Just came across this refreshingly unbiased documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI

Some interesting stuff in there that surprised me myself, re how 
well-tested Darwin's theory of evolution actually is - and also why it's 
so poorly accepted in the US.

Post a reply to this message

On 18/01/2014 03:15 AM, clipka wrote:
> Just came across this refreshingly unbiased documentary:

Although "we requested comment, but they stipulated conditions 
incompatible with normal journalistic practise"... yeah, that sounds 
nicely vague, doesn't it?

I mean, I'm sure what they *actually* said is "we will only talk to you 
if we get to edit out the questions we don't want to answer". But this 
authoritative "incompatible with normal journalistic practise" still 
sounds slightly creepy.

> Some interesting stuff in there that surprised me myself, re how
> well-tested Darwin's theory of evolution actually is

Looking at the crumbling remains of some barely recognisable bones is 
one thing. But when you look at DNA sequences and see how utterly 
identical some of them are, and watch how they gradually change as you 
move from species to species, and from continent... it's really quite 
hard to deny that there's something going on here. It's roughly the 
equivalent of *insisting* that the Earth is flat, and that there's no 
evidence to the contrary.

> and also why it's so poorly accepted in the US.

This is the thing that gets me. I'm less interested in watching a 2-hour 
documentary about "he said, she said, they said", and more interested in 
"why the hell do 50% of the population ACTUALLY BELIEVE something which 
is obviously ridiculous?"

That, to me, is the issue here. As long as there are unbelievers, there 
will be legal battles, there will be death threats, there will be 
conspiracies and underhanded tactics to force evolution out. This is not 
surprising. The question is, WHY ARE THERE UNBELIEVERS?? Why do people 
have these weird beliefs in the first place?

Quantum mechanics makes utterly bizarre claims that defy belief... and 
nobody is receiving death threats over teaching quantum mechanics. 
Evolution states the obvious, and the entire country is in uproar... WTF?

Post a reply to this message

Am 18.01.2014 15:57, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> On 18/01/2014 03:15 AM, clipka wrote:
>> Just came across this refreshingly unbiased documentary:
>
> Although "we requested comment, but they stipulated conditions
> incompatible with normal journalistic practise"... yeah, that sounds
> nicely vague, doesn't it?
>
> I mean, I'm sure what they *actually* said is "we will only talk to you
> if we get to edit out the questions we don't want to answer". But this
> authoritative "incompatible with normal journalistic practise" still
> sounds slightly creepy.

I interpret it as a means to concentrate on the ID vs evolution thing 
and the trial, rather than getting sidetracked on the ID proponents' 
behaviour (except where subject of the trial).


>> Some interesting stuff in there that surprised me myself, re how
>> well-tested Darwin's theory of evolution actually is
>
> Looking at the crumbling remains of some barely recognisable bones is
> one thing. But when you look at DNA sequences and see how utterly
> identical some of them are, and watch how they gradually change as you
> move from species to species, and from continent... it's really quite
> hard to deny that there's something going on here. It's roughly the
> equivalent of *insisting* that the Earth is flat, and that there's no
> evidence to the contrary.

I particularly like the 24 vs 23 chromosome thing in apes vs humans. 
Perfect case for a testable prediction made by evolution.


>> and also why it's so poorly accepted in the US.
>
> This is the thing that gets me. I'm less interested in watching a 2-hour
> documentary about "he said, she said, they said", and more interested in
> "why the hell do 50% of the population ACTUALLY BELIEVE something which
> is obviously ridiculous?"

In case you haven't noticed, the documentary does mention that hadn't 
been taught at US schools until a few decades ago. Which explains a lot.

(According to Wikipedia, in the early 20th century, multiple US states 
passed legislation making it outright /illegal/ to teach evolution at 
publich schools, and in a provoked test case the legislation was ruled 
constitutional; according to the Nova documentary, this caused biology 
textbook publishers to remove evolution from the books entirely. Again 
according to Wikipedia, it was only until the late 1960's that said 
legislation was challegned again, this time with success.)

With that in mind, the utter misunderstanding of the mechanisms of 
evolution among older generations of US residents isn't really that 
surprising at all.


What makes me optimistic about the issue is that in various recent cases 
where US school boards or boards of education had made decisions in 
favor of creationism (aka ID, aka Critical Analysis of Evolution, aka 
whatever label they'll come up with after that), the next elections of 
those bodies have seen proponents of ID lose their seats to outspoken 
opponents of ID.


> Quantum mechanics makes utterly bizarre claims that defy belief... and
> nobody is receiving death threats over teaching quantum mechanics.
> Evolution states the obvious, and the entire country is in uproar... WTF?

QM has the advantage of not being inconsistent with the Bible in any 
ways (to the contrary, it does open up the door again for the 
metaphysical, which had been closed by Newton), so no need to fight a 
holy war over it.

And as for Evolution stating the obvious, that's only true in Europe, 
because we have been exposed to the idea to such an extent that we're 
intimately familiar with the concept.

Post a reply to this message

>> This is the thing that gets me. I'm less interested in watching a 2-hour
>> documentary about "he said, she said, they said", and more interested in
>> "why the hell do 50% of the population ACTUALLY BELIEVE something which
>> is obviously ridiculous?"
>
> In case you haven't noticed, the documentary does mention that hadn't
> been taught at US schools until a few decades ago. Which explains a lot.
>
> (According to Wikipedia, in the early 20th century, multiple US states
> passed legislation making it outright /illegal/ to teach evolution at
> publich schools, and in a provoked test case the legislation was ruled
> constitutional; according to the Nova documentary, this caused biology
> textbook publishers to remove evolution from the books entirely. Again
> according to Wikipedia, it was only until the late 1960's that said
> legislation was challegned again, this time with success.)
>
> With that in mind, the utter misunderstanding of the mechanisms of
> evolution among older generations of US residents isn't really that
> surprising at all.

Seriously? They made it illegal to teach people evolution? For 40 years??

Huh. Well, I suppose that explains it all then... o_O

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:57:39 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>  The question is, WHY ARE THERE UNBELIEVERS?? Why do people
> have these weird beliefs in the first place?

See "The Believing Brain" by Michael Schermer.  Or, as I recall, he wrote 
a book titled "Why People Believe Weird Things" (or something close to 
that.)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Just came across this refreshingly unbiased documentary:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI

I like this part of the wikipedia article on the Dover trial:

  After the trial, there were calls for the defendants accused of not
  presenting their case honestly to be put on trial for committing
  perjury. "Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied
  outright under oath on several occasions," Jones wrote. "The
  inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William]
  Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. ... Bonsell
  repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. ... Defendants
  have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their
  own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious,
  untruthful testimony."

"Honest creationist" really is an oxymoron. I have had discussions with
creationists, and it's incredible how much they are ready to lie, distort
and fabricate, even though honesty ought to be one of the core principles
of Christianity.

I think creationism (especially young-earth creationism), when instilled
enough into a brain, causes a cognitive dissonance where the person just
cannot comprehend that they are willfully lying and distorting, and have
this notion that they are still being honest even though they obviously
are not.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:11:49 -0500, Warp wrote:

> "Honest creationist" really is an oxymoron.

Something we agree on.

My younger brother, who has a degree in philosophy and religion, has a 
good friend who's a young earth creationist, but who has enough of a 
science background that he has built some of the most dishonest circular 
arguments I've ever seen.  If you don't know science, you'll get sucked 
into his explanations and citations from "Answers in Genesis" (the people 
who brought you - and I'm not making this up - the "Creation Mueseum", 
which more or less depicts the time of the dinosaurs as if The 
Flintstones were a documentary).

Debating with him is one of the most pointless exercises I've ever 
engaged in.  It got so bad, that for my own health, I blocked him on 
Facebook so I wouldn't have to read his drivel, because it drove my blood 
pressure up trying to reason with him.

My premise being this:  I disagree with him, he believes his god is 
infallible.  So, I'm arguing against his god, whom he absolutely believes 
in.

Nothing I can say will *ever* change his mind.  Hence, no point in 
debating with him about it.  He's never going to see the reality of the 
situation, because it contradicts his deeply held belief that the bible 
is never wrong.  In his mind, the only way he agrees is if I agree with 
him that everything I know to be factual is wrong.

A perfect demonstration of how not to debate a topic.

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Nothing I can say will *ever* change his mind.  Hence, no point in 
> debating with him about it.  He's never going to see the reality of the 
> situation, because it contradicts his deeply held belief that the bible 
> is never wrong.  In his mind, the only way he agrees is if I agree with 
> him that everything I know to be factual is wrong.

This wouldn't be so bad if they just kept to themselves with their
world view. After all, everybody's free to believe whatever they want.

However, the problem is that many of them are trying to *force* their
belief system onto others, especially children, by lobbying the
government and other means. This is not something that we can just
ignore, like we can eg. with the Moon landing conspiracy theorists
(who are obnoxious but at least aren't trying to pass laws to enforce
their beliefs on others.)

I once had a long email conversation with a young-earth creationist
about the subject of honesty, and why most creationist arguments and
tactics are not. For example, I tried to explain to him why quote-mining
is a really dishonest tactic.

(The intellectually honest thing to do when you see an isolated quote
from eg. an evolutionary biologist that seems to go completely against
the theory of evolution is to ask yourself questions like: "Why is this
known biologist seemingly saying something against evolution? Is this
quote possibly taken out of context? What did this person mean by this?
Has he explained what he meant in the rest of the text, or in other texts?
Has he been asked about this and responded, and if so, what did he say
about it?" Then the honest person would try to find out and draw
conclusions only *after* he has all the facts. But no, this is not what
a creationist does. Instead, a creationist is extremely opportunistic:
The isolated quote seems to say something against evolution, and it's made
by a known scientist. To hell what he really meant by it and what else he
has said on the subject, just take the quote and use it as a weapon.
Intended meaning is not important, only the impression that the isolated
quote gives.)

However, no matter how I tried to explain this, it didn't seem to register.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 1/18/2014 11:08 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:57:39 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>>   The question is, WHY ARE THERE UNBELIEVERS?? Why do people
>> have these weird beliefs in the first place?
>
> See "The Believing Brain" by Michael Schermer.  Or, as I recall, he wrote
> a book titled "Why People Believe Weird Things" (or something close to
> that.)
>
> Jim
>
>
>
Hmm. Thought I had that one. But, the one I have is "Paranormality: Why 
we see what isn't there.", by Richard Wiseman, but yeah, you're only 
missing the extended part of the title.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/18/2014 12:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:11:49 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> "Honest creationist" really is an oxymoron.
>
> Something we agree on.
>
> My younger brother, who has a degree in philosophy and religion, has a
> good friend who's a young earth creationist, but who has enough of a
> science background that he has built some of the most dishonest circular
> arguments I've ever seen.  If you don't know science, you'll get sucked
> into his explanations and citations from "Answers in Genesis" (the people
> who brought you - and I'm not making this up - the "Creation Mueseum",
> which more or less depicts the time of the dinosaurs as if The
> Flintstones were a documentary).
>
> Debating with him is one of the most pointless exercises I've ever
> engaged in.  It got so bad, that for my own health, I blocked him on
> Facebook so I wouldn't have to read his drivel, because it drove my blood
> pressure up trying to reason with him.
>
> My premise being this:  I disagree with him, he believes his god is
> infallible.  So, I'm arguing against his god, whom he absolutely believes
> in.
>
Yeah, got one of those calling everyone else fools and claiming that 
they just don't "see the truth", and quoting Ray Comfort, and AIG, etc., 
while never coming up with anything other than Bible quotes to support 
his claims of the infallibility of the Bible, and the truth of god, over 
here:

http://yearwithoutgod.com/2014/01/02/am-i-doing-it-wrong

What started out as a fairly sane discussion about someone "trying out" 
atheism, and his comment on people telling him that doing so was a bit.. 
odd, if nor absurd, has turned into nothing but a back and forth between 
a few ex-believers, and a full blown creationist. Unfortunately, I 
decided to get involved as well, and.. haven't quite gotten around to 
getting so completely fed up as to nuke the email updates for the 
discussion, and let the rest just go at him.

Post a reply to this message