RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: PseudoIntellectual AntiIntellectualism, meta-critiquing the evo-critics< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2006,16:51   

I can’t locate it right now, but yesterday some reasonable commenter commented on the fact that we seem to let the creationists call the shots here. They start new threads, we react. They insist we “vote” on which full-or-crap argument they’re going to deign to defend, or we’re “cowardly” (however that logic works).

Well, I guess since the theme of the discussion  board is “antievolution”, the fringe elements are justified in claiming more attention than they merit in the real world. Still, they need to be reminded that it’s their position that is universally rejected in the world of science, and that there are very sound reasons for that. Indeed, letting them make their case as fully as they can only serves to illustrate that journal editors and curriculum designers are more than justified in ignoring them.

But GoP, with his pretensions of expertise ranging from journalism to biology to physics, causes me to pause and ponder the bigger picture, which I sum up as Pseudointellectual Anti-intellectualism.

I recall back in college seeing a notice for some Campus Crusade for Christ lecture where they were going to disprove the notion that their movement was “anti-intellectual”. I had never really thought about it in those terms, but it struck me that that is exactly what they are, and that what they stand for is the very antithesis of what my concept of the university community was all about. Someone, as a joke I guess, had ordered me a subscription to wacko-fundamentalist Garner Ted Armstrong’s (Worldwide Church of God; Ambassador College) monthly rag, “The Plain Truth”, which used to rail about the arrogance and folly of substituting “man-made philosophy” for divine revelation (i.e. Garner Ted Armstrong’s reading of the Christian Bible). Neither the Campus Crusade in particular, nor fundamentalists in general (and I use the term broadly, including, e.g. “Muslim fundamentalists) have ever offered any evidence that even begins to dissuade me from the conclusion that, in fact, anti-intellectualism is the very core of their movement.

Back then, fundamentalists were fairly straightforward about their distrust of academia, science, and “man-made philosophy”. Reading “The Plain Truth” was sort of a glimpse at a mindset that might be caught on insomniac TV faith-healer shows (does anyone remember Kathryn Kuhlman?), but had very little to do with real life. At the time, I suppose Henry Morris and the “creation science” crowd were making their claims, but I never heard of anyone with a decent high school education, let alone a member of the university community, who regarded them as anything but a joke.

But now we’ve got the “intelligent design” movement – which, as was demonstrated quite convincingly at the Dover trial, is actually just rebranded creation science – claiming to beat the pointy-head professors at their own game. Here’s William Dembski, with his multiple graduate degrees, using impenetrable jargon to comfort the faithful with the illusion that their distrust of book-larnin’ and “man-made philosophies” was respectable and could be (trust him!;) proved with mathematical formulas. (Never mind the fact that David Wolpert characterized Dembski’s supposed development of his [i.e. Wolpert’s] “no free lunch theorems” as “written in jello”. Never mind the fact that no scientist, statistician, or mathematician has ever written a positive review of his work, excluding Jesus-oriented websites and such.)

It’s this “beating the pointy-head professors at their own game” gambit that I suggest sums up GhostGuy’s virtuoso sophistry, and I dub pseudo-intellectual anti-intellectualism. It works something like this. How many readers of, say, Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time” or Brian Greene’s “The Fabric of the Cosmos” are in a position to critique the math behind the book? Not a lot. Based on the fact that their disciplines accord them a lot of credibility, we in the general public likewise assume that their attempts to explain really arcane subjects are not just some con game.  Dembski, Behe et al. abuse this trust by presenting their degrees and university affiliations in lieu of the respect their academic disciplines do not accord them. (Again, witness Dover.) Posers like Ghosty go even further. No credentials of any sort; just internet blowhards professing to know more than the professors in, apparently, every discipline they’ve given a moment’s thought. All in the service either of bloated egos or their fundamentalist memes or both.

Our job here, the way I see it, is to expose the hollowness of their pretensions. Every “I just don’t have time to prove it right now”, as far as I’m concerned, is a concession of defeat. An absurd argument (geocentrism comes to mind) is not made any stronger by the claim that six other absurd arguments compete for defender's attention. Quite the contrary.

Just thought I’d say that.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2006,17:17   

They only call the shots if you let them. I don't let them call the shots. I just hang around and laugh at them because that's all they deserve. Geocentrism? HIV denial? Young Earth Creationism? They're idiots, and often funny, and that's why I'm here. I'm not trying to teach them. I've tutored people for years. These idiots are unteachable. But they are good for some laughs.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2006,17:22   

When the mormons knock on your door, do you argue with them all day, trying to convert them? No. They're brainwashed, they're committed to the belief, it's a waste of your time. Same here.

   
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2006,19:14   

Quote
When the mormons knock on your door, do you argue with them all day, trying to convert them?


On the other hand, if you ask them to mow your lawn, there's a pretty decent chance that they will.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,01:04   

Quote
I'm not trying to teach them. I've tutored people for years. These idiots are unteachable. But they are good for some laughs.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting otherwise. My point is the power of the pseudointellectual anti-intellectual approach in swaying others.  You're not suggesting, are you, that anyone that might be conned by this shell game is an idiot beyond hope of learning?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,05:38   

Oh no, plenty of people get conned by them. Lots of people will assert a vague belief in 'intelligent design'. They're not idiots. The ones who take up arms (verbally) against biologists, physicists, etc, over and over, who aren't swayed by argument, who've seen what all the experts say but think they know better--Thordaddy, GoP, Salvador, and the like--they're idiots, and unteachable.

Quote
Every “I just don’t have time to prove it right now”, as far as I’m concerned, is a concession of defeat.

It sure is. Like when Ghost said the evidence for marriage being hubs on a scale free network was compelling, and he was pushed to explain, and switched to saying he'd have to work on a model. In doing so he admits he had nothing. There shouldn't have been anything to work on. If he had something compelling he could have just shared it with us. But he didn't have anything compelling. He had some jargon he was throwing around.

About your larger point, they are counting on the public being laymen. They want to throw a bunch of jargon around, they need us to throw a bunch of jargon back, and then they can call it a debate and a controversy and try to get it into schools. When someone like DonaldM over on that Panda's Thumb thread starts babbling about how the programmers put the information in when they wrote the code, you and I know that DonaldM can't give us a useful definition of information, can't count how much the programmers 'put in', can't count how much came out, but Joe Smith doesn't know that. We know DonaldM's argument is bogus several different ways, but Joe Smith doesn't, and never will. We can't expect people to be educated to the point that they can see through this sophistry any time soon, considering things like half the country is unable to define the word 'molecule'. But what we can do is to shape our responses to indicate that arguments like Donalds are not just wrong but absurd and long dead. By doing things like linking to TalkOrigin refutations. By showing that real Information Theory researchers think those arguments are stupid.  By showing that the father of their movement doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS. By linking them to Young Earth Creationists. A belly laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms.

   
Joe the Ordinary Guy



Posts: 18
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,07:07   

Awhile ago I posited on PT the existence of an aberration similar to “impersonating an officer” or “impersonating a doctor”, called “impersonating a scientist”. It’s not specifically illegal, but it is just as self-deluding for the impersonator. I suspect that there is some of that involved in the Creationists’ posturing.

Regarding how many people can understand any level of scientific detail, I would guess that it is not just a “can” or “cannot” understand, but rather, somewhat of a continuum. I’m no scientist, but I can follow SOME arguments to SOME degree. The specific point where I go cross-eyed is different for me than it is for other non-scientists. Some can go further than I can, and others can't go as far as I can. I encourage those of you who are both scientists and good communicators to KEEP IT UP; you DO reach SOME people and that is better than reaching no one at all.

Every now and then I see someone in a post refer to himself as “a former fundie” or words to that effect. He will describe how he studied both sides of the argument and decided that the Creationists were the ones being deceitful and dishonest. And he came down on the side of science. I wish we could gather those people together, analyze their experiences, and then replicate those experiences with others.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,07:29   

Quote
A belly laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms.


A thread that I started yo examine that idea. I think it is important still.

Joe, I am sort of a scientist. I have a masters in marine biology. I deal more with policy stuff now but honestly, science has never been something I have needed to draw too heavily on here. GoP, Larry, Thordiddy, AFDave, etc. have never gotten off the absurdity tarmac. They have no point other than that they are afraid of so many things in the world. I am hopelessly driven to examine the ramblings and ravings of madmen since I write about them in my spare time. I also practice simply putting words down since, one might hope, I would improve my readability with practice.

Although they are just louder now than they used to be, they are still just as remarkably stupid. If we convert them, where will we go to study that particular flavor of humanity?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,07:38   

Quote

I wish we could gather those people together, analyze their experiences, and then replicate those experiences with others.


Leaving The Fold: Testimonies Of Former Fundamentalists

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,09:25   

Quote
The ones who take up arms (verbally) against biologists, physicists, etc, over and over, who aren't swayed by argument, who've seen what all the experts say but think they know better--Thordaddy, GoP, Salvador, and the like--they're idiots, and unteachable.
While I agree these guys are all unteachable, I make a distinction between them on the pseudointellectual anti-intellectualism scale i.e. their ability to confuse the confusable. Salvador and GoP are the worst offenders - GoP with his 7-dimensional rotationally isotropic Jesons, or whatever the h#ll he's on about, and Salvador with his Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle proving intelligent design.

If Thordaddy is even trying to play the smarter-than-the-smart-guys game, he's failing miserably. AFDave seems more like a victim than a master of the PIAI con game.

I'll let someone else find Larry's place on the continuum; his combination of dumb, pompous, prolix and boring is beyond my tolerance for this kind of crap.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,13:43   

Quote (Russell @ May 06 2006,21:51)
I can’t locate it right now, but yesterday some reasonable commenter commented on the fact that we seem to let the creationists call the shots here. They start new threads, we react. They insist we “vote” on which full-or-crap argument they’re going to deign to defend, or we’re “cowardly” (however that logic works).

Russell,
Forgive me for not addressing your main point but I had this wistfull thought when I read the first paragraph:  That is the price you pay for an intellectually honest forum.  You've seen all the alternatives on the creationist side; they don't have any honest discourse with the extreme Orwellian control they exert over posting/editing/deleting.

Sincerely,

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,21:51   

I agree with the general thesis here.  

I am currently reading "Faucoults Pendulum" by Umberto Eco.  Its a laugh, although you should only read it if you are some kind of intellectual.  Anyway, it reminds me of ID'ists, in so far as, like the conspiracy theorists, they start with a predetermined idea and look for linkages, but conveniently forget about actual testable evidence.  

What I would be interested in is how much CoP et al are aware they are acting like this?  Do they realise how silly they look trying to out expertise the experts?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,02:25   

Quote
What I would be interested in is how much CoP et al are aware they are acting like this?  Do they realise how silly they look trying to out expertise the experts?
That's a good question. For any one creationist it's hard to know whether he's propping up a mythology that keeps himself from becoming a mass-murderer/philanderer/child-molester or whatever inner demon he fears, or whether he's propping it up because he fears his neighbor will revert to such bad behaviors without the Falwell-style SkyDaddy keeping him in check. It seems to me the Straussian neocons more or less acknowledge the latter view, though of course they phrase it a little less starkly. But  there's nothing mutually exclusive about the two motives; I suspect most creationists represent some combination of the two.

I might have thought that a more subtle, less easily debunked, SkyDaddy would serve the purpose better.But in light of the poll numbers, which seem to support the conclusion that close to half of Americans buy a literal biblical version of origins, perhaps - as is so often the case - the creos understand their target audience better than I do.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,04:54   

Plus the issue is hard to explore, because we all want people to not take what we say at absolute face value; but skepticism can be taken too far.  Moreover, as fallible humans, in our own areas of expertise we mostly do enjoy holding forth, and it can be annoying for us if someone comes along claiming that we are wrong, and actually putting up what looks like a good fight to outsiders, yet is based upon simplistic readings of fragmentary data that we know about because we are experts yet they dont because they just spent 20 mins mugging up on it.

Which leads into something that I think people have been neglecting for far too long- expertise and its place in society.  We need experts.  In the course of becoming an expert in something, you learn so much and see so many connections that joe average cannot see without going through the same learning processes, that you do appear to be arrogant when debating someone, even when you are not. (And like I said, we all can get rather uppity about being challenged)  And it seems to me that people generally are verging too much towards outright skepticism towards experts, instead of a kind of careful questioning and question asking.  They shouldn't be obsequois, but bear in mind that their grasp of the subject from an hour or twos reading is likely to be inadequate, since almost every subject has nuances that only experts actually grasp.  

A related example- a couple of years ago I had an argument about something in the Falklands war, with an inveterate arguer on a forum I frequent.  SAid arguer was mos tlikley a 16 year old Canadian nerd.  As such, their parents probably didnt even know each other when the Falklands war occured, and I was 5 years old at the time.  Yet he insisted on putting forwards some point of view, and backing it up with stuff from online.  But seeing as he only knew what he had read, linearly, recently, he was making quite a good, but as far as I could see erroneous argument, precisely because he didnt actually know all the background, the assumptions, and the whole era at all.  
Kind of Like goP and those fossils- he just hasnt got the near intuitive grasp of how it all fits together, he's still thinking linearly or something, working on what information he can pull together without a deeper understanding of the whole system.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,05:22   

There is much in what you say.

One might be tempted to conclude that Dembski (Paley, et al.) should accord actual science and scientists some respect and should be a tad more humble about their scientific claims. And that we should, in return, accord Dembski, Paley, et al., due respect for their expertise in theology.

Only I have to admit that, to me, the respect due expertise in theology is similar to the respect due expertise in water-witching. I know this sounds narrow-minded, and I'm open to being shown the error in my thinking, But so far I have not been.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,05:25   

On the expert thing:

I am constantly stuck with the notion not that fundies aren't experts but that they lack the fundemental information. Like, if they just understood the physical earth sciences a little better, they would avoid most of their ridiculous ideas. Maybe, geology, oceanography or physical geography 101. Let alone biology. But even in biology, it's usually high school biology that they don't understand. I can't even remember 90% of what I learned in grad school but I have never been even remotely stumped by a fundy's argument. In fact, I can't think of a fundy argument that wouldn't be squashed with any of those 101 level courses- particularly geology and oceanography. But if you throw in 1 physical anthropolgy course, you've crushed the rest of the arguments.

In the end, what they really don't understand is HOW we know the things we know. So it makes them suspect what we know. I have yet to see a coherent understanding of plate tectonics (magnetic alignment of rocks on either side of ridges, age of mountain ranges, etc.) from a fundy.

It becomes comedy quickly when they start to debate god. Sometimes, they try to go all the way to heaven and #### without dealing with the eternity problem. And geologic time is just not possible to fathom.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,05:26   

Not to mention the difference between disagreeing with one expert, versus disagreeing with basic principles on which 99% of the experts have agreed for several decades.

Henry

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,05:39   

All of these people are victims, and all of them face the same problem: defending their beliefs against the ravages of reality. As Mark Twain said so eloquently, they all believe what they know ain't so, and they all need to find some way to neutralize their knowledge so as to defend their beliefs.

Some of these people are fairly intelligent, and manage their defenses in ingenious ways, through very creative misinterpretations and selective observation, along with an exasperating inability to stay on topic when doing so is uncomfortable.

Others are blessed with far less horsepower, and manage to get by on simple denial. If the evidence contradicts their faith, then the solution is simple: deny it. Clearly, it falls well within the human capacity to deny nearly anything.

So there seems to be a spectrum here, where at one end evidence is ignored, and at the other end evidence is finessed, redefined, and creatively interpreted. Anyone anywhere on this spectrum falls wherever their abilities require them to be to ensure that their faith cannot be doubted. Above all else, no doubt is permitted.

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,05:50   

Quote
In the end, what they really don't understand is HOW we know the things we know. So it makes them suspect what we know.

I see it as the converse; they know the things they know, and for them the HOW is that they've simply decided that they know--the scripture/cult leader/voice in my head said so, so it must be true.  Having chosen such an empty and useless methodology for supporting their knowledge, they assume that science must have based its findings on the same arbitrary, made-up, and useless HOWs of knowing, which are then open to be attacked despite any actual understanding of what those HOWs are (but don't you dare attack my HOWs, you anti-religious bigot..... even though I can describe your HOWs as a religion if it suits my argument, etc. etc.).

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,07:41   

Yes, of course. The religious 'way to knowledge' is by declaration. Just SAY it's true, and it becomes true. Those who disagree are unbelievers and go to the wrong church. ALL disagreement is essentially religious, because that's the only way to knowledge they know.

This has been pointed out quite endlessly. The reason evidence doesn't matter is, they can't really understand what evidence IS. So to a creationist, the "observation" that intelligence was involved in creating the kinds is raw data, pure observation. Just LOOK!

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,07:55   

Quote

I am constantly stuck with the notion not that fundies aren't experts but that they lack the fundemental information. Like, if they just understood the physical earth sciences a little better, they would avoid most of their ridiculous ideas. Maybe, geology, oceanography or physical geography 101.

Then they'd just take the Paul Nelson Insanity Position: The evidence is all against me, and I don't care.

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,08:41   

Quote
Then they'd just take the Paul Nelson Insanity Position: The evidence is all against me, and I don't care.

This happens because nearly all of these people knew that creationism was "true" before they knew anything about reality at all. Fundamental information can't displace this Truth; it can either be accommodated or it must be wrong. Since very very little of it can be accommodated, why bother to learn it? It's wrong anyway.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:52   

I've probably gone on about this before, but I also see both the "God in the Fog"  and the "Postmodernist Premodern" phenomena as aspects of the whole pseudointellectual anti-intellectual strategy.

(Interesting, by the way, how none of the AtBC creo regulars have seen fit to join this particular thread.)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,12:24   

Quote
(Interesting, by the way, how none of the AtBC creo regulars have seen fit to join this particular thread.)


But you can bet they're reading it.

Hi thordiddy, AFDave, Paley.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,13:04   

I was once a dedicated member of an organization that was accused of being a religious cult.  It was accused of being a cult because it was in fact a cult.  We even had a whole 60 Minutes episode dedicated to exposing it :-)

I worked for them and was in a position of leadership.  I cannot tell you how many times we/I were/was aked "are you a cult?" and I would smugly answer "cults, by definition are religious groups, we are a spiritual organization so no, we are not a cult"

I honestly believed a denial like that neutralized the cult accusation.  Furthermore, I had never studied cults and knew nothing of what actually constituted a cult yet I would say no we are not a cult with great authority.  I was a member of the organization so of course I was an expert on the subject was my way of thinking.

I think the creationists are operating from the same play book.  Something is true because they believe it is true and that's all that counts.  Evidence, experts and scientific principles are meaningless to a true beliver.
Read afdave's thread(s) for evidence of what I am suggesting.  

Shoot, experts and scientists are idiots to a true believer.  Heck you've got creationist afdave here expecting scientists/biologists to concede creationist points to him.  WTF? :-)  This is why no one here will ever succeed at reasoning with afdave or others like him.  

The thing they are the most ignorant of is their own ignorance.   Their "truths" (ignorance) are things they are proud of as well.  THAT is what makes them so dangerous.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,17:08   

Speaking of PseudoIntellectual AntiIntellectualism, look over the gay "gene" thread and the debate on gay "marriage?"

I mean, we have forumites arguing the irrelevancy of sex as a criteria for defining marriage and not one biologist has voiced an opinion about how absurd this notion is?

Is it the scientific stance that man and woman are now interchangeable and biologically indifferent?

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,18:00   

Thordickhead,

If you like being an obsessive compulsive bigoted homophobic assho1e, fine.  it's a free country.  Just keep your stupid bigoted anti-gay off topic rants on your own fukkin' thread, you moron.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,19:06   

Occam,

How should we label that line of argument?  LOL!

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,04:45   

Quote
Is it the scientific stance that man and woman are now interchangeable and biologically indifferent?

Uh, "indifferent" doesn't mean "not different," it means unbiased, or neither right nor wrong.  I think you're looking for "undifferentiated."

And wtf does biology have to do with marriage?  Marriage is a social, legal, religious--human--construct, not a biological one.  If you want to start looking at biology as a deterministic factor in our concept of marriage, you'll have to start dealing with the prevalence of homosexual behavior in the biological world.  Good luck with that.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,12:16   

Occam's tootbrush opines,

Quote
Uh, "indifferent" doesn't mean "not different," it means unbiased, or neither right nor wrong.  I think you're looking for "undifferentiated."


Clearly, male and female are different.  The stance taken by the scientists is one of "indifference" as it pertains to marriage.  Man and man... woman and woman... man and woman... it makes no difference either way, they claim.  

Quote
And wtf does biology have to do with marriage?  Marriage is a social, legal, religious--human--construct, not a biological one.  If you want to start looking at biology as a deterministic factor in our concept of marriage, you'll have to start dealing with the prevalence of homosexual behavior in the biological world.  Good luck with that.


Are you making the absurd claim that biology plays no role in the human construct of marriage?  That is actually what you are trying to convince others of, but very few are buying it.  If sex is a meaningless concept in the construction of marriage then why are you advocating for gay "marriage?"  I don't get it?

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,12:27   

Quote
Are you making the absurd claim that biology plays no role in the human construct of marriage?


Does biology play a role when a Bishop agrees to be a Pope?  Does biology play a role when you sign a mortgage?  Does biology play a role when you ask for a back rub?

Please tell us, noble creationist, how exactly does biology play a role in a marriage?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,12:29   

This is the only thing in your posts that makes any sense, Thordaddy:

Quote (thordaddy @ May 11 2006,17:16)
I don't get it?


--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,13:03   

Ummm, Thordude? You seem to have inadvertantly posted your "gay marriage" screed on my "pseudointellecual antiintellectualism" discussion. This thread is all about using intellectual sounding blarney to make the case that intellectual efforts are wrongheaded and a waste of time.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
  32 replies since May 06 2006,16:51 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]