|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Creationist -> Retard

Default Creationist -> Retard

March 19th, 2009, 01:08
I was wondering what you think of creationists who have learned both sides of the argument and still come to creationism. These guys i think are growing in number, or maybe they are more vocal about it now. Despite these people probably having obvious bias before researching both concepts, would you say that these people specifically should be considered "retards" and should not find work in the science field or atleast be higher up in the field?


For example Gary Goodyear(Canada's Science Minister) may be creationist:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba…a-creationist/
Damian Mahadevan is offline

Damian Mahadevan

Keeper of the Watch

#1

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,201

Default 

March 19th, 2009, 03:21
I remember a few articles on Creationist biologists or some such. It was more of a novelty then an actual movement though so I don't know how much any of that is growing. Personally, I don't believe creationism is viable, but I also don't think it necessarily deserves the scorn and hatred that some people give it so no I wouldn't label them as being retarded.
Thoth is offline

Thoth

Thoth's Avatar
Sentinel

#2

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 354

Default 

March 19th, 2009, 03:50
It has not been disproven by any academe that the blueprints for human eye function, or a bat's anal musculature is not the work of Intellegent Design. Therefore, what benefit is derived from pondering whether or not to call a particular thinker a "retard" or not? Disprove his claim, pat him on the back, and thank him for making you think beyone his claims and moving human knowledge forward.
CarcusRex is offline

CarcusRex

CarcusRex's Avatar
Watcher

#3

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 80

Default 

March 19th, 2009, 04:19
Interesting responses. I like the way you guys think.
Damian Mahadevan is offline

Damian Mahadevan

Keeper of the Watch

#4

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,201

Default 

March 23rd, 2009, 12:16
This all depends on what kind of creationism we are dealing with. IMHO science and religion deal with fundamentally different questions. Very broadly speaking science deals with mechanisms and the question "how?", while religion deals with "why?" at a metaphysical level. There is nothing in modern science that explicitly contradicts the existance of a "creator" of some sort.

When religion goes into detail on the "how"'s (for instance by claiming that a mythical account of earths history is literally true) it can be disproven though, making young earth creationism and other such ideas incompatible with the scientific data. Trying to reconcile the two concepts is bound to cause a great deal of cognitive dissonance.

Still I wouldnt call the person choosing young earth creationism over scientific explanations a retard, but I would consider that person emotional rather than rational.
Zaleukos is offline

Zaleukos

Zaleukos's Avatar
Bum

#5

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,869

Default 

March 23rd, 2009, 20:38
Or not knowledgeable enough about cosmology, biology and the like. Or mix and match that with emotions.
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#6

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,169
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

March 23rd, 2009, 23:56
I like CarcusRex's approach to this the most. Thing is, that you should prove claims as otherwise when creationists make claims to educate or leave them alone. If you can't prove them wrong i dont think it is fair to judge them negatively.
Damian Mahadevan is offline

Damian Mahadevan

Keeper of the Watch

#7

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,201

Default 

March 24th, 2009, 00:04
I wouldn't say a creationist or ID person is mentally retarded but I do think they obviously have no understanding of science and the scientific method and that their views should be kept out of the class room. It's why the Flying Spaghetti Monster thing came about - it has the exact same logical consistency and proof as ID, and hey, it even has a theory on global warming too boot!
Rithrandil is offline

Rithrandil

I bent my wookie

#8

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 2,299

Default 

March 24th, 2009, 00:13
There is a philosophical debate regarding if there are things beyond our senses. Most scientists are agnostic when it comes to that since there are no way we can verify that anyway.

Then there's the rejection of observations as well as the vast amount of work done by mankind in order to find out more about our world. That's creationism. It's not an "argument", but an attempt to hide important discoveries from children, distort reports of observations, disrupt scientific progress by destroying the institutions which are based on genuine inquiry and evidence based work on what can be known. Creationism is not an innocent "option" but a genuine political conspiracy which have been revealed and debunked in court. At best creationists are innocent victims to falsehoods and deceit, at worst they are terrorists that strike at the heart of our civilization through fear and dishonesty.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#9

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

March 24th, 2009, 00:23
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
There is a philosophical debate regarding if there are things beyond our senses. Most scientists are agnostic when it comes to that since there are no way we can verify that anyway.

Then there's the rejection of observations as well as the vast amount of work done by mankind in order to find out more about our world. That's creationism. It's not an "argument", but an attempt to hide important discoveries from children, distort reports of observations, disrupt scientific progress by destroying the institutions which are based on genuine inquiry and evidence based work on what can be known. Creationism is not an innocent "option" but a genuine political conspiracy which have been revealed and debunked in court. At best creationists are innocent victims to falsehoods and deceit, at worst they are terrorists that strike at the heart of our civilization through fear and dishonesty.
Some of it, yes, like AiG, Kent Hovind and ICR. But i think Creation.com is genuine. Creation.com doesnt reject observations they put their own spin on things and are completely not arrogant like the other 3 in the sense they will not put you down when they answer you.

I think creationists do have one thing right these days and that is they try and explain everything in their own way towards creationism and they try and make their view points viable.
Damian Mahadevan is offline

Damian Mahadevan

Keeper of the Watch

#10

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,201

Default 

March 24th, 2009, 00:28
I don't think there's any need to label them retards; they're just misguided and uneducated. More silly than retarded.

The problem I have with "Intelligent Design" is that the "design" of our universe and our little corner of it doesn't seem very intelligent. For example:

1. Most animals have to sleep at least some part of each day, and some have to hibernate for extended periods of time. This leaves the creature in a very vulnerable position. That doesn't seem very intelligent to me.

2. Many animals have to kill and eat other living things to survive, and then defecate much of what they eat in the form of a really stinky mess. And defecation seems to have all kinds of glitches of its own, such as diarrhea and constipation. Not too bright of a design, if you ask me.

3. Childbirth is an extremely painful process for the females of many species. Seems rather pointless to have designed it that way to me.

4. The universe was made to be so immense that it is essentially impossible to visit any part of it by the beings that exist in it, other than in a very restricted, local part of it (as far as we know at this point). That seems to me a bizarre design choice. A christian once told me that this was his god's way of showing us his immense power; that just reinforced my opinion that the christian god is incredibly insecure.

The list can go on and on…
Necrosis is offline

Necrosis

Watcher

#11

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 69

Default 

March 24th, 2009, 00:33
Originally Posted by Necrosis View Post
I don't think there's any need to label them retards; they're just misguided and uneducated. More silly than retarded.

The problem I have with "Intelligent Design" is that the "design" of our universe and our little corner of it doesn't seem very intelligent. For example:

1. Most animals have to sleep at least some part of each day, and some have to hibernate for extended periods of time. This leaves the creature in a very vulnerable position. That doesn't seem very intelligent to me.

2. Many animals have to kill and eat other living things to survive, and then defecate much of what they eat in the form of a really stinky mess. And defecation seems to have all kinds of glitches of its own, such as diarrhea and constipation. Not too bright of a design, if you ask me.

3. Childbirth is an extremely painful process for the females of many species. Seems rather pointless to have designed it that way to me.

4. The universe was made to be so immense that it is essentially impossible to visit any part of it by the beings that exist in it, other than in a very restricted, local part of it (as far as we know at this point). That seems to me a bizarre design choice. A christian once told me that this was his god's way of showing us his immense power; that just reinforced my opinion that the christian god is incredibly insecure.

The list can go on and on…
You could probably spin all those to anti-evolution. Like wouldnt most species by now have easy child birth if evolution had its way through natural selection and evolution?
Damian Mahadevan is offline

Damian Mahadevan

Keeper of the Watch

#12

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,201

Default 

March 24th, 2009, 00:42
Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan View Post
You could probably spin all those to anti-evolution. Like wouldnt most species by now have easy child birth if evolution had its way through natural selection and evolution?
No. Evolution by means of natural selection require three things to work:

1. Variety in offspring
2. Genes that is passed on to that offspring
3. Fit to produce fertile offspring before death

As long as those three occurs, evolution happens. It's not to our benefit or comfort.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#13

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

March 24th, 2009, 00:43
Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan View Post
You could probably spin all those to anti-evolution. Like wouldnt most species by now have easy child birth if evolution had its way through natural selection and evolution?
I didn't supply these examples as lending support to evolution, nor even to support the view that the universe wasn't "designed" in some way. I just feel that if it was "designed", it could have been done smarter. Unless cruelty, pain, and suffering was a deliberate design philosophy; then the design is quite admirable.

And who knows, maybe in a thousand years childbirth will be as easy as yawning.
Necrosis is offline

Necrosis

Watcher

#14

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 69

Default 

March 24th, 2009, 00:48
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
No. Evolution by means of natural selection require three things to work:

1. Variety in offspring
2. Genes that is passed on to that offspring
3. Fit to produce fertile offspring before death

As long as those three occurs, evolution happens. It's not to our benefit or comfort.
Hmm… true. I suppose that not many people die from birth is proof that evolution hasnt failed. But wouldnt the offspring that had easy child birth have flourished more? Maybe by bad luck the one that that could have given us easy child birth was very ugly.
Damian Mahadevan is offline

Damian Mahadevan

Keeper of the Watch

#15

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,201

Default 

March 24th, 2009, 00:50
Originally Posted by Necrosis View Post
I didn't supply these examples as lending support to evolution, nor even to support the view that the universe wasn't "designed" in some way. I just feel that if it was "designed", it could have been done smarter. Unless cruelty, pain, and suffering was a deliberate design philosophy; then the design is quite admirable.

And who knows, maybe in a thousand years childbirth will be as easy as yawning.
Well according to Christianity it was a design for suffering because of mans disobedience in the garden of Eden.
Damian Mahadevan is offline

Damian Mahadevan

Keeper of the Watch

#16

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,201

Default 

March 24th, 2009, 00:55
Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan View Post
Well according to Christianity it was a design for suffering because of mans disobedience in the garden of Eden.
According to Christianity the earth is also 6,000-10,000 years old and Man lived together with dinosaurs. It also says people could live to be hundred of years old and two of every animal and insect (along with enough food for all of them) could fit in an Ark roughly 450 feet long with around 100,000 sq. feet of space. Mind you, this doesn't even account for the massive structural problems the boat would have to endure to avoid splitting in half and sinking in anything other than a small pond.

This makes about as much sense as Santa visiting every house on Christmas Eve to give everyone presents.
Rithrandil is offline

Rithrandil

I bent my wookie

#17

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 2,299

Default 

March 24th, 2009, 00:57
Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan View Post
Well according to Christianity it was a design for suffering because of mans disobedience in the garden of Eden.
According to Christianity, man came first, which is biologically wrong. Man is based on the Y chromosome which is a later mutation. Mankinds default is XX (woman). The whole idea of a "father" as creator is quite silly, the majority of all cultures rightly celebrate the woman as the source of humanity.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#18

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

March 24th, 2009, 01:06
Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan View Post
Well according to Christianity it was a design for suffering because of mans disobedience in the garden of Eden.
The punishment doesn't fit the crime. And why do all the other species on the planet have to endure suffering for what man did? I just don't buy it. Any being capable of creating all this would not be that cruel and unfair. Christianity is a very ugly and hateful religion and it amazes me that so many people buy into it.

The best explanation I have heard for existence is the hypothesis that all possible universes with all possible physical laws exist. Some have life (most in forms beyond our imagination); some don't. That means this one is not remotely special, regardless of what religious people may think. Why do I like this viewpoint? Because there is a precedence for it: our very universe! The fact that this one exists certainly supports the possibility that there are others. It seems more reasonable to believe that all possible universes simply exist (ours is one concrete example), than to believe that some conscious being was twiddling its thumbs for eternity, then one day decided to create this mess. There's simply no evidence nor precedent to base such a belief on.
Necrosis is offline

Necrosis

Watcher

#19

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 69

Default 

March 24th, 2009, 01:07
Originally Posted by Rithrandil View Post
According to Christianity the earth is also 6,000-10,000 years old and Man lived together with dinosaurs. It also says people could live to be hundred of years old and two of every animal and insect (along with enough food for all of them) could fit in an Ark roughly 450 feet long with around 100,000 sq. feet of space. Mind you, this doesn't even account for the massive structural problems the boat would have to endure to avoid splitting in half and sinking in anything other than a small pond.

This makes about as much sense as Santa visiting every house on Christmas Eve to give everyone presents.
They argue that dinosaurs werent violent. Argue rapid speciation. And argue that gopherwood which is apparently now extinct was used to build the ark.

Unlike Santa you cant prove this wrong.
Damian Mahadevan is offline

Damian Mahadevan

Keeper of the Watch

#20

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,201
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Creationist -> Retard
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 19:59.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch