“A 34-nation study found Americans less likely to believe in evolution than citizens of any of the countries polled except Turkey,†columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote. He argues that this is one example of the anti-intellectualism that is hurting our ability to solve serious problems and could harm our competitiveness as a nation in coming decades.
“There’s no simple solution, but the complex and incomplete solution is a greater emphasis on education at every level,†he wrote. “And maybe, just maybe, this cycle has run its course, for the past seven years perhaps have discredited the anti-intellectualism movement.â€
Is Kristof correct, or is this just another case of a liberal accusing those who disagree with him of being dumb?
605 Comments
Kristoff is correct (although there is plenty of anti-intellectualism in the Left as well-particularly in the “we protest anything” set).
Well there certainly IS a bent toward stupidity in this country.
Duh!
I don”t see a problem;
http://www.cmt.com/shows/dyn/my-big-redneck-wedding/series.jhtml
Loved the cake, annie. thanks for the giggles.
Really, though, they all looked comfy. Am kinda curious how many had their 12 guages handy, though.
Keeping people ignorant is a way to keep control of the them…look how well it works for Dubya’s fans.
America has the most prolific freedom of press and expression in the world. What is wrong with American evolutionists if they can not use that media (such as the WEblog) to convince the people of evolution’s scientific merit?
Perhaps, it is the American evolutionists who are the intellectually challenged bunch for failing in the regard.
John Collins
Posted April 3, 2008 at 9:44 pm | \l “comment-325244″
DEFEAT OSAMA, OBAMA AND CHELSEA’S MAMA
writerdog
Posted April 4, 2008 at 6:16 am | \l “comment-325455″
JOHN COLLINS, I never have looked at it that way! Your words, so eloquent and inspiring in their delivery. Simply yet carrying so much power and meaning in so few words! I am prompted to go beyond this room, run into the streets and shout them to my brethren. Repeating them to everyone I see so that they too shall be awestruck by them.
Forget all those flowery pundits, charts and graphs, forget all those speeches and ideals, history, voting records, alliances and policy speeches! No heed the words of JOHN COLLINS for he is surely the greatest oracle of these troubled times. With these words, I no longer need to even think for the way is now clear!
I can now rest quietly in my darken hobbit, spending hours in mindless folly, staring blankly at senseless dribble. For mine mind has been cleared of thought of the real world and I can now set drooling while watching a raving lunatic spouting details not weighted by facts or truth and understand the true value of his words. For now mine mind has been cleared by your simple words, there is no longer a need for anything but your simple words! In just 6 simple, understandable words you have taken away the need for paying attention in this election year!
I can now go on to talk of meaningful things, such as what color is the sky, I like hard candy and if Pluto is a dog, and Donald is a duck, why does Goofy wear pants and talks… yet he too appears to be a dog! So what is he? And the ultimate question in who answer would give mean to the vary existence of man.
HOW MANY LICKS DOES IT TAKE TO GET TO THE CENTER OF A TOOTSIE POP?
THANK YOU John Collins, from the vary fiber of my being for saying these words. I now am free to use this computer to do meaningful searches… like internet porn !
If there is someone that can not figure out why I posted that on this topic and why it is relent. I can explain it to you…..
Anyone have any knuckle cream? Mine are all scraped up from dragging them…got a banana - hungry…
wwoooo- chimp sounds—aaaaheeeeaaaa–
Glad you enjoyed it ghotiphaze. You should catch the show sometime it’s hilarious.
rfl you can lead a horse to water……
annie moose,
lead me to water. You have all day and this thread as a sounding board to provide your best evidence in support of evolution.
I’ll be checking back in later.
Nicholas Kristof’s article bemoans the effect of “anti-intellectualism” on America. He illustrates it by citing studies showing only to 30 to 40% of Americans believe in evolution. Which means that 60 to 70% do not.
It’s important to note that “evolution” is an elastic word that can take on a variety of meanings. Its meaning can range from changes in drug resistance of certain bacteria, to the theory of common descent(Darwinism). Such a word is very useful if you intend to pull the wool over the eyes of your readers.
I am going to assume that when he says “evolution” Mr. Kristof means the theory of common descent, or Darwinism. I say this because I think that most folks in the 60 to 70% mentioned do not question evolution that can be demonstrated; that being micro-evolution, or small changes in existing species. They do question that which cannot be demonstrated, Darwinian theory. It is no secret that most of these folks believe in a Creator. Thus, the real elephant in the room is religious faith.
So, the apparent genesis of anti-intellectualism in Mr. Kristof’s mind is religion and the proof is lack of belief in “evolution”. He denigrates people’s thinking skills based on disagreement with his beliefs and conclusions. Adding the sum of disagreement with NYT style liberal orthodoxy to belief in God, Mr. Kristof gets “anti-intellectualism”.
Our forefathers were people of faith. One of the main reasons that they established this country was so that they could be free to worship as they wished. Now we are being told by a writer at one of this country’s, until late, most esteemed newspapers, that it is people of faith that are hurting this country. Though he tried to soften it with weasel words, Kristof’s insults were directed at the backbone of America.
And the NYT wonders why they are losing money.
O boy, here we go again . . . again!
I think the last 2 presidential elections lend credence to the notion some of us are experiencing reverse evolution!
annie moose,
lead me to water
RFL: take a few courses in geology, anthropology, and physics for some knowlege of radioactive decay of isotopes and resultant daughter isotopes and come back in a few years.
Gster,
How dare you denigrate the lower rungs of evolution by placing the current leadershipesness in their midst! Why, if I were a monkey, I would be filing lawsuits, if I could write without an opposable thumb.
There is a Kansas teacher who uses that old idiom, “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink” as motivation in her teaching. She decided she would SALT THE HAY to further interest the horse in drinking the water.
I admire her attitude and her students are the lucky ones.
I wonder if she has encountered those unwilling to quench their thirst.
Kristof is correct.
Keeping people ignorant is a way to keep control of the them…look how well it works for Dubya’s fans.
Or for Dubya, himself.
The election of bush was the epitome of anti-intellectualism. Only surprise was we didn’t have the social cleansing/purge of intellectuals as was done in China. Maybe next time.
One of the main reasons that they established this country was so that they could be free to worship as they wished.
I think you actually mean for everyone to worship ONLY as they wish.
Ever hear of Mary Dyer?
rfl,
It makes little difference to me what you believe or don’t. If you find no value in the theory of evolution why do you wish to debate it.
There is a long history of anti-intellectualism in this country, starting with the Know Nothing party in the late 1800s. We are free to believe anything. As they say in Texas, go ahead and do it your own damned fool way.
George Will wrote: There is a universal duty to be as intelligent as possible.
Obviously a lot of people didn’t get the word.
It is unnecessary to put the theory of common descent in opposition to religious faith as Mr. outlander apparently insists upon doing. There is an abundance of evidence supporting the theory of common descent - contrary to Mr. outlander’s assertion.
The genetic evidence on plants suggest that all plants have a common plant ancestor. The fossil record clearly indicate trasitional life forms.
The facts are inconvenient for the Intelligence Design folk, but they exist, regardless.
The funny thing is dogs turn out to be smarter than monkeys. Heck, if we were descended from dogs, we wouldn’t have a bush in charge. In fact there would probably be many legs lifted to that fact. I’m not too sure about walking around sniffing peoples butts though:-)
The funny thing is dogs turn out to be smarter than monkeys.
I think that’s somewhat debatable…Depends in what ways. I agree with the point, somewhat, but chimps, bonobos and gorillas excell in many ways dogs can’t. then again, without hands, dogs don’t quite have the vocabulary as the listed primates. And who knows about the cetaceans.
“It makes little difference to me what you believe or don’t. If you find no value in the theory of evolution why do you wish to debate it.”
annie moose
so are you telling me reasons why I don’t wish to debate evolution? Aren’t you the intellectual with all the intellectual tools to smash my logic into oblivion to end this debate one and for all?
Instead you reveal your own insecurity in your ability to debate a theory that is purported to be unequivocally supported by facts, observations and evidence?
Hiding from debate is no way for an intellectual to act. hmmm Annie?
Instead you reveal your own insecurity in your ability to debate a theory that is purported to be unequivocally supported by facts, observations and evidence?
Ok, from your point of view, prove to me God created the world and filled it with life in exactly the way it is now. I’ll take Earth II between the orbit of Earth I and Mars.
RD
Posted April 4, 2008 at 8:41 am | Permalink
Keeping people ignorant is a way to keep control of the them…look how well it works for Dubya’s fans.
Or for Dubya, himself.
Dubya isn’t so dumb. He’s used the Presidency to enrich himself and his handlers at the expense of the working poor.
Jesus didn’t weep…he’s getting ready to scream and crack his whip at the Republican money-changers.
rfl,
How could I possibly debate such a superior individual? My ego couldn’t possibly tolerate the setbacks from you not believing in evolution.
Does this mean you won’t invite me to your big redneck wedding?
The fossil record clearly indicate trasitional life forms.
Actually, it doesn’t.
Morphology is not the end all answer to evolution.
One crystal may look like another crystal, but it’s constituent parts are entirely different in function and purpose.
“The fossil record clearly indicate trasitional life forms.”
Really? A transitional life form is half one form and part another. What form(s) are you referring to?
“The genetic evidence on plants suggest that all plants have a common plant ancestor.”
The structural analysis of automobiles reveals that all cars on the road today are made of steel, therefore following the same line of thinking as that which Steven Davis is using, we can assume that all cars evolved from a singular automobile made out of steel. Right?
rfl, with your logic, you’re saying ‘man is god’
annie,
Good for you to avoid debating something you do not have a firm grasp of. But as a result of your predictable digression, I guess we can expect the controversy to continue on and on.
Still waiting for your proof rfl. My telescope is all fired up (it’s steam powered).
I’ll make it easy on you, just pray me the enlightenment.
Still waiting.
Why is it the anti-evolutionists say show me the evidence, then say I don’t believe it so you’re wrong, yet they can never show any proof of their side other than this book says so, or they were divinely inspired?
rfl,
Seriously if you have faith good for you.I don’t nothing you can say will change my mind and I’m sure the same applies to you. So why bother?
“Transistional” Form #1
All About Archaeopteryx
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
Somebody read this article from a pro evolutionary website, and tell me what is the differences in each of the 8 none specimans of Archaeopteryx (A)?
If A is a transitional form, each of 8 specimens can be expected to be found in differring stages of change as the form would be in transistion from a reptile to a bird.
After you read the article, take note of the author’s conclusion at the bottom:
“Conclusions:
Archaeopteryx is a bird because it had feathers.
Seems like a fully formed species to me that has interesting characteristics differeing from modern day birds but nevertheless still a bird.
“8 none specimans” should be “8 known specimens”
Seems like a fully formed species to me that has interesting characteristics differeing from modern day birds but nevertheless still a bird.
Show me one now. If you can’t show me a living specimen, god made a flawed creation.
Actually, since the mid 90s, there’ve been a lot better examples of “missing links”.
If A is a transitional form, each of 8 specimens can be expected to be found in differring stages of change as the form would be in transistion from a reptile to a bird.
Not every animal that dies fossilizes or we’d be up to the moon in fossils.
Actually, since the mid 90s, there’ve been a lot better examples of “missing links”.
————————
Name them.
annie,
Because I am an intellectual and I know my opponent and I smell blood. Asking me why I would choose debate something as boneheaded as evolution is like asking a fish why it bothers to swim.
#
ghotiphaze
Posted April 4, 2008 at 8:57 am | Permalink
The funny thing is dogs turn out to be smarter than monkeys.
I think that’s somewhat debatable…Depends in what ways. I agree with the point, somewhat, but chimps, bonobos and gorillas excell in many ways dogs can’t. then again, without hands, dogs don’t quite have the vocabulary as the listed primates. And who knows about the cetaceans.
So, does that mean sniffing butts is out?
I am aware of a few links I wish were missing:-)
Of course it hurts us. The only question is, how badly does it hurt us?
Check out this blog for evidence…
The fossil record clearly indicate trasitional life forms.
“Actually, it doesn’t.
“Morphology is not the end all answer to evolution.
“One crystal may look like another crystal, but it’s constituent parts are entirely different in function and purpose.”
I will refer all interested [and, I accept that would mean relatively few here] to this document which covers in great detail the scientific evidence for common descent.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Anti-intellectualism is hurting America. Unfortunately, some here [read Regular] are half-way smart enough to confuse the issues.
A fully detailed critique of http://www.talkorigins.org
is found in this link:
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
Read both.
Anti-intellectualism is hurting America. Unfortunately, some here [read Regular] are half-way smart enough to confuse the issues.
Actually, I’m smart enough to challenge because I know the science.
The only thing the Libs do is make statements they can’t back up intellectually and when challenged on a fact, the fold like a house of cards.
And Ghotiphaze, where is that list of missing links?
Assiduously avoiding the Evolution controversy, should not there be a better understanding of the function of DNA and radiation, the ignorance of which among the populace is staggering, according to the linked Kristof article? Should there not be a better understanding of the difference between Shi’ites and Sunnis, again as suggested?
Yep, kfg, of course it hurts us. The answer to your question is, IMHO, very, very badly.
It isn’t just evolution. In a way, I’m sorry Kristof chose that “hot button,” as it obscures the greater issue.
I’m still sipping my first coffee and got work to do, so I’ll leave it at this: the modern anti-intellectualsm confuses simplicity with simple-minded. Issues are reduced to parodies of their reality, and the attendant complexities and ambiguities are reduced to competing slogans.
Think George Orwell’s newspeak.
This, IMHO, is due largely to a concerted effort by powerful conservatives to destroy public education and independent journalism since the ascendancy of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. They didn’t completely succeed, but it’s been close enough.
P.S. As Ksag points out, there is plenty of unthinking dogmatism among the “Left.” But you will find those kinds of views marginalized, usually on well-aged clips on public-acccess TV, (yes, we get that here)–if even there. The most vapid and shameless right-wing propaganda can be found almost nonstop on Fox.
enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/Dinobirds.html
enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Caudipteryx.shtml
enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Protarchaeopteryx.shtml
enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Sinosauropteryx.shtml
enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Archaeopteryx.shtml
actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html
asa3.org/asa/resources/Miller.html
Pain in the butt. Wouldn’t let me post all the h t t ps. had to re-google. Is your google broke?
asking a fish why it bothers to swim.
because i swim quite well.
So, does that mean sniffing butts is out?
My wife likes it
*ducks*
it is hurting America. We had elected a president who sent us to war based on whether or not we could drink a beer with him, and because he supported religious views.
Our economy is in the tank, because we believed God annointed Bush our leader.
Ok, I don’t believe that, but a lot of you out there do.
We had a big huge thread yesterday about the bible, and where were half of you who are willing to stand here and defend it and your beliefs?
You didn’t want to talk about it yesterday, but you expect us to create American policy based from it.
Check out this blog for evidence…
Case in point: I kept scrolling back and forth looking for the link to the blog KFG was citing.
Steven, I stayed away from the talkorigin sites as they were implying they didn’t believe them anyway.
I frankly think is futile to argue with people convinced that they already have the answer. I think choosing to not beat one’s head against a wall of determined anti-intellectualism is not the same as “folding like a house of cards.” It is just wise use of one’s energy.
I would point out, too, that evolution and the theory of common descent have been the victim of dirty tricks by creationists for some time. The most recent version of this is the ID movement. Here is a copy of their strategic plan, AKA the Wedge Memo:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
Favorite Bumper Sticker:
Kansas: Where Evolution is Outlawed and the Monkeys are in Charge.
rfl boldly states,
Because I am an intellectual [by your own definition]
and I know my opponent and I smell blood.
[your making an assumption such as Bush and Iraq] Asking me why I would choose debate something as boneheaded as evolution [in your worldview]is like asking a fish why it bothers to swim.[I'm curious what was the answer]
“The only thing the Libs do is make statements they can’t back up intellectually and when challenged on a fact, they fold like a house of cards.”
Very True, Regular. Which is why their arguments are not rooted in intellectual thought. They are following someone else’s reccomendations and therefore lack the ability to back anything up with reason and civility.
Its a sad state of voluntary ignorance.
still waiting for your proof, rfl.
#
ghotiphaze
Posted April 4, 2008 at 9:55 am | Permalink
So, does that mean sniffing butts is out?
My wife likes it
*ducks*
Beyatch
*leaves country*
I’d settle for a reasonably dubious evasion.
I frankly think is futile to argue with people convinced that they already have the answer.
When it comes to science, it often boils down to destroying misconceptions–things they “know,” because their mindmasters have drilled it into their heads a million times (my favorite: the ever-popular “it’s only a theory”). It’s not just ignorance of science facts ; it’s ignorance of scientific process .
Unfortunately, the well-heeled dogmatists at the Discovery Institute aren’t particularly stupid. George Gilder is the perfect “poster boy” for them: shrewd, tech-savvy, right-wing fanatic to the core. Of course, he knew was always right–too bad all those people who invested in Global Crossing believed him.
#
rfl
Posted April 4, 2008 at 10:05 am | Permalink
“The only thing the Libs do is make statements they can’t back up intellectually and when challenged on a fact, they fold like a house of cards.”
Very True, Regular. Which is why their arguments are not rooted in intellectual thought. They are following someone else’s reccomendations and therefore lack the ability to back anything up with reason and civility.
Its a sad state of voluntary ignorance.
Man, if that ain’t a crock I don’t know what is.
It seems there have been facts laid out here concerning intellectualism in multiple threads going back a few years, but the RR doesn’t deal in facts: They got da bible.
fish,
the talkorigin website attempts to show evidence of common descent. It clearly states that it makes no attempt to provide the mechanism for such a process to take place (such as the Darwinistic ideal of the “Survival of the Fittest”). Nor does it explain where the first organism came from or how it was formed.
Lacking an explanation of the mechanism of why organisms were encouraged to diverge, is just one of the reasons why the attempt by talkorigins is shallow.
“Dr. Theobald (from talkorigins.org) does not address the origin of the first living thing or the mechanism by which that first organism diverged into every life form that has ever existed. His thesis is expressly restricted to the affirmation of universal common ancestry. In other words, he argues that, without knowing anything about how the first life arose or how it diversified, one can still be certain that all living things descended from the same ancestor.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp
define intellect
The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding.
b. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly. See Synonyms at mind.
2. A person of great intellectual ability.
Truthiness is a word that U.S. television comedian Stephen Colbert popularized in 2005 as a satirical term to describe things that a person claims to know intuitively or “from the gut” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1] Colbert popularized this definition of the word during the inaugural (pilot) episode (October 17, 2005) of his satirical television program The Colbert Report, as the subject of a segment called “The Wørd”. It was named Word of the Year for 2005 by the American Dialect Society and for 2006 by Merriam-Webster.[2][3]
By using the term as part of his routine, Colbert sought to satirize the use of appeal to emotion and the “gut feeling” as a rhetorical device in contemporary socio-political discourse.[4] He particularly applied it to U.S. President George W. Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.[5] Colbert later ascribed truthiness to other institutions and organizations, such as Wikipedia.[6]
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=24039
And the Headlines said that God Was Dead…
So far, I have yet to see any science offered up by Libs proving their points.
Just a bunch of lip flapping, which is par for the course.
Let’s rock and roll on the science if you’re capable. If not, why bothering making a fool of yourselves making claims you can’t back up because you don’t understand what the scientists are really saying?
In other words, he argues that, without knowing anything about how the first life arose or how it diversified, one can still be certain that all living things descended from the same ancestor.”
Funny, I have no problem with that. Over the last 40 years (I’m 51) I’ve seen enough evidence to convince me that this is true.
Personally, I just find it more mentally economical to believe this, than to self-debate the issue of whether God is so inept he had to create such a Rube Goldbergish universe.
Ok, still waiting on more evidence on your part, but I must admit, that was a reasonably dubious evasion like I requested.
Reg, we can fall back on the “because the science books say so…”
fish,
I forget, what have you provided to this thread so far the way of reasoning, facts, substance?
Furthermore, what exactly are you asking me to prove? I can not prove anything regarding creation. I was not there in the beginning. Where you?
Unfortunately, I am the only one so far that is brought up any “evidence”.
I am not an avowed evolutionist so what am I missing? I need an evolutionist to assist me in providing information as to why his/her theory is the only possible explanation.
Come on people we need to fight this anti-intellectualism today! It is hurting our country right? Well its time to rise up and give us your intellect!
What started evolution?
Reg, we can fall back on the “because the science books say so…”
-fish
Hmmm…fish is sounding more and more like a intellectual to me. NOT!
The Church told Copernicus that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Let’s see, did Copernicus accept “because the church said so” as fact? Or did he do his own due diligence and determine different?
What would an intellectual do in this situation?
Unfortunately, I am the only one so far that is brought up any “evidence”.
untrue. Evidence has been put forth. I must’ve missed your evidence part. I noticed you cited an article saying because the author couldn’t explain a part of his belief system, the whole concept was suspect. I’m only asking for SOME evidence supporting you position.
Or did he do his own due diligence and determine different?
And he did the smart thing for his day and time…waited until he was on his deathbed to publish and then his publisher bushwacked him and said in the preface that although sun centered explains many things there was no reason to actually believe it was true. His publisher never saw the stake. Unlike Bruno. Galileo just got house arrest (which was probably a kindness as he was blind from observing sunspots).
If universal common ancestry is true, then all organisms will have one or more traits in common.
All organisms have one or more traits in common.
Is this evidence of common ancestry? IF this were evidence of evolution, the the opposite observation would refute evolution.
If evolution happened once, how could it have NOT happened twice, three times, and so on making multiple strains of life having traits diametrically different from each other?
“First, evolution does not predict that life would arise precisely once on this planet. If there were two or more unrelated systems of life, then evolutionary theory would effortlessly accommodate that situation.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp
Therefore this is not evidence since the opposite observation would not refute evolution but simply be folded into the theory.
Really, if I were a ID person I’d come up with better arguments. Bats are the best example of a dearth in transitional species. I’m personally not aware of any nucleotide correlation to other families. Doesn’t mean there is none, I’m just not aware of it.
Science:
http://www.si.edu/Encyclopedia_SI/nmnh/origin.htm
Recent discoveries in New World archeology along with new scientific methods for analyzing data have led to new ideas regarding the origin of the first peoples of the Americas and their time of arrival.
The traditional theory held that the first Americans crossed the land bridge from Siberia to Alaska around 11,500 years ago and followed an “ice-free corridor” between two large Canadian ice sheets (the Laurentide and Cordilleran) to reach unglaciated lands to the south. These first inhabitants, whose archaeological sites are scattered across North and South America, were called the Clovis people, named after the town in New Mexico where their fluted spear points used for hunting mammoth were first found in 1932.
There is now convincing evidence of human habitation sites that date earlier than the Clovis culture including sites located in South America. Monte Verde, a well-studied site located along a river near southern central Chile, dates 12,500 years ago. This site contains the buried remnants of dwellings, stone tools including large bifacial projectile points, and preserved medicinal and edible plants. How did people manage to settle this far south at such an early date? A coastal migration route is now gaining more acceptance, rather than the older view of small bands moving on foot across the middle of the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska and into the continents. Emerging evidence suggests that people with boats moved along the Pacific coast into Alaska and northwestern Canada and eventually south to Peru and Chile by 12,500 years ago—and perhaps much earlier. Archaeological evidence in Australia, Melanesia, and Japan indicate boats were in use as far back as 25,000 to 40,000 years ago. Sea routes would have provided abundant food resources and easier and faster movement than land routes. Many coastal areas were unglaciated at this time, providing opportunities for landfall along the way. Several early sites along the coast of Canada, California, Peru, Ecuador, and Chile date between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago. Many potential coastal sites are now submerged, making investigation difficult.
If the Clovis people were not here first, then who was? Clovis points are found in many sites in North and Central America with a significant early cluster in the southeastern United States. Points similar to Clovis but without fluting and dating more than 12,000 years ago have been found in stratified archaeological sites in the eastern United States, such the Cactus Hill, Virginia. These finds have occurred because archaeologists are no longer halting their digging at the bottom of the Clovis level.
Seems to me that science has the evidence to prove man is over 12,000 years old, at the very least. Kind of shoots the people who demand we believe the biblical version in the foot, doesn’t it?
As I stated many times: The bible, while being the word of God, was written by man, for man, to reflect the knowledge of the people at that time. Had it been written today, I’m sure it would reflect on the creation of the universe in terms understood by today’s scientists.
The findings do address intellectualism; they just don’t do so to appease the creationists. That’s pretty much impossible.
Unfortunately, if new life (say silicon based, non-dna, whatever)did arise, in order to even survive one generation it would have to have many advantages. But if God decides to create a 100 foot tall super carnosaur made of rock, I’ll be first to concede you were right.
Reasoning \Rea”son*ing\, n.
1. The act or process of adducing a reason or reasons; manner of presenting one’s reasons.
2. That which is offered in argument; proofs or reasons when arranged and developed; course of argument.
His reasoning was sufficiently profound. –Macaulay.
Syn: Argumentation; argument.
things that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened
http://www.iclasses.org/assets/literature/literary_glossary.cfmthings that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happenen
Quit screwing around people prove the existence of GOD
Pmom, I agree with Steven.
My way of saying it? Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it only annoys the pig.
“If evolution happened once, how could it have NOT happened twice, three times, and so on making multiple strains of life having traits diametrically different from each other?”
Evolution is still happening and will continue to despite your inability to recognize it. See:
http://www.amazon.com/Beak-Finch-Story-Evolution-Time/dp/067973337X
On the other hand, forget about it … believe what you want to - an instruction, I believe you can follow.
fish,
You believe that bats a transitional form from what to what?
Whales and bats both have very simliar echolocation abilities unlike another other species. Birds do not have echolocation but they fly like bats. Fish do not have echolocation but they swim like whales. Whales have lungs like bears but bears do not have any semblance of echolocation.
In your opinion, which species is related to which?
You know, God planted Lucy and all the other neanderthals in the ground so that we’d be all thrown off. It’s a test of faith (eyeroll).
Isn’t it ironic that this thread appears a couple below a thread about Todd Tiahrt denying that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?
“On the other hand, forget about it … believe what you want to - an instruction, I believe you can follow.”
No thanks Steven, I prefer to read and understand the evidence and make judgements accordingly. You have certainly shown the ability to follow your own advice however.
Morphology when applied to biology is different than that applied to chemistry. You were comparing apples to oranges and being smug about it to boot.
LMAO
“You believe that bats a transitional form from what to what?
In your opinion, which species is related to which?”
All species are transitional species. All species are related because we all share the same nucleotides in our DNA. The evidence for evolution is in our DNA. ‘Nuff said.
You believe that bats a transitional form from what to what?
read the post. I said if I WAS AN ID PROPONENT, I’d come up with better examples than cited here, such as the bat. There are no transitional forms that I’m aware of for the bat.
Even trying to give you ammunition for your cause to make this more fair seems to elude you.
Of course, knowing a bit about bat physiology, and the process of fossil creation makes this none too surprising.
God planted Lucy
I thought Shroeder got caught doing that
Rifle,
Please don’t pretend that you are interested in finding out anything. Such a contention is untrue on its face and patently offensive.
Heard on the radio this morning that the guy in Ft Riley who sued for his treatment for being an atheist has now overheard his superiors talking about how they’d like to beat him up.
“Heard on the radio this morning that the guy in Ft Riley who sued for his treatment for being an atheist has now overheard his superiors talking about how they’d like to beat him up.”
That’s not surprising, fundies are violent. A couple years ago some fundies beat up an Atheist professor in Kansas.
What started evolution?
Questions like this tend to prove Steven right.
One could charitably re-interpret it as “what caused the first random mutations?” or some other sensible question but that, of course, is not what was meant. It’s all about the Prime Mover (ain’t it?), i.e. God. Never mind that it has zero relevance to understanding or explaining evolution.
Since evolution–like osmosis, convection, and numerous other scientific concepts–doesn’t actually require a deity to work, it’s therefore evil and must be crushed. End of the debate.
I can’t understand his reasoning of the whales/bats-echolocation rant. Is there a lick of logic in any of that?
Reading his posts I get the impression he’s convinced that we’re proposing that given enough time and generations a shrew will end up being a homo sapien.
All the evolutionists here know how deficient their theory is of unequivocal evidence. That has been repeatedly shown by the predictable attempt to sidestep a discussion of the facts to hide their own blatant lack of intellectual prowess.
“How could I possibly debate such a superior individual? My ego couldn’t possibly tolerate the setbacks from you not believing in evolution.”
-annie
“Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it only annoys the pig.”
-KFG
“On the other hand, forget about it … believe what you want to - an instruction, I believe you can follow.”
-Steven
I’ll be looking forward to the next thread which will no doubt offer similar statments. Note these statemants are nothing but base insults.
Meanwhile the so called “anti-intellectuals” continue reading and understanding the fallacy of evolution while the pseudo-intellectuals are content to sleep.
Wake up people!
Reading his posts I get the impression he’s convinced that we’re proposing that given enough time and generations a shrew will end up being a homo sapien.
. . or a fern will turn into a dog. Another common misconception: Evolution is a magical machine that can turn anything into anything. Not so.
rfl, google “Wichita” “WE blog” “evolution,” or simply browse thru the archives. This issue has been discussed, and discussed, and discussed.
I don’t blame some people for getting weary of debunking the same old predictable crap, over and over.
Well let me say the unsayable,
Invite god to a weblog meetup I will convert the moose household over to any religion Yahweh suggests I’ll even sacrifice a goat in his honor. Sorry kids if we have to prove ever molecule of our arguement you guys need to do the same.
Sorry to offend you, Steven. I’ll try to avoid intellectually stimulating material in the future to avoid setting off your sensitivity in that area.
All the evolutionists here know how deficient their theory is of unequivocal evidence
actually, evolutionists are the 1st to admit the deficiencies in their hypothesiseseses (damn plural on that word, anyway). And we’re also all to knowing on the total lack of evidence in the creation you better believe or else (don’t even call it a theory!)
rfl,
I guess they needed you at the Dover trial. None of the creationists would swear under oath and defend their position. Meanwhile, the scientists presented scientific fact after scientific fact under oath.
For instance, have you wondered why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and apes have 24? If you look it up you’ll find the undeniable scientific evidence that our species are related.
“don’t blame some people for getting weary of debunking the same old predictable crap, over and over.”
Rage, don’t you have work to do? why are you posting on this thread than if you are so weary? Watch, this thread be the highest posted thread of the week!
Rage, don’t you have work to do?
Yes, I do, actually. Good point (first one you’ve made).
Later!
rfl, you’d prove your point if you’d practiced what you preach. All you’re doing is saying we’re wrong, you don’t believe any evidence we provide, and you provide no evidence supporting your position. You never even tried. You just cry because we’re not rushing to side with you.
“For instance, have you wondered why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and apes have 24?”
Doug,
Since Apes and humans have similar number of chromosones, and that to you proves evolution, does the stark differences between apes and humans refute it?
Have you ever wondered why apes walk on all fours and humans are bi-pods?
Have you ever wondered why apes have a different bone structure than humans suitable for their own functionality?
Have you ever wondered why humans and apes have existed in the same region for thousands of years experiencing the exact same environment and food supply availability yet are distinctly different?
Have you ever wonder why apes do not have an opposable thumb and humans do?
rfl,
Your answer is in the DNA. I’m assuming by your response you’ll avoid looking into the chromosome issue since it will absolutely disprove creationism. If you like it was presented on the PBS documentary about the Dover trial. Creationists from the Discovery Institute like Behe couldn’t refute the evidence so I doubt you could either.
fish,
what exactly do you want me to prove? Feel free to tell my HOW I am wrong.
My assertion is that evolution is wrong. For you to show me that I am wrong you have to show that evolution is right. Does that make sense?
Here you go rfl,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
I suggest looking in Chapter six for some of the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
Doug,
How does the “chromosome issue” dispove creation or prove evolution?
Can you explain in your own words how the chromosome issue accomplishes either of those two claims?
rfl,
It proves common ancestry.
Doug,
I have already addressed this.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/is-anti-intellectualism-hurting-america/#comment-325644
I’m taking a break guys and gals
Keep reading and studying. I’ll be doing the same!
thanks
For instance, have you wondered why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and apes have 24?
No, what really gets me wondering why the Aulacantha (protozoa) has 1600 (not paired from parents)[highest].
rfl,
So your claim is that evidence for evolution is not evidence for evolution. That’s quite the illogical claim.
All hominids also share the broken gene that codes for vitamin C production proving, on a genetic level, that we all share a common ancestor.
There is a lot more evidence for evolution and absolutely none for creationism. That’s why there is no debate, only one side presents evidence and the other produces excuses.
I find the hoatzin curious.
amphioxis is a giggle.
the trunicate is downright goofy.
balanoglossus having both CP and AP for muscle contration is just redundant.
And just why the hell do lobsters have blue blood?
“this is not a pipe”. Sorry for the inside joke.
I have two words for the athiest guy at Ft. Riley.
Barry Winchell.
The military doesnt like athiests any more than they like straight guys who date transexuals. Or gays.
I’d sleep with one eye open if I were him.
#
rfl
Posted April 4, 2008 at 11:33 am | Permalink
Sorry to offend you, Steven. I’ll try to avoid intellectually stimulating material in the future to avoid setting off your sensitivity in that area.
Obviously, with your denying any and all intelligent discourse by slamming anyone who does provided any kind of proof, intellectually stimulating material is beyond your ability, so I don’t think Steven has anything to worry about.
99.999% of all anti-evolutionists will agree that GOD is Omnipotent and Omnipresent and Omniscient….
Can ANY anti-evolutionist prove in ANY WAY that GOD, in all power, all presence, and all knowledge, did NOT use evolution as a part of the Creation process?? After all, one must remember that evolution does not involve CREATION… but only that which follows from the EIGHTH DAY of Creation forward!! ALSO, please notice the ORDER of Created Beings/Things, in Genesis Ch. 1….
Remember God is all powerful… all knowning… and all present!! Be very careful how you deal with this!!
“ghotiphaze” –
I suspect, in the original Japanese, that qualifies as a haiku.
Or, with proper banjo in the background, a bluegrass classic.
Got me to thinking about a segment on NPR this morning.
Bobby Kennedy was campaigning for president. On the airplane into Indianapolis he got the news that Martin Luther King had been assassinated.
The crowd at Indianapolis had a large contingent of African Americans and NPR had a snippet of Bobby Kennedy asking someone if the crowd had hear the news. “No,” he was told. And the guy who’d been hired as RFK’s personal security guy refused to go on stage with Bobby.
One of the people in the crowd talked specifically about how Bobby didn’t once refer to the paper he held in his hand. He didn’t speak from his notes, but from his heart.
And, without referring to notes, Bobby broke the news and talked about his “favorite poet.”
If we’re talking about anti-intellectualism, let’s start with a candidate in this day and age talking about their “favorite poet!”
And, from his heart, that night 40 years ago, Bobby Kennedy recited:
Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget
Falls drop by drop upon the heart
Until in our own despair, against our will
Comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.
I hate that I sometimes get wrapped up in What-ifs? and If-onlys.
But Bobby Kennedy as President of the United States in 1969 would have changed so many things about this nation. This world.
Quoting Aechylus! To a crowd of people from Indianapolis!! Like any of them had ever heard of Aeschylus, much less considered him their “favorite poet.”
So Martin King and Bobby Kennedy get shot and George WMD Bush gets to be president.
Tell me again that “God loves me.”
He’s got a funny way of showing it.
Dan Bern sings a song about aliens xing the monkey. He got it wrong. Most likely, the monkey xed the aliens.
“My assertion is that evolution is wrong. For you to show me that I am wrong you have to show that evolution is right. Does that make sense?”
======================================
Actually, rfl — I dont have to show that evolution is right to show you wrong… That is perhaps your greatest error… It is a fallacy!!
I have only to show you wrong to prove you wrong!! I need show nothing about evolution at all!!
The problem with using DNA is a dilution factor.
Descendants of Thomas Jefferson cannot be proved, they can only be proved that descendants have common characteristics with a Male member of the Jefferson family, i.e. Thomas Jefferson’s brother.
Even with Mitochondrial DNA (mitochondrial Eve) no direct links can be proven because of dilution, branches are broken, different races intermix, disease distortions.
So if Humans can’t even prove their own ancestry, how can evolutionary scientist prove a common ancestry to some chimp or chimp like ancestor.
The simple answer is, they can’t and will never be able to as there are no specimens of ancient hominids to sample from.
it is purely speculation and no proof.
Regular — the other half of the fallacy is quite simple… Belief in GOD is also not provable… It is purely speculation!! MY belief in GOD is speculation!! Because there is NO PROOF… I have for many years held that IF someone finds a proof for the existence of God, they have, in reality, found a proof for their personal speculation!
The anti-intellectual RIGHT is till trying to prove that Obama is hiding his “true” identity! Ya just cant make this stuff up!!
** till = still
I suspect, in the original Japanese, that qualifies as a haiku.
wasn’t meaning to wax poetic. Just idle ramblings flittin’ through my brain through the course of theis thread.
James, I have seen some posts regarding the comparison of chromosomes… not too many on DNA… not sure where you are trying to spin this by bringing in DNA!! DNA even from long dead bones, can still be used to identify the deceased… providing they have DNA from living ancestors… happens every day in forensic labs all over the country!!
I won’t argue evolution. Been there done that. I will however observe that anti-intellectualism” being blamed on evolution and believing or not is a cop out for an education system that can’t even turn out 5000 graduates capable of holding a customer service job. See recent ATT news.
Darwinistic evolution does not predict a singular strain of DNA nor does it forbid multiple strains.
Therefore, the fact that there is a singular strain of DNA in all life forms is not an evidence of evolution. If there were multiple strains of DNA in all life forms on earth (the opposite of current observation), evolution, as is currently defined, can easily accomodate.
Therefore, if an observation that is used as evidence of evolution, would not refute evolution if the opposite were true, it is not an evidence of evolution.
Does that make any sense Doug?
Chas.
Posted April 4, 2008 at 1:16 pm | Permalink
Regular — the other half of the fallacy is quite simple… Belief in GOD is also not provable… It is purely speculation!! MY belief in GOD is speculation!! Because there is NO PROOF…
Chas I think that is what several posters have told you. Good for you for finally admitting it. Don’t you feel better now that you have been honest?
Chas, have I missed something? I don’t rightly recall your denial of a faith in god. If’n I remember a’rightly, you’ve been a believer, but I may have missed something.
Justwondering, rfl, it isn’t that I have no faith in a God. However, believing in God does not require me to suspend all judgment.
5000 graduates capable of holding a customer service job.
I’m sure 5,000 mean stupid assholes can be found somewhere.
LOL, doorking, they’re all living in my hometown. About 1/2 the population.
Maybe the division is between people who think they have all the answers and people who think they have all the questions.
Fundamentallists think they have all the answers. Whether it’s an invisible guy in the sky that answers all the questions or a philosophy that picks and chooses evidence for prejudices… they’re certain of the answers and no evidence will budge them.
We Liberals tend to think we’re asking the right questions and that every answer that comes isn’t THE answer but “an” answer that might lead to further questions.
It’s more complicated being a Liberal.
It’s much easier (albeit, a bit lazy) to automatically assume you know the answers based on faith, or scripture, or personal experience (however limited), or myth, or prejudice…
There’s no real division; just points on a bell curve. But it seems that some people like rules more than others, that’s for sure.
Jeez, this “debate” is getting old - the anti-science, pro-creationism folks will use any convoluted logic to deny evolution, despite overwhelming scientific evidence.
They claim that they have “evidence” of creationism, yet never produce anything other than backasswards attacks on evolution.
Where is the evidence - excluding Genesis - that “proves” creationism?
Where is it?
The Bible is not a science book. The writers of Genesis were not scientists. The ancient Israelites did not have a clue about science and the mysteries of the universe, yet the creationists would give greater credibility to someone that lived 5,000 years ago than they would to modern scientists.
Yes, anti-intellectualism is alive and well in America.
It’s too bad that so many seem to be really proud of that fact.
it’s really simple Evolutionists.
WHERE
ARE
THE
MISSING
LINKS?
List them and show your proof, genetically.
WS citing that evolution is proven is really lazy intellectalizing. I said it is so and that is it!! Just like my momma use to do.
it’s simple, creationists
show your continuing creation and provide physical proof.
We keep showing ours, but i guess if you ain’t got one, ya can’t show one.
no, no, no, no, no, just wondering. That’s what you’re doing!
WSClark,
Why are you talking about the Bible when we have “overwhelming evidence” on planet earth to discuss regarding the authenticity of material evolution. Let’s keep religion out of this okay?
Who started this talk about the Bible on this thread?
Answer: Liberals who can not defend the scientific merit of Evolution.
Is this “debate” going to descend to a philosophical one even though we have “overwhelming evidence” at our disposal to discuss?
This same anti-intellectual bent is what got us into Iraq. The facts and reasonable logic didn’t seem to matter to so many. Given……………
Saddam Hussein was no threat to the United States, seeing that he could not even defeat a third rate power like Iran WITH WMD, supplied by the US.
Saddam Hussein didn’t even control all of his own country.
Saddam Hussein was hated by al Qaeda and radical Muslims that wanted to see his regime overthrown.
Saddam Hussein was going to be proven to be a fraud, if the UN Inspectors had just another month to finish their work.
The anti-intellectuals bought that story and now we are all paying for that lack of intellectual interest or curiosity.
That is what anti-intellectualism get you.
“Let’s keep religion out of this okay?”
Great, let’s keep it out of the public square, also.
“Liberals who can not defend the scientific merit of Evolution.”
Name the scientific evidence for creationism or that opposes evolution, okay?
““overwhelming evidence” at our disposal”
Great, provide your evidence for creationism.
Thanks.
Creation can not be proven, therefore evolution must be fact? Is that the best your intellectual prowess can produce as far as evidence is concerned, fish?
I wonder what the Evolutionary Biologists think about the fact that their theory is proven NOT from facts and observations but from the simple verity that creation can not be proven.
Great one fish.
Science:
http://www.cameraontheroad.com/family/all-dna-traces-back-to-original-african-black-man-and-woman/
When you haven’t got an offense you can always fake to the left. Who keeps bringing the bible into this? I thought it was a discussion on merit.
Yeah Clark,
You win. Your theory is fact because Creation can not be proven. Congratulations intellectual champ!!
my post of 12:01 is an example, though it was really put out as being whimsical. You have to connect a few dots, but those are just a few things to cause you to wonder enough to actually research.
Sorry, you’re asking for tons (in actuality!!!) of literature, by a plethora of credible (operating word here) scientists, in a vast array of precise disciplines coupled with years of cognitive assimilation to be condensed into a hundred word post.
WS are you trying to take freedom of religion away?
WSClark
Posted April 4, 2008 at 2:10 pm | Permalink
“Let’s keep religion out of this okay?”
Great, let’s keep it out of the public square, also.
You libs just try to take, take take.
Great one fish.
Actually, I was just using your own tactics in the same way you were using them. I find it strange you complain about it.
Ghot words have meaning. If you don’t have any to argue intellectually your position then just say so.
JMWalker, on a slightly tangential note:
http://www.personalgenomes.org/
“WS are you trying to take freedom of religion away?”
I was asked to leave religion out of the discussion. How is that taking away freedom of religion?
“You win. Your theory is fact because Creation can not be proven.”
I just asked for your scientific proof of creationism - where is it?
If you want to debate, provide some FACTS, okay?
Kristof mentions Susan Jacoby’s contention that a deficient intellectual climate can be seen as the precursor for shortsighted adventures such as the invasion of Iraq.
In his book, “Daydream Believers: How A Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power,” the Slate.com war columnist Fred Kaplan points out that America had been sliding down the wrong slope for a while. He argues that after the Cold War, too many foreign policy experts invested too heavily in the idea that America was the last remaining superpower.
Kaplan writes that during the Cold War, “As long as there were two superpowers, the countries in between often felt compelled to pay fealty to their protector’s interests, even when those interests collided with their own. Now, in a world with just one superpower, there was no fulcrum of pressure, no common looming enemy, to keep the bloc in line. Many of America’s allies remained allied, whether out of inertia, shared values, shared interests, or a continuing desire for security. But they were also free to go their own way, pursue their own interests, form their own alliances of convenience, without much regard to Washington’s thoughts on the matter.” Page 2.
In response to this reality, according to Kaplan, there were two ways to preserve American influence. The first mirrors the neocon doctrine of donning the “mantle of explicit empire: build up vast armies, deploy them worldwide, and not hesitate to unleash them when necessary.” Page 2. Kaplan adds, of course, that even America lacks money and manpower for a truly imperial army, and he asserts that the American people don’t have the stomach for “brutal, distant wars.” Page 2.
Those who would argue against this point would have to concede, for example, that up to now, at least, Americans have not been receptive to the concept of a wide-ranging military draft.
Kaplan then writes: “The other course was to revitalize alliances, renovating the old ones, cultivating new ones, forging as many links around as many issues and interests as possible. A president could have taken this course for purely pragmatic reasons. Powerful nations, expecially powerful democracies, have always needed allies, if not to get a job done, then to get it done with shared burdens and legitimacy–to get it done and keep it done. And in a world with no opposing superpower to cement its alliances by default, the United States would need allies more than ever and would have to work harder at diplomacy to lure–and keep–them on board.” Pages 2 and 3.
Kaplan observes that, “Few in high office recognized this paradox of power.” Page 3.
Well, considering our predicament in Iraq and by extension, in the eyes of the world, Kaplan’s case is worthy of debate. In the march to war, as I remember it, the discussion was largely focused on Saddam and his “weapons.” That was about as far as it went. It all came down to those inspections and the need to deal with everything at once. Viewing the matter as only part of a larger world relations picture was unheard of and out of fashion. The lone remaining superpower wine was the only room temperature beverage being served.
***********************************
It’s possible to take this in any number of directions, but during the march to war five years ago, in the context of the aforementioned intellectually deficient consideration of foreign policy realities, I remember my fellow male associates at the office as being especially gung ho for war. Women? Not so much.
I don’t have any numbers in front of me, but it’s clear that women now outnumber men in college by growing margins. The reasons for this are debatable, but American culture definitely puts a premium on sports, especially for boys. When I went to high school in the eighties, we had a couple of intellectually gifted boys in the class, and they were almost viewed as borderline nerds. Truth is, they should have been treated with more respect. I’d argue, without a shred of data in front of me, that maleness in American culture trends toward anti-intellectualism.
Now, it’s undoubtedly an oversimplification to somehow hang the Iraq war solely on the shoulders of men and the American male culture of anti-intellectualism, but Kristof does argue that education is the place to start. I’m a college football and basketball junkie myself, so I’m not knocking