Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (9005 total)
53 online now:
AZPaul3, driewerf, dwise1, Hyroglyphx, PaulK (5 members, 48 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,194 Year: 12,942/23,288 Month: 667/1,527 Week: 106/240 Day: 5/29 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3140 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 31 of 336 (619407)
06-09-2011 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Acalepha
06-09-2011 2:53 PM


Re: Ok,, I understand
Acalepha writes:

I use the term racist in a more general way. I use it to describe the prejudice against someone who belongs to a different ethnic group than your own. Accepting or denying the values of an ethnic group denotes racism for me as it implies the acceptance or rejection of that ethnic group.

You keep using the words "race" and "ethnic" to describe adherents to certain religions. I do not think that those words mean what you think they mean.

As has been pointed out, "race" is an inexact, rather meaningless term that has been used to describe individuals with certain ancestries and certain superficial physical features. People still use the terms "white" or "negro" or "Caucasian" as if they referred to something real, and often apply those classifications to different social groups. However, genetics doesn't support this.

"Ethnic" doesn't apply when discussing religion either. The term's meaning can overlap somewhat and is less arbitrary than "race," but they are not the same thing. "Ethnic" can more legitimately be used to describe people with a common culture, language and ancestry.

Religious labels transcend these categories, though again, there can be some overlap. You can have both Pacific Rim and Middle Eastern Christians, African and Indonesian Muslims, or Ethiopian and South German Jews.

I believe the term you want is "prejudice" or perhaps "favoritism."

Sorry to nitpick, but it can never hurt an argument to strive for precision.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 2:53 PM Acalepha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 7:47 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3140 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 78 of 336 (619707)
06-11-2011 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Percy
06-11-2011 8:10 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Percy writes:

This is a hodgepodge of familiar examples of creationist confusion about evolution and science and is typical creationist thinking. Most of these fall into the category of fallacy of, "If I can disrespect it I've refuted it."

I went through a couple of lists of logical fallacies, and can't find a name for this one. I therefore move that Percy be officially recognised as the identifier of the "argumentum ad derisium" fallacy.

Edited by ZenMonkey, : Inserted appropriate quote.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 06-11-2011 8:10 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3140 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(2)
Message 80 of 336 (619711)
06-11-2011 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Chuck77
06-11-2011 7:50 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Chuck77 writes:

I like how it's a state of "knowing". LOL. Really? How? By the Scientific method? Is the Scientific method used when determining what a "transitional" fossil is? How about Puncuated equllibrium? Nope, just assumptions. THAT's what science is when it comes to TOE and the "Big Bang". 100% assumptions. It must be nice to use Natural Seclection(which happens) and the force behind TOE and not have to prove that it actually leads to animals changing into completly different species of animals. Yes, a different KIND of animal. All we observe is the finch beaks as the best example. Different beaks not different kinds. THAT'S Natural Selection.

Chuck, I am going to do you a favor and pass on an important life lesson.

I went to graduate school a number of years ago to get a Masters degree, and as graduation approached I realized that I was sadly deficient in my knowledge of one of the primary topics in my field of study. (I suspect that I'm not the frist person to earn an advanced degree and leave only aware of how much he doesn't know.) So I went to one of my professors - a real genius in the field, if at times a bit of a prick - and asked him if he'd be willing to let me consult with him sometimes as I attempted to make up for what I hadn't learned so far. He took me over to a rack of various handouts, pulled out one that he'd written listing about 30 or so major texts in the field, most of them huge reference works, with the most important highlighted, and said, "Here. Read these and then you'll be able to ask me intelligent questions."

Ignorance is a terrible thing, but it does have a cure. Here's a much smaller list of books. You don't even have to read all of them. Pick one and read it. Really read it. Then you'll much more able to have an intellient discussion about these things.

After all, I wouln't jump into an archeology forum and start blasting the participants with claims that aliens built the pyramids and the Chinese discovered electricity in the 3rd century BCE, and that the guys who'd been working in the fields for decades didn't know what they were talking about. As the man said in the movie Hamburger Hill: "If you want to survive here, you will listen to people who know." (Hope I got that quote right.) I'm sure that there are plenty more titles that others can also suggest.

Now listen:

Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design by Richard Dawkins (Yes, him - Lord High Satan of Atheism. Don't be afraid.)

Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-year History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin

Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution by Nick Lane

Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Chuck77, posted 06-11-2011 7:50 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Chuck77, posted 06-12-2011 1:28 AM ZenMonkey has responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3140 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 84 of 336 (619813)
06-12-2011 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Chuck77
06-12-2011 1:28 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Chuck77 writes:

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design by Richard Dawkins (Yes, him - Lord High Satan of Atheism. Don't be afraid.)

LOL, yes, Satan of atheism. Zen, thanks for the advise I appreciate it. I really do.

Also, sure I'll read the book, if you read "The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath".

Gladly. I just put a copy of The Dawkins Delusion on hold with my local library. I will warn you, I have so far been quite unimpressed with the general quality of Christian apologetics I've read (among others: Lee Strobel, Paul Copan, and don't get me started about William Lane Craig), but I will give it a fair reading. I'll suggest that Why Evolution is True might be a better place to start for you, but as you wish.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Chuck77, posted 06-12-2011 1:28 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3140 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 118 of 336 (620615)
06-18-2011 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Mazzy
06-12-2011 11:52 PM


Okay, what then?
Mazzy writes:

There is no need to choose a particular version of creation to be taught in schools. Rather all that needs to be done is the truth, warts and all, of the current contradictions and debate within evolutionary theory to be taught and how this relates to the outdatedness of Darwins simplistic ideas.

As Percy points out in Message 114:

In other words, Mazzy doesn't want to teach any creation stories, he wants to teach what he believes is wrong with evolution. So now we're discussing what we think is wrong about what he thinks is wrong with evolution, but that's not the topic of this thread.

Teaching what's "wrong" with the evolutionary aspect of biological science isn't at all the same thing as teaching what creationism is about, in just the same way as teaching art students what's "wrong" with Renaissance painting isn't the same thing as teaching them about cubism or performance art.

So for the sake of furthering this discussion, could you please provide some sort of outline or list of specific topics about creationism that you think should be taught in the biology classroom?


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Mazzy, posted 06-12-2011 11:52 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020