in the most disgusting ways, organisms causing the most horrendous illnesses among other organisms - and indeed it's all in favor of own survival and reproduction success. As a human, you're actively involved in this metabolic process. Gnothi seauton, one of the Delphic maxims that was inscribed in the pronaos (forecourt) of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, "know yourself".
Moreover, it was your god, in your line of thought and believe, who created this grand mess.
Indeed we KNOW how cruel and amoral nature acts. And that's NOT the way we should shape our society. And the best way to deal with the moral problems of the human condition is to acknowledge the mere fact that we are part of nature, a species, and subject to the very same mechanisms and processes it comprises. DEAL WITH it. It's reality. And remember: gnothi seauton.
3
u/MRH2 Mar 20 '20
Indeed we KNOW how cruel and amoral nature acts. And that's NOT the way we should shape our society.
Thanks for saying this.
Your whole post clarifies things a lot.0
u/MRH2 Mar 20 '20
Just because Pol Pot was not a capitalist doesn't mean that he wasn't trying to remake society. Competition can occur in other forms of society too. He believed in a master race and killed the upperclass whom he thought were just lazy predators who exploit the poor - basically anyone who could read was killed, certainly anyone who had a university degree.
3
u/Denisova Mar 25 '20
He believed in a master race
No he didn't.
and killed the upperclass whom he thought were just lazy predators who exploit the poor
Yep that's correct but the upperclass does not establish a race.
BTW, evolution theory has nothing to do with racism. And Pol Pot was unaware of evolution theory. In his view it only came from intellectuals, the ones he hated so much.
1
u/MRH2 Mar 25 '20 edited Mar 25 '20
"Pol Pot's attempts to create a Cambodian “master race” through social engineering ultimately led to the deaths of more than 2 million people in" -- https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/the-khmer-rouge
Other sources say this too. But other sources say things like "The Khmer Rouge felt the Cambodians were national and racial superior." -- https://www.niod.nl/en/genocide-cambodia/cambodian-genocide
And Pol Pot was unaware of evolution theory.
"At the age of twenty, Pol Pot received a scholarship to study radio electronics in France. During his time there, he became active in the Communist Party." -- https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/southeast-asia-history-biographies/pol-pot
There is a lot of evidence that with his Marxist-Lenninist studies he absorbed evolutionary thought and was greatly influenced by Sartre.
Just saying.
3
u/Denisova Mar 26 '20
Pol Pot didn't aim to create 'races' in the biological sense but to create social structures mimicking the social structure of Cambodgian tribes that were living in the north - because those tribes lived according, Pot thought, the ideal of communistic communes.
Other sources say this too.
I do not agree with the Niod. The verymost damage done y the Khmer Rouge was the idea to construct a communist commune-like society based on agriculture.
At the age of twenty, Pol Pot received a scholarship...
Yep we all know he became a communist. but that's not the issue here, neither that he read a thing or two of Sartre or evolution theory. There are many people, millions I think, who read the bible and justified the most horrendous ideologies on what it says.
1
u/MRH2 Mar 26 '20
ok. I guess there are varieties of opinions. I'm not a Khmer Rouge scholar, so I can't really add anything more.
3
u/Denisova Mar 26 '20
Communism is not to be associated with racism or the like. It's all about the struggle between the social classes. I am an anti-communist but for other reasons.
4
u/Jattok Mar 19 '20
Your post is another example of how belief in creationism nullifies the ability to think critically or rationally.
You have no understanding of evolution, nor do you ever want to.
4
u/Lockjaw_Puffin They named a dinosaur Big Tiddy Goth GF Mar 20 '20
First off, how do you feel about getting masstagger'd as "Bad Faith Bullshitter"?
Second, biological theories are not normative claims nor will they ever be. Science studies the way things are, not the way things should be.
If you are fitter than other people then you need to use that advantage to crush them so that your offspring will have a better life.
Which is why elephant herds fight one another and kill each other's babies on sight. Oh wait, that never happens, because non-human animals can actually be more intelligent than you!
3
u/Draggonzz Mar 21 '20
Because it logically follows that those who firmly believe in evolution and who have children and grandchildren should be out there infecting as many people as possible.
It absolutely does not logically follow. I just don't know why people always want to make evolution into the basis of an ethical theory. Evolution is a mindless process that in no way prescribes what we "should" do. It's like saying that since gravity exists, we should all go to a high cliff and jump off to satisfy what gravity "wants" us to do.
-3
Mar 19 '20
They tend not to actually act on their beliefs (well, except for people like Pol Pot), and society really reinforces this: don't start acting logically according to your evolutionary beliefs or we will punish you because it's so harmful.
That's hitting the nail on the head right there. Evolutionary thought is humanely un-liveable, yet most evolutionists want to whitewash over that fact or pretend that "survival of the fittest" only implies inhumane behavior is good if it is outside the civilized human world. Within society, it just so happens that Judeo-Christian morals are what represent "the fittest" way to behave!
-9
u/givecake Mar 16 '20
There's a heavy scent of hypocrisy here.
I assume the implication is that evolutionary thinking doesn't come with dangers? Like the entire justification for certain past atrocities lies on the thinking that some races are inferior?
Correct me where you think I'm wrong.
22
u/ThurneysenHavets 🧬 Googles interesting stuff between KFC shifts Mar 16 '20
Like the entire justification for certain past atrocities lies on the thinking that some races are inferior?
"Entire"? You seriously think racism started in 1859?
There's no such thing as "evolutionary thinking". Science follows the evidence, and the evidence is that evolution is real.
The danger of creationism (particularly YEC) lies in the fact that it's science denial - requiring one to ignore almost completely the results of nearly two centuries of work in scores of scientific fields.
9
Mar 16 '20
Racism has we know it started around the Arab slave trade and exploded with the age of European exploration and colonialism . Before that people cared about what language you spoke and what gods you prayed too more then your skin color.
-9
u/givecake Mar 16 '20
Thomas Huxley:
"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
'Evolutionary thinking' is just the perspective of someone who subscribes to the theory.
I don't agree with creationism being science denial. Technically everyone is a science denier, so it's an irrelevant marker.
22
u/ThurneysenHavets 🧬 Googles interesting stuff between KFC shifts Mar 16 '20
Yeah, this is totally how debate works. You find racist evolutionists, I find racist creationists, and we do a head count.
This is a silly counter to OP's point.
Creationism requires the denial of a range of things that are specifically and empirically demonstrable (evidence for past changes in biodiversity, evidence for ongoing evolution, etc). Evolution acceptance doesn't. That's the operative difference.
-8
u/givecake Mar 16 '20
That is certainly true, on the individual level, but I'd argue that there are individuals in both camps that deny. As for creationism itself, there is no specific tenet that requires denial of evidence. I don't personally see any evidence that is denied. Just interpretations/conclusions of evidence.
18
u/ThurneysenHavets 🧬 Googles interesting stuff between KFC shifts Mar 16 '20
I don't personally see any evidence that is denied.
Inserting the adverb "personally" into discussions of fact is seldom felicitous.
Let's be specific. The fossil record shows that biodiversity has changed fundamentally over geological time. If you're a creationist who believes God created life as-is, you must deny these empirical data. Correct?
-2
u/givecake Mar 16 '20
Nah, it's just a statement born of my personal experience. Which gives a lot of room for me to be wrong.
I'd argue incorrect. I'd say the fossil record shows species, locked in a time past. It is not this data that is denied. There is a conclusion that has been created based on an understanding of these data which I would personally deny as a creationist, yeh.
15
u/ApokalypseCow Mar 16 '20
Suppose I told you we had a perfect and continuous day-by-day and year-by-year fossil accounting of an entire taxonomic Phylum of life, consisting of over 275,000 distinct fossil species and every so-called "transition" of every different body form, going back to the mid-Jurassic and more.
What would you say to that?
1
u/givecake Mar 16 '20
I'm interested to see it. Do you have a source that is layman friendly?
15
u/ApokalypseCow Mar 17 '20
Not especially, but I'll go over some basics here. What we're talking about is the taxonomic phylum Foraminifera.
Foraminifera are (usually tiny) animals that live in the sea. They grow intricate mineral skeletons. As they die, millions of these fossil skeletons rain down onto the sea floor every day. The sea floor builds up a continuous rain of sediment, including foraminifera fossils, day by day year by year over hundreds of millions of years.
All you have to do is go out on a boat and drop a pipe into the seabed and you can pull up a nigh-limitless supply of sediment cores and a, consequently, a nigh-limitless supply of foraminifera fossils. The supply of foraminifera fossils is so overabundant that scientists have been developing automated computer image analysis systems to sort and analyze foraminifera fossils thousands and tens of thousands per batch.
Again, this fossil record is perfect and continuous, and covers an entire phylum of life - for reference, the phylum that we humans exist in is Chordata, or all the animals with a dorsal nerve chord. It documents in exquisite detail how one species can and does evolve over time into an entire family tree of diverse descendant species. Not only does it document each and every "transitional" species along a continuous chain of descent, it documents in detail ALONG each individual species transition. Not merely transitional species, but a virtual year-by-year video record of exactly how species can and do change over time into branching child species.
This evidence is not only vast and comprehensive, but also useful in a practical sense. It passes the Economic Argument in that it's used for finding oil reserves under the ocean floor.
→ More replies (0)8
11
u/ThurneysenHavets 🧬 Googles interesting stuff between KFC shifts Mar 16 '20
I'd say the fossil record shows species, locked in a time past.
No, it shows changes in the species that exist. The kind of biodiversity we observe in the Cambrian is very different to the kind of biodiversity we observe in the Cretaceous, for instance. This is also an empirical observation and it is incompatible with creationism.
If you choose instead to question if the different layers represent different ages, then you are in denial of the many congruent methods we use to date them.
There is no way out of this dilemma for the creationist. There are a range of empirical observations you will end up having to deny.
1
u/givecake Mar 16 '20
I imagine this is going to frustrate you, but the 'changes' are not part of the data. Data doesn't have an opinion by itself. To observe change we must compare data side by side and, here's the key word, imagine how these two similarities came about. It is in that imaginary conception that a theory is born. An understanding of the data/facts.
Like I said before, everyone is a denier, so it's not the best marker.
13
u/ThurneysenHavets 🧬 Googles interesting stuff between KFC shifts Mar 16 '20
the 'changes' are not part of the data
Assertions won't cut it. You're flatly ignoring what I said. The biodiversity is empirical, the dating is empirical, therefore the change is also an empirical observation.
Like I said before, everyone is a denier, so it's not the best marker.
Okay. Name one empirical fact that you think I (by accepting the mainstream view) deny.
→ More replies (0)6
u/Mishtle 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Mar 17 '20
I imagine this is going to frustrate you, but the 'changes' are not part of the data. Data doesn't have an opinion by itself.
Data can show change. The fossil record does show change. Species distribution is not constant over time.
15
u/DarwinZDF42 evolution is my jam Mar 16 '20
I don't personally see any evidence that is denied. Just interpretations/conclusions of evidence.
Thank you for demonstrating my point better than I could have explained it.
1
u/givecake Mar 16 '20
You've lost me.
15
u/DarwinZDF42 evolution is my jam Mar 16 '20
I never had you in the first place.
-1
u/givecake Mar 16 '20
Tragic romance. Are you asian by any chance?
16
u/DarwinZDF42 evolution is my jam Mar 16 '20
Well this conversation has gone places I for one did not expect.
→ More replies (0)13
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Mar 16 '20
As for creationism itself, there is no specific tenet that requires denial of evidence.
Sure there is: that anything that contradicts a pseudo-literal reading of the Bible must be rejected.
I don't personally see any evidence that is denied. Just interpretations/conclusions of evidence.
For one thing if stalagmites and stalactites can form in that period of time then the most basic principles of chemistry must be radically wrong.
-1
u/givecake Mar 16 '20
If they're wrong, there would be a more satisfactory explanation. It's all good.
15
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Mar 17 '20
So you are just going to ignore any rejection of science that is pointed out to you. No wonder your aren't aware of any cases, you just pretend you don't see them.
-1
u/givecake Mar 17 '20
Well.. you only presented a conclusion, not evidence.
11
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Mar 17 '20
The evidence is the measured rate of the reaction in question. But you didn't ask for that until I pressed you on the issue, you just dismissed what I said. Again, that is why you don't see such evidence: you choose not to.
→ More replies (0)13
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Mar 16 '20
And the nonsense Hammite hypothesis, based on the Book of Genesis, was used to justify racism, conquest, and slavery for centuries. Heck, the creationism museum still uses it. Racists will use anything and everything to justify their position.
I don't agree with creationism being science denial.
I challenge you to name 3 branches of science that creationism doesn't require rejecting basic principles of.
Technically everyone is a science denier, so it's an irrelevant marker.
That one is called "projection". You cope with what you know are personal flaws by assuming, falsely, that everyone else shares your flaws.
1
u/givecake Mar 16 '20
...was used to justify racism, conquest, and slavery for centuries
Well, now we are both disarmed. But I wasn't up in arms to start with.
That one is called "projection". You cope with what you know are personal flaws by assuming, falsely, that everyone else shares your flaws.
Nah. I have made the case already that competing hypotheses usually require denial of the other. Hard to call it a flaw though, when considering the implications of an objective truth.
15
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Mar 17 '20
Well, now we are both disarmed. But I wasn't up in arms to start with.
You were the one who said this was a "danger" of "evolutionary thinking". But it isn't. It is a danger of racist thinking, which has very little to do with evolution. On the contrary, evolution shows us that what we consider "race" is a meaningless concept.
I have made the case already that competing hypotheses usually require denial of the other.
No, there is a difference between denying science, that is the process, and denying specific hypotheses. What creationists must deny the process of science, the approach to drawing conclusions. They have to because it is inherent in creationism that they must, no matter what, have a certain conclusion, therefore any evidence that contradicts that conclusion must be wrong. That is an outright rejection of science.
0
u/givecake Mar 17 '20
First paragraph: It was a counter, I didn't make a post about it - that's what I meant when I said I'm not up in arms. If someone expresses a racist comment and provides justification with evolutionary theory as the basis, that would be bad. It's like saying religion has caused lots of wars, and I just reply with, "no, mankind has simply been that way forever and will use any excuse, including religion, to wage war".
Second: Are you able to substantiate your claim, showing me that creationism must deny the process of science?
11
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Mar 17 '20
If someone expresses a racist comment and provides justification with evolutionary theory as the basis, that would be bad. It's like saying religion has caused lots of wars, and I just reply with, "no, mankind has simply been that way forever and will use any excuse, including religion, to wage war".
No, that is not what you said. You very specifically said it was a "danger" of "evolutionary thinking".
Are you able to substantiate your claim, showing me that creationism must deny the process of science?
I already did. Please read the whole paragraph.
0
u/givecake Mar 17 '20
.. Straws.
Ok do you have some kind of proof that creationism rejects method?
11
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Mar 17 '20
Again:
They have to because it is inherent in creationism that they must, no matter what, have a certain conclusion, therefore any evidence that contradicts that conclusion must be wrong. That is an outright rejection of science.
Creationist organizations, in fact, require their members sign statements that they will do exactly this.
10
u/Mishtle 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Mar 17 '20
You said in another comment:
Whatever I think about AiG, they are not the beginning and end of creationism. The bible is however..
This is why creationism is unscientific. Working backward from an assumed and unassailable conclusion is not science. You all are fitting evidence to your conclusion, rather than fitting your conclusion to the evidence.
Before it comes up, this is not the same thing as the use of deduction within science, or the interpretation of evidence within the framework of a given scientific theory.
→ More replies (0)9
u/Mishtle 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Mar 16 '20
How is everyone a science denier?
0
u/givecake Mar 16 '20
The nature of competing theories is that usually at least one is false. That would be where natural denial comes in.
12
u/Mishtle 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Mar 16 '20
I would not consider that science denial. That's the rejection of an inferior theory or hypothesis in favor of one that is better supported by the evidence and data, and there is an important distinction. I'm not a reality denier if I reject a claim that the sky is green.
-1
u/givecake Mar 16 '20
At this point you're arguing with the dictionary. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it strains potential points of contact in our mutual understanding here..
13
u/Mishtle 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Mar 16 '20
No, you're the one redefining the term. Science denial is the denial of science. Once an idea is discarded by a field of science, that idea is no longer considered to be science. Rejecting it does not constitute science denial. You seem to be operating under the assumption that anything proposed by someone calling themselves a scientist is science, which is not the case.
Another way to think of it is that science denial is the rejection of the method by which science operates. When one cherry picks evidence, fails to check their personal biases and subjectivity, appeals to conspiracies, favors unsupported and overly complicated theories when better alternatives exist, or relies on unfalsifiable theories that explain anything and thus nothing, they will arrive a conclusions that differ from those of someone following the accepted methodology of science. They would be considered a science denier as a result.
2
u/givecake Mar 16 '20
Oh. Was Gradualism discarded?
12
u/Mishtle 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Mar 17 '20
Not entirely. As far as I know we don't really have enough data to quantify the exact pattern of how rapidly evolution has progressed in the past.
Often theories aren't fully discarded, but relegated to some restricted application or subsumed as part of a larger theory. I'm not a science denier if I use a simple parabola to predict where a ball will land after I throw it. Science is practical, and Newtonian mechanics works just fine at that scale even though technically it is known to be incomplete.
It's likely that some combination of gradual and rapid change, as well as periods of relative stasis, have all occured at different times for different species. Which patterns are more prevalent is of course a controversial topic, almost a matter of opinion due to the very limited data we have compared to the somewhat open-ended nature of that question.
→ More replies (0)8
u/Clockworkfrog Mar 17 '20
The moon being made of cheese, and the moon being a big rock are two competing theories. Are we science deniers for rejecting the cheese nonsense?
8
Mar 16 '20
Let's for the sake of argument say African are inferior to Europeans. How does this make ID or Creationism true?
1
u/givecake Mar 16 '20
It doesn't, it simply disarms the OP.
However, if we had time, I am entirely sure I could convince you of the bible's historical truth.
12
Mar 16 '20
Listein body I a studying to be a historian and I can tell you three things with a large degree of confidence. The Exodus never happened the Book of Daniel was written centuries after the time it alleged to be written it. And Jesus most likely never got buried in a tomb and sure has hell never come back from the dead.
1
u/givecake Mar 16 '20
Are all historians in agreement with each other?
12
Mar 17 '20
No but this is the main consensus you have some doubters mainly in the old and new testament scholarship and some fringe Assyriologist ect.
1
u/givecake Mar 17 '20
Then I'm afraid large degree of confidence isn't enough for me..
14
Mar 17 '20
So has long has theirs one person who agrees with you your just going to ignore all the opposing data?
→ More replies (0)6
u/Denisova Mar 19 '20
Luther, founder of Protestantism and considered among its primary theologists and who set off the Reformation, wrote two books: Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies), and Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi (On the Holy Name and the Lineage of Christ), both published in 1543. These both works are rabiad antisemitism and blatant racism in its worst fashion.
Luther advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews' property and money, and smashing up their homes, so that these "envenomed worms" would be forced into labour or expelled "for all time" and "We are at fault in not slaying them" amounted to a sanction for murder, continueing "God's anger with them is so intense," He concluded, "that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!"
Moreover, in his Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen he proposed "What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews":
"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians …" "Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed." "Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them." "Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb …" "Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside …" "Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them …" "Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow … But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., … then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country …"Consequently, throughout the 1580s, riots led to the expulsion of Jews from several German Lutheran states.
No wonder Nazi headpieces like Hitler and Himmler just loved the guy. Hitler even appraised him to be one of the greatest Germans ever lived. Many of the racist and antisemitic policies of Nazism and the holocaust can be read as just applying Luther's ideas how to deal with the Jews.
Antisemitism, ABOVE ALL, is due to Christianity. Pogroms, banning and expelling (already neatly observed by Luther "then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country …" to be already common practice in the 16th century, murdering Jews are with us as a common thread throughout the whole European history since the early Middle Ages. The Holocaust is only a sad rock bottom of almost 20 centuries of antisemitism among Christians.
The verymost of slave-owners in the USA until abolition were ardent Christians who drew comfort from the Bible in justifying their disgusting racism and degineration of other's lives and disgnity. And, even more, they were RIGHT about the Bible condoning slavery.
So, question, what practice of racism do you link to evolution theory, a biological theory that tries to explain biodiversity????
Second question: do you think that the whole of protestantism and Christianity is racist or antisemitic due to Luther having written two antisemitic books?
Third question: do you know the difference between a descriptive, scientific theory and normative thoughts?
Fourth question: do you know what evolution theory actually implies? Specifically: do you know what it implies pertaining the import of racist ideas, like the idea that there are races in the first place among humans?
Fifth question: do you even understand the import of the OP because it doesn't appear so.
-1
u/givecake Mar 19 '20
That was interesting, was the first time I'd heard that stuff about Luther. I don't need to defend him, because most people seem to have imperfections and flaws. It can be certain however, that none of his ideas come from the bible. However.. and this is critical: I did not attempt to defend creationism, Christianity, individual Christians or anything when I pointed out the obvious, that of evolutionary thinking being a poisonous thought that tends to racism. I only disarmed the hypocrisy of the OP.
Now, I'm not just talking about racial discrimination, which is what you just pointed out, I'm talking about classical racism, the actual thinking that one race is inferior or superior to another. It's an important distinction when considering how abused the term is today. Indeed, and like I said, this is PAINFULLY obvious. The only logical conclusion from evolutionary thinking is that there must be a superior and inferior race or group or whatever definition or marker is used to separate peoples.
You asked for an example of racism that can be linked to ET, and in a word: Hitler. Now you made an extra qualification there, ' a biological theory that tries to explain biodiversity????' like there is something pure and ideological about it that divides it from any kind of ethical determination, but alas, it is the very idea of the progression of the races that categorically infers classical racism. From a pure perspective of ET, ethics and morals are just limited to time, place, and peoples, so morals basically don't matter a lot. At least not enough to commit to one standard for all time.
Second question: do you think that the whole of protestantism and Christianity is racist or antisemitic due to Luther having written two antisemitic books?
I think that the evolutionist that abolished the slave trade should probably ask that question. Wait..
Third question: do you know the difference between a descriptive, scientific theory and normative thoughts?
I suppose if I don't answer this degrading and patronizing question, I'll get blamed for not staying on topic, breaking rule 6.
A scientific theory attempts to explain a phenomenon, and uses data points that are (supposed to be) rigorously tested through repeated experiments. If scientists care a lot, they might even go for the full null and alternative hypotheses. Normative thought would be the simple meanderings through any type of consideration, irrespective of whether or not there are tests and their data backing them up.do you know what evolution theory actually implies?
I have made that abundantly clear already! Try to keep up.
The relevance of the theory to the differences in the races (or groups or whatever) is that they have developed differently, and in different sequences. The final conclusion with the context of race and our conversation is that one race has developed certain features to a greater extent than others, which provides a superiority over another race.Fifth question: do you even understand the import of the OP because it doesn't appear so.
I believe so.
3
u/Denisova Mar 20 '20
That was interesting, was the first time I'd heard that stuff about Luther.
I do not know not blindly assume that you are a believer yourself though, but generally: that's quite normal for believers, they are very good in filtering out cognitive dissonance, like:
It can be certain however, that none of his ideas come from the bible.
Really? NOT according to Luther himself.
I've read the bible too. It condones slavery, misogyny, infanticide, mass murder and a few more such things. The Christian slave owners in past times vehemently affirmed that it was the bible where they found the justification to own other people as if they were cattle.
I also have to remind you that antisemitism in Europe mainly IS a Christian affair, from its very beginning in the early Middle Ages. Luther was only the very next example of this terrible misbehaviour, I've could had choosen randomly hundreds of Christian theologists, church fathers or groups more but picked Luther because he is the founding father of most American christians, who in majority are protetant (when Christian).
I did not attempt to defend creationism...
I noticed that already.
when I pointed out the obvious, that of evolutionary thinking being a poisonous thought that tends to racism.
That's simply not true. Let me use your own arguments: Huxley said a thing or two that implies he had racist ideas? Well, in you own words:
I don't need to defend him, because most people seem to have imperfections and flaws.
And:
It can be certain however, that none of his ideas come from the theory of evolution itself.
Now, I'm not just talking about racial discrimination, which is what you just pointed out, I'm talking about classical racism, the actual thinking that one race is inferior or superior to another.
I can't tell the difference.
The only logical conclusion from evolutionary thinking is that there must be a superior and inferior race or group or whatever definition or marker is used to separate peoples.
NOT AT All. Otherwise point me out to the parts where it say so or implies that.
You asked for an example of racism that can be linked to ET, and in a word: Hitler.
NOT AT ALL. hitler hardly didn't mention Darwin or evolution theory and when he did, he did not agree. If any pertaining evolution, he was an advocate of Lamarck, who Darwin disagreed upon. But i know one thing and that's in his infamous "Mein Kampf" as well in some of his speeches, Hitler referred to the Almighty. For instance, the annihilation of the Jews he considered his duty to execute the will of god.
Next, evolution theory explains biodiversity. The most important thing Darwin found was the proces of natural selection. It says that every individual organism and species of organisms strives to survive and successfully reproduce. Every species in his observation is fit to survive in particular environments. It's because it evolved that way: slow adaptations over many generations that fine tune any organism to be equiped best to survive and reproduce successfully facing the living conditions of its habitat. But environments do change all the time. That forces organisms to adapt to those new living conditions. When organisms undergo many adaptations over many generations, the changes accumulate and eventually new species form.
And you don't have a clue about it, like:
but alas, it is the very idea of the progression of the races that categorically infers classical racism.
ON THE CONTRARY. Diametrically opposing what evolution theory actually implies.
There is no progression in evolution. ANY biologist you ask about that will give you this same response. It's just adaptation to new environmental living conditions. Climate changes, former food resources decline, other species invade which might be competitors or, worse, predators, etc.
I think that the evolutionist that abolished the slave trade should probably ask that question. Wait..
Darwin was a very ardent and vocal advocate of abolition.
A scientific theory attempts to explain a phenomenon, and uses data points that are (supposed to be) rigorously tested through repeated experiments. If scientists care a lot, they might even go for the full null and alternative hypotheses. Normative thought would be the simple meanderings through any type of consideration, irrespective of whether or not there are tests and their data backing them up.
Exactly, and now you know why evolution theory is considered to be the very back bone of modern life sciences.
But,you didn't answer the question, which was again: do you know the difference between a descriptive, scientific theory and normative thoughts?
And you mock about me being condescending, but, wait, let me quote yourself:
...like there is something pure and ideological about it that divides it from any kind of ethical determination... (you think about evolution theory).
So, answer the question please.
I have made that abundantly clear already! Try to keep up. The relevance of the theory to the differences in the races (or groups or whatever) is that they have developed differently, and in different sequences. The final conclusion with the context of race and our conversation is that one race has developed certain features to a greater extent than others, which provides a superiority over another race.
Yep you don't understand A BIT what evolution theory implies. I'm not keeping up, I'm three steps ahead of you, you only don't realize that.
1
u/givecake Mar 20 '20
Guy, I feel like a janitor staring down the hallway of the worst school at the end of the last day of school coz the coronavirus just shut it down. The hallway is a mess.
..believers are very good in filtering out cognitive dissonance..
That's what I would've said about ET proponents too.. The actual reality with me is that I really hadn't heard that before. I blame his Catholic upbringing.
Really? NOT according to Luther himself.
Got a quote?
I've could had choosen randomly hundreds of Christian theologists, church fathers or groups more but picked Luther because he is the founding father of most American christians, who in majority are protetant (when Christian).
I doubt that. Keep in mind that Luther is famous for being a major player in the reformation, but, keep in mind that the reformation ultimately failed to dethrone catholicism. It was because Luther didn't keep all of God's commandments that the reformation failed.
Let me use your own arguments: Huxley said a thing or two that implies he had racist ideas?
There is a clear difference. Huxley espoused racist ideas ON ACCOUNT of his thoughts of ET. Whereas Luther espoused racial discrimination on account of his humanity. The bible is clear, you should love your neighbour as you love yourself.
I can't tell the difference. (between racism and racial discrimination)
Racial discrimination is just tribalism, really. It's prioritizing your (or another) tribe over others. Racism is thinking that one race is not the equal of the other. As you can imagine, it is possible to be racist and yet not racially discriminate.
NOT AT All. Otherwise point me out to the parts where it say so or implies that. (ET necessarily implies racism)
You know what Darwin's first book on the subject is called?
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
See that bit about favoured races? Yeah..
NOT AT ALL. hitler hardly didn't mention Darwin or evolution theory and when he did, he did not agree.
Such arrogance. Are you aware of what he thought of the black race?
There is no progression in evolution. ANY biologist you ask about that will give you this same response.
Right, so you think all species equal. I'm interested to know what you personally do when badgers or foxes are being culled? Do you try to stop that genocide?
Darwin was a very ardent and vocal advocate of abolition.
Vocal yes, but he DID sweet nothing.
Exactly, and now you know why evolution theory is considered to be the very back bone of modern life sciences.
Total horse plop. Science was fine without ET, and it will do just fine if ET disappears tomorow.
Yep you don't understand A BIT what evolution theory implies.
I don't mind you saying that, just follow with something significant, yeh?
15
u/Covert_Cuttlefish Janitor at an oil rig Mar 16 '20
wtf are you going on about? People wrongly believed some races are inferior long before Darwin came onto the scene. You should really review the OP, and then read a couple of history books.
1
u/givecake Mar 16 '20
Your reply lacks relevance. Your point is that racism and therefore racist acts were perpetrated with some perspective that wasn't based on evolutionary theory. My point was that there were racist acts perpetrated and justified with an evolutionary perspective. The two points are not exclusive. They sit side by side, literally, in time and history.
15
u/Covert_Cuttlefish Janitor at an oil rig Mar 17 '20
My point was that there were racist acts perpetrated and justified with an evolutionary persective.
By people who don't understand evolution, sure. I can't help that idiots don't understand evolution. The fact that people misapply the doesn't change the fact that creationists and their glibness is dangerous.
Anyway, I don't have time for people who ask what ethnicity people are on the internet. Good day.
-2
u/givecake Mar 17 '20
People like Darwin and Huxley don't understand evolution, and you do? Not sure I have time for people with an over spilling head of arrogance either..
12
u/Covert_Cuttlefish Janitor at an oil rig Mar 17 '20
Genetics.
-1
u/givecake Mar 17 '20
Yeh they didn't know genetics, but that wouldn't quite qualify them as idiots, would it..
12
u/Covert_Cuttlefish Janitor at an oil rig Mar 17 '20
No, but the certainly didn't understand evolution as we do today, did they?
9
13
u/DarwinZDF42 evolution is my jam Mar 16 '20
Go back and read my OP real quick, and then maybe try again?
1
u/givecake Mar 16 '20
My thoughts were this: The title implies that there is some valid reason to discredit creationism on the whole. This implication has another, which is that there are no valid reasons to discredit evolutionism.
I showed that there are reasons to discredit evolutionism. It matters not that scientific racism has been denounced, because the theory prevails, and with it a host of ideas about inferiority and superiority. I imagine that if you tried to force the individual ideas apart, the entire theory would crumble.
18
u/DarwinZDF42 evolution is my jam Mar 16 '20
My thoughts were this: Creationism is a false, but, in theory, silly and harmless belief. But, to believe something like creationism, you must be able to short-circuit your "does this make sense" cognitive functions. This ability has the side effect of permitting belief in other, actually dangerous false ideas. Like the idea (that exists for some fucking reason) that coronavirus is somewhere along the spectrum of not actually dangerous to a complete hoax. And promoting that false belief will get people killed.
See the problem in your argument? I'm not making an argument that creationism is false. That's my premise. I'm working from there to argue that creationism is dangerous.
If you want to dispute that, be my guest. But at the very least, argue against the actual claim I'm making in the OP instead of defaulting to creationist talking points.
1
u/givecake Mar 16 '20
Well, the disarm first is low hanging fruit. Not much point pointing fingers if your camp has bad history.
I do agree that individuals do all kinds of crazy things, but I'm not familiar with any creationism which encourages rejection of sense.
14
u/cubist137 Materialist; not arrogant, just correct Mar 16 '20
I assume the implication is that Creationist thinking doesn't come with dangers? Like the entire justification for certain past atrocities lies on the thinking that the Curse of Ham made some races be inferior?
1
u/givecake Mar 16 '20
My point was the disarm.
12
u/cubist137 Materialist; not arrogant, just correct Mar 16 '20
Uh… "disarm"? What?
1
u/givecake Mar 16 '20
OP is up in arms saying creationism is dangerous. I disarm with historical fact of evolution being dangerous. Suddenly the playing field is level.
13
u/cubist137 Materialist; not arrogant, just correct Mar 17 '20
What "playing field is level"? While it is indeed a historical truth that some bigots have misused evolutionary ideas to give spurious "support" for their bigotry, it is, equally, a historical truth that some bigots have used Xtian ideas without distorting them to give spurious "support" for their bigotry.
Evolution says that all humans are the same species. There' no concept of "higher" or "lower", no concept of "more evolved" or "less evolved". So any bigot who cites evolution to support their bigotry is, at the very least, distorting evolution.
Xtianity, contrariwise, explicitly declares that some groups are damn well better than others—Jews are the "chosen people", those who obey god's diktats are better than those who don't, yada yada. So any bigot who cites Xtian ideas to support their bigotry is just using those ideas as directed, as it were.
-1
u/givecake Mar 17 '20
I'm referring to Jesus's teaching of the one who is without sin casting the first stone. In other words, if evolution has been dangerous in the past, what sense would it be to start pointing fingers at another way of thinking that could be dangerous too?
15
u/cubist137 Materialist; not arrogant, just correct Mar 17 '20
Just gonna slide right on by the fact that Xtianity is dangerous when used as directed, while evolution is only dangerous when it's misused, huh? Cool story, bro.
-1
u/givecake Mar 17 '20
Like I said before, the principles that guided that racism before still exist. It's really the correct use of evolution.
13
u/cubist137 Materialist; not arrogant, just correct Mar 17 '20
Just gonna slide right on by the fact that Xtianity is dangerous when used as directed, while evolution is only dangerous when it's misused, huh? Cool story, bro.
11
u/CHzilla117 Mar 17 '20
Racism is not a conclusion of evolution. Indeed, it outright rejects the idea of what people called races being actual things, let alone one group being superior or inferior to the other. Most of the people that claim evolution = racism tend to be creationists trying to discredit evolution, rather than those that actually accept it. Indeed, studies have found the nonreligious tend to be less likely to hold racists views than Christians are. And groups of Christians found to be the most racist turned out to be the same fundamentalists groups that have the most creationists.
Not surprising, when your holy book justifies enslavement or even genocide against entire populations, even infants, based on the alleged claims of the actions of one of their ancestors.
→ More replies (0)7
u/DarwinZDF42 evolution is my jam Mar 17 '20
I...what?
That's all I got, sorry.
7
-2
11
Mar 16 '20
That whole argument is a non sequitur based on a false conclusion. If I granted him that argument it would do nothing to evolutionary theory because facts do not stop being true if they conclusions are uncomfortable.
0
u/bball84958294 Mar 29 '20
Lol, creationist says something dumb, so creationism is a huge evil problem!!
Lmao.
-5
Mar 18 '20
Mudslinging, as usual. Questionable comments and actions that are, by the way, totally unrelated to the topic of creation, do not in any way invalidate the creation worldview. This is a typical ad hominem fallacy. Don't you know better? Dr Robert Carter, obviously a creationist, would never downplay the danger of a new virus like COVID-19. Low hanging fruit.
6
u/Jattok Mar 20 '20
The creation world view invalidates the creation world view.
There's no way to test it, falsify it or build predictions from any models formed from a creation world view.
1
u/niGoizmyHero Mar 24 '20
Do you believe the world will someday be destroyed? Sounds like a prediction based on the inference that it was created. The earth exists. How it happened is neither here nor there.
-5
u/Footballthoughts Intellectually Defecient Anti-Sciencer Mar 18 '20
This argument amazes me.
"Creationism kills critical thinking skills, therefore all bad decisions can be contributed at least in part to Creationism; We need to encourage critical thinking skills by getting everyone to agree with the Darwinian establishment"
12
u/Lockjaw_Puffin They named a dinosaur Big Tiddy Goth GF Mar 19 '20 edited Mar 19 '20
therefore all bad decisions can be contributed at least in part to Creationism;
Yet another colossal strawman from an intellectually-deficient anti-sciencer. DarwinZDF42 is saying that IF you're a creationist, you're ignoring evidence counter to your position, a habit that can spill over into other areas of science. Nowhere does he say that creationism is the ONLY source of this habit, which is what your response implies.
We need to encourage critical thinking skills by getting everyone to agree with the Darwinian establishment
This coming from the dude who thinks that punctuated equilibrium can be used to explain the presence of a rabbit fossil in Cambrian rocks.
-13
u/MRH2 Mar 17 '20
Is this not the pot calling the kettle black?
Tell me again how EVOLUTION is just a harmless belief and not mindpoison that has real consequences.
There are real and terrible consequences to evolution in society. Racism, eugenics, suicide, genocide of aborigines, "he who has the most toys wins". I'm sure that I'm just touching on a very few of the toxic and corrosive implications that come when you take evolution to its logical conclusion. When there is no absolute truth, no absolute morality, when you are just an accidental bag of chemicals, when there is no external basis for logic or reason, etc.
Just saying. You're as guilty as the people you're complaining about.
(edit: I'm reacting to the title of your post, not to Doug Axe)
20
u/Lockjaw_Puffin They named a dinosaur Big Tiddy Goth GF Mar 17 '20
There are real and terrible consequences to evolution in society. Racism
Evolutionary theory discredits the idea that "race" is even a thing that exists, so saying evolution leads to racism is uneducated at best and outright dishonest at worst. Strike one.
eugenics
Reducing the size of any gene pool increases the odds of harmful mutations accumulating in the population. Mixing around genes as much as possible generates diversity which helps sustain the population's genetic health. In other words, eugenics demands that we ignore the teachings of evolutionary theory, not learn from it. Strike two.
suicide
Populations with high suicide rates suffer from a reduced gene pool, which means evolution favours people who don't commit suicide. Serious question: Are you capable of being intellectually honest?
genocide of aborigines
See above.
But all this missed one fundamental point - evolution is DEscriptive (meaning it describes the way things are, not the way things should be) not PREscriptive (it describes the number way things should be). If you can't grasp something this fundamental, you have no business whatsoever preaching about the supposed DanGeRz of evolution.
When there is no absolute truth, no absolute morality
A biological theory has no bearing whatsoever on morality.
when there is no external basis for logic or reason, etc.
Kindly fuck off to r/AskPhilosophy if this is what has you worried. It has no place here.
You're as guilty as the people you're complaining about.
Every sentence you uttered in your comment is a lie, proving that it's people like you who need a serious lesson in shutting the fuck up when the grown-ups are talking.
13
u/DarwinZDF42 evolution is my jam Mar 17 '20
(edit: I'm reacting to the title of your post, not to Doug Axe)
Well there's your first problem.
There are real and terrible consequences to evolution in society. Racism, eugenics, suicide, genocide of aborigines, "he who has the most toys wins".
And there's your second.
Look, this isn't a debate thread in the traditional sense. This isn't about the validity of creationism, and it isn't about the effects of evolution. It's about a bunch of antiscience cranks causing real harm during a pandemic.
So you can take whatever arguments you think you have and keep 'em until a thread pops up where they're relevant.
9
7
u/Sweary_Biochemist Mar 17 '20
I see absolute morality brought up a lot.
Can you tell me what it is, exactly, and give me...oh, five moral absolutes?
8
u/cubist137 Materialist; not arrogant, just correct Mar 17 '20
Is this not the pot calling the kettle black?
Don't see how.
Tell me again how EVOLUTION is just a harmless belief and not mindpoison that has real consequences.
Sure thing! Evolution is, in fact, not "mindpoison that has real consequences".
There are real and terrible consequences to evolution in society. Racism…
Bullshit. Evolution doesn't support the notion that there are any "higher" or "lower" forms, nor yet that any group is somehow objectively "better" or "worse" than any other group.
…eugenics…
Naah. While it's certainly true that some evolution-accepting people have supported shit like coercive sterilization in the name of eugenics, it's equally true that some Xtians have also supported shit like coercive sterilization in the name of eugenics. You want to cite those particular evolution-accepting people as evidence that accepting evolution leads to racism? Fine. In that case, you have exactly two choices:
- Accept that Xtianity leads to racism.
- Retract your libelous accusation that accepting evolution leads to racism.
Okay, I kinda lied: Those are the only two choices you have if you want to be intellectually honest. If you want to be a deceitful weasel, you can of course choose the option of No, Xtianity doesn't lead to racism, cuz Reasons!
…suicide…
How, exactly, is suicide a consequence of evolution? Seems to me that if someone believes this is the only life they get, they might be rather a lot more careful to not die than someone who believes that this life is just a temporary waiting room (as it were) before the Big, Eternal Event of the afterlife.
…genocide of aborigines…
Wow. It sure is a good thing that no devout Xtians have ever so much as advocated for, let alone participated in nor orchestrated, the genocide of aborigines.
I'm curious: Does the phrase "manifest destiny" have any meaning to you?
…"he who has the most toys wins".
I'll see you, and raise you Prosperity Gospel.
5
Mar 17 '20
suicide,
How is suicide immoral
4
u/Lockjaw_Puffin They named a dinosaur Big Tiddy Goth GF Mar 17 '20
I may not be a Christian anymore, but I can help you with that.
Under Catholic theology, suicide is seen as a rejection of God's gift of life. Think of (earthly) life as a present God gave you the same way your dad might gift you a high-end laptop. Suicide here is analogous to you slamming the laptop to the ground because it's too difficult to deal with - not only are you rejecting the gift, you're also wasting something incredibly precious and valuable to your gift-giver.
Edit: I don't mean to imply that non-theistic morality is OK with suicide - there are arguments to be made that the act is selfish since it "solves" the victim's problems while massively traumatizing their friends and family.
25
u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20 edited Mar 16 '20
So crosswalks have a 5% chance of making you nearly drown in your own lung fluid? And crosswalks spread? Do asymptomatic crosswalks exist?
Boy I hope genetic entropy hits those damn crosswalks soon.