 |
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002 time: 17:37
|
|
The place where I see creationism discussed the most is on 'poly.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003 time: 05:37
|
|
My issue with pure science is that the approach to facts is with priori concepts.
For example - if the answer to faith and mystical experience was made a serious study, with experimentation. Why not take the lab coat boys up to the top of the Himalayan mountains and conduct a serious study.
Instead the trend is to grab some 900# tarot card reader or spoon bender as serious candidate for this type of 'research'.
In my experience this is the approach to all things spiritual by a great deal of the scientific community. So do I trust the scientists and all of their conclusions?
No, not completely, not about anything that is still hypothesis.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Having spent the last 20 years in West Virginia and Kentucky, I fear I must concur with the survey. Here the numbers that support creationism are higher than 45%. They taught fundamentalist Bible in the public school system in Bluefield, West Virginia. The Junior HS required you to send a note to keep you kid OUT of it (they stopped the note bit after we had a little confrontation, and I asked sweetly "can you spell A-C-L-U." - well, maybe not so nicely ) Note, this was in the eighties. That's also when I discovered that Catholics weren't Christians... 
However, Scientific ignorance is not the sole purview of the religious right. In the 70's I remember reading a poll where they stated that 65% of the respondents stated that they believed a Nuclear Power Plant could explode, as in like a Nuclear bomb (versus meltdown). There has only been one reactor in the US capable of that (a military one), and it was mothballed decades ago. But everybody at the time knew that Nukes were teh evil.
Ask Europeans about the risk of Genetically Modified Foods, and you will get a bunch of similar moronic responses. For example, one strain of corn has the genes for BT spliced into it. You and I can eat BT (it's a bacteria that gives caterpillars the flu, essentially) and have absolutely no effect. You can spray it onto corn directly before harvesting, and there are no restrictions on it (unlike with many insecticides). They had to fight for YEARS to get the EU to permit corn imports with the BT gene spliced into it. Look at the response of many Europeans to "Frankenfoods." Stupid, emotional responses to science fact are distressingly common.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
SpencerH - is the condescending attitude due to the misguided but genuine beliefs, or the fact that the individual is willing to deny all facts, and refuses to listen to anything that differs with their "beliefs". And then these same people attempt to pass laws ignoring the reality and attempting to impose those beliefs...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
no
what he is saying is that the common man doesn't know enough to know that they are facts...
as such is in many cases not refusing to listen to something, but just doesn't know, and doesn't want to put in the work to find out
and in a democracy the common man will have some power..
Jon Miller
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:37
|
|
quote: Originally posted by beingofone
For example - if the answer to faith and mystical experience was made a serious study, with experimentation. Why not take the lab coat boys up to the top of the Himalayan mountains and conduct a serious study.
|
Please explain how such a study could be done "seriously." Of course, by "seriously," I'm assuming you meant "through the scientific method," as that is the only way science can work.
Attempts to verify mysticism as fact have been around a lot longer than scientific methodology. Yet the attempts have always failed to prove the case. So saying that people are giving short thrift to mysticism is, IMO, pretty unsubstantiated.
Of course, with creation vs. evolution, that's not even remotely the issue, as creationism (in the sense of of the earth being created 6-10K years ago, Adam & Eve, etc.) isn't just unproven, it's been thoroughly disproven by almost every means at our disposal. One cannot rationally hold the belief that the Biblical Genesis account is literally true in the face of what real scientific investigation has proven.
Willful ignorance is little different from stupidity, IMO.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Please explain how such a study could be done "seriously." Of course, by "seriously," I'm assuming you meant "through the scientific method," as that is the only way science can work.
Attempts to verify mysticism as fact have been around a lot longer than scientific methodology. Yet the attempts have always failed to prove the case. So saying that people are giving short thrift to mysticism is, IMO, pretty unsubstantiated.
Of course, with creation vs. evolution, that's not even remotely the issue, as creationism (in the sense of of the earth being created 6-10K years ago, Adam & Eve, etc.) isn't just unproven, it's been thoroughly disproven by almost every means at our disposal. One cannot rationally hold the belief that the Biblical Genesis account is literally true in the face of what real scientific investigation has proven.
Willful ignorance is little different from stupidity, IMO. |
umm, scientifically there is no way to disprove the idea that the world was created 6 days ago and we all have implanted memories, etc...
now most don't think that is very likely, but it isn't disproven (in fact, science can't even say that there is evidence against it)
now many creationists have certain views of things and many/most of those have been disproven
Jon Miller
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:37
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller
umm, scientifically there is no way to disprove the idea that the world was created 6 days ago and we all have implanted memories, etc...
now most don't think that is very likely, but it isn't disproven (in fact, science can't even say that there is evidence against it)
now many creationists have certain views of things and many/most of those have been disproven
Jon Miller |
This is, of course, a bunch of hooey, because as a caveat to science, it's always provisional. Solipsism, while logically internally consistent, is not rational. And those who deny science when it comes to how the universe/earth came into being are perfectly willing to accept it in most other cases, so they're willful ignorance is not even consistent.
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 13-08-2005 at 23:47
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
SpencerH - nobody had posted in about two hours, and then you posted right after me. I took the context to imply that you were responding directly. Apologies.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov
This is, of course, a bunch of hooey, because as a caveat to science, it's always provisional. Solipsism, while logically internally consistent, is not rational. And those who deny science when it comes to how the universe/earth came into being are perfectly willing to accept it in most other cases, so they're willful ignorance is not even consistent. |
there is no greater beleif required to beleive what I said above, then to beleive in a Christian style God...
now I know that a lot of people have a hard time beleiving in God (or gods)
but the majority of people do..
JM
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37. Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|