RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: what bothers you more?, creationism?  or all pseudo science?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Fross



Posts: 71
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,07:06   

creationism/ID really bugs me.  Mainly because I grew up in a family/environment where it was always an issue in one way or another.  
But lately I've been getting far too many mass emails about things like 911 conspiracies, and UFO conspiracies (Discloser Project) and I think they actually bug me more.  I swear if I read "well they all though Galileo was wrong too!" I'm going to ummm, type in all caps or something.  (I'll do it!;)  

I have my reasons, but why do you guys single out creationism out of all the pseudo science gooblygook out there?

--------------
"For everything else, there's Mastertard"

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,07:17   

Actually, I'm concerned with all pseudo science and how it is misused.  I got into it through the Creationist/evolution issue simply because of the religious aspect of it (the old Creationist canard that evolution = atheist) because I see their attacks being aimed not just at science, but at my beliefs (or more accurately lack of beliefs) as well.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,07:32   

Why?

Because exactly like 9/11 etc, it is a direct attack on the truth, by lies told by lying liars.

Their gross stupidity just makes it fun.

Dembski who is the so called 'intellectual leader' (smirk) makes it ludicrously easy to ridicule since he behaves like the archetypical pseudoscientist. He surrounds himself with solipsistic sycophants who indulge in sophomoric question begging and blocks out all criticism thinking that by doing that there IS no criticism.
Comedy like that for free, is an absolute bargain.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1014
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,07:50   

Actually, I believe that most of us do bring up other pseudosciences to show how contemptible ID is.  

But most of us don't bother fighting other pseudosciences, primarily because there is no concerted effort to introduce other pseudosciences into the schools.  

There is another reason that I like to aim at ID, which is that it has tried more strenuously (or at least more successfully, in the PR campaign) to pose itself as science than any of the other pseudosciences with which I am familiar.  As such, it is bizarre that scholastic notions of accident ("chance") and necessity ("regularity") are brought in by Dembski (showing that he knows ancient philosophy much better than he knows science), and these simply beg for refutation and ridicule.

That's just one example.  Dembski's claims that we can identify a designer simply by eliminating "chance" and "regularity" is also nonsense logically, as he resorts to an eliminative "induction" that has no legitimacy whatsoever in science (we have to have evidence which connects to a designer having at least some of the characteristics of known designers, if we are to infer "design").  Then he complains that we are simply materialists who deny anything not material, as if we deny his claims because we are prejudiced against religion, rather than because of our prejudices against claims which have no basis in observable fact.

And if we demand actual processes of design of these "machines", he tells us that he has no obligation to match our pathetic level of detail.  So while he's complaining about our supposed gaps in knowledge (some real, many not), he feels no obligation whatsoever to make up for the fact that he has explained nothing in biology at all.

ID happens to be the richest source of apologia for a complete lack of science in its purported "scientific program".  It is thus where we may hone our abilities for fighting any other pseudoscience which might wish to claim to be science.  The others are at present just too easy (from what I have seen), with little effort put into couching their criticisms and claims in post-modern claptrap and official-sounding pronouncements of what science is or should be.

ID is in its way very sophisticated, particularly in the sense of being sophistical.  It is a full time job for teams of intellectuals and scientists to counter their many false statements and sophistical twistings of what constitutes evidence and what is a permissible conclusion from the given evidence.  Judges, like Jones, can rule out the nonsense, but we have to answer it in many and varied ways.

If other pseudosciences present the same challenge to half-educated Americans, and to supplanting real science education with garbage, I believe and hope that most of us will be there, fighting the BS (which we sometimes do with the politically-powerful postmoderns in the universities--but mostly the post-modernists just make their priestly statements from on high, the which scientists and the more intelligent people promptly ignore.  It seems to me that IDists probably make the most use of philosophical nonsense outside of the philosophy departments).  

Right now the political power and the sophistical obfuscations of the ID "movement" make it the most important target for critical analysis.  The other pseudosciences are mostly content to make converts the old-fashioned way, with a bit of glib nonsense and an invocation of Galileo, as if the latter would countenance their particular idiocy (he happened to be harsh with the pseudoscientists of his day, notably one who claimed to have a machine that could talk to another machine in a distant country, but which couldn't do so through the walls of separate rooms).  

Mainly suckers fall for the regular pseudoscience, while some fairly educated people have been convinced by IDists (in the sense that they thought ID might have a legitimate hypothesis), before the IDists had been answered well and in full.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,07:59   

Growing up a science-oriented atheist in the south, you often hear things like "Them perfessers is so ignorant they think my granpappy was a monkey. I don't care how long you look at him fer, that dog ain't never gonna turn into no cat*." So you develop a deep loathing of creationists.

Perhaps if I'd grown up in Berkeley, I'd now have a deep loathing of crystal power or something.



*(BTW, that dog/cat thing is for real. The reason I think AFDave is not lying is because I've known some people in real life who were that completely ignorant)

   
bourgeois_rage



Posts: 117
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,09:58   

Same here, SS. I have heard the cat/dog thing, but with other animals.

Yeah, creationism is a bigger threat than a lot of other idiot theories because it is a larger threat (getting into schools) and because it is fairly widespread. I have argued with people who I know to be perfectly rational being about a variety of these issues and by far, the creationists are the most stubborn.

At least with most astrology buffs and moon landing hoaxers, you can get them to admit that it is either just for fun, or they can admit that the possibility exists that they are wrong. Creationists just eventually fall back on, "I ain't no monkey!" How can you argue with that?

--------------
Overwhelming Evidence: Apply directly to the forehead.

   
tiredofthesos



Posts: 59
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,11:46   

Pseudo-science doesn't bother me, lying does.

  
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,22:48   

Creationism is pseudoscience. I don't see a point in distinguishing between creationism and other pseudosciences either way.

But I think out of the various range of pseudosciences, creationism is the one which has the most momentum and is the most threatening to science. (Global warming denial has the potential to do more harm to humanity in general, but at least global warming denial is mostly working within the system of science-- it often promotes misconceptions of what certainty means in science, but it rarely attacks the principles of science itself.) Therefore I consider creationism to "bother" me in a way which the other ones don't. If some crazy faith healer tells us that quantum physics proves reincarnation is true, that's antiscientific, but it's also more or less harmless.

Honestly most of the time pseudoscience does more to make me laugh than it does to bother me.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,00:25   

That peter bros bloke is seriously delusional, yet thinks that all the rest of us are.
I'm so glad he hasnt got millions of pounds and millions of followers.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,00:45   

Excellent and extremely interesting question. My answer:

Kingdom: Belief
Phylum: Unsubstantiated Belief
Order: Dogmatic Unsubstantiated Belief Based on Unsupported Assumptions and Prejudices
Genus: Bullshit-Lies-Evasions-Dishonesty
Species: Pseudoscience
Sub Species: Creationism

My problem is with things at the Phylum level, possibly even the Kingdom level, although I have yet to decide that fully.

Creationism is merely one sub species/variant (a vicious and vile species to be sure) of the species Pseudoscience, which is just one species in the very large genus of Bullshit-Lies-Evasions-Dishonesty.

Why did I choose Pseudoscience as the species? Because different pseudosciences can interbreed and produce new sub species of pseudoscience (see New Age and Natural and All Chemicals are Evil as examples). I don't single out creationism, it just appears to be one of the most pestilential varieties extant at the moment.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,11:43   

Creationism/ID irks me more than other versions of pseudoscience because it's religion masquerading as something else. (Just look at the  nonsense AFD spews.) Religion isn't necessarily a bad thing; I know lots of good people to whom religion is extremely important. But let's face it: some pretty scary herd behaviors fall under the heading "religion".

Nonreligious pseudoscience buffs might be quirky, ignorant, delusional, illogical, etc. etc. But they're rarely as motivated as creationists. And even if one occasionally is that motivated, he or she will not constitute the clear and present danger of a movement.

Also, I've always been a big fan of the whole "church/state" separation concept. Other pseudosciences aren't hellbent on eroding that.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,14:09   

Quote
why do you guys single out creationism out of all the pseudo science gooblygook out there?

I don't think I personally "try" to single it out, it's just more prevalent in our (U.S.) society than other pseudoscience topics. I belong to the Skeptics Society/Southern Calif. Skeptics and view other pseudosciences with equal disdain -- though I admit the religious components of creationism/intelligent design cause me greater alarm than ..oh, say claims about bigfoot or the loch ness monster.

Historical revisionists are somewhere in the middle of the scale, while global warming naysayers also scare the crap out of me. Pollution. Fresh water loss. Species depletion/decimation. If I wasn't nuts already, I'd be drunk more often. Hah, sorry, that was more of a stream-of-conciousness addendum.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,16:57   

I'm sure it surprises nobody that my opposition to ID/creationism is largely POLITICAL in nature.  The fundies would like nothing more than to establish their own brand of theocracy here. One of my best friends is from Iran, and has seen firsthand what happens when religious kooks are allowed to gain real political power.  I have no intention whatever of allowing that to happen here.  And, since ID/creationism is the very "wedge issue" that the fundies themselves have chosen to fight about, that is where I oppose them.  When they give it up and move on to some other "wedge issue", I will follow them.

I also have no intention of allowing the neocons to turn the US into a fascist global empire (and it should be kept in mind that, though the neocons and the fundies overlap somewhat in aims and in personnel, they are different animals), so I fight them too.  But since they have fatally shot themselves in the head with their little Iraq adventure, my focus now is on the Democans.  I want to see how much of the neocon agenda the Democans explicitly reject and roll back.  Sadly, my guess is -- almost none.  They share the same aims as the neocons. They simply want to be kinder and gentler about imposing them.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,01:57   

Deadman, you confuse me.  What brand of skepticism to you subscribe to?  Are you talking a general interpretation or skepticism in only certain areas of thought because I detect no radical skepticism in your statements.  It sounds like you're only skeptical of religious thought but you're more than happy to embrace human knowledge based upon "secular" sources.

Nevermind, Deadman, I just visited the society website and that answered my question, Good luck in your pursuit of Truth.

  
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,12:59   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 30 2006,21:57)
I'm sure it surprises nobody that my opposition to ID/creationism is largely POLITICAL in nature.  The fundies would like nothing more than to establish their own brand of theocracy here. One of my best friends is from Iran, and has seen firsthand what happens when religious kooks are allowed to gain real political power.  I have no intention whatever of allowing that to happen here.  And, since ID/creationism is the very "wedge issue" that the fundies themselves have chosen to fight about, that is where I oppose them.  When they give it up and move on to some other "wedge issue", I will follow them.

I also have no intention of allowing the neocons to turn the US into a fascist global empire (and it should be kept in mind that, though the neocons and the fundies overlap somewhat in aims and in personnel, they are different animals), so I fight them too.  But since they have fatally shot themselves in the head with their little Iraq adventure, my focus now is on the Democans.  I want to see how much of the neocon agenda the Democans explicitly reject and roll back.  Sadly, my guess is -- almost none.  They share the same aims as the neocons. They simply want to be kinder and gentler about imposing them.

I... dunno. To me it seems that the whole ID vs science thing is actually a good deal closer to the political problems of this country than just in terms of what a win for ID would mean for fundamentalist machinations respecting an establishment of religion.

I think a large part of why the current establishment-- neocon or traditional con-- is able to get away with the things they do is that America right now doesn't value truth or rationality. ID is about discouraging the value of the findings of honest science, while trying to suggest people should instead just adopt a cherry-picked version of "truth" that makes them feel good. The reasons why this works as well as it does are the same reasons why the public is at the same time being discouraged from listening to the findings of honest journalism, or the honest findings of our intelligence agencies, or the courts, or the lessons we can learn from history, or...

I don't think we can really make true headway in America's current political problems until we can convince the public, both the voting public and the media-watching public, to prefer reality over fantasy and care how to tell the difference. Being able to tell the difference between good and bad science is a significant part of that.

  
  14 replies since Sep. 29 2006,07:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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