Debunking creationism.

Scientific American offers 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. The difficulty being that people who reject science must inherently reject logic, and people who reject logic cannot be reasoned with.

Published by Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Char­lottes­­ville, VA, USA. more »

13 replies on “Debunking creationism.”

  1. Those who reject the science of evolution are frustrating to deal with. Seriously. They’re reminsicent of those who would rather run off the President of Harvard than have a debate over whether or not there are perhaps genetic differnces between the sexes when it comes to certain abilities. The way they reject science in favor of preconceived notions that fit their politics is unconscionable.

  2. They’re reminsicent of those who would rather run off the President of Harvard than have a debate over whether or not there are perhaps genetic differnces between the sexes when it comes to certain abilities.

    I found that frustrating to watch, too. He was guilty of raising the issue in a less-than-ideal manner (and forum), but the matter Summers raised was one well worth of serious discussion.

  3. But on to the topic at hand: though I have to say I agree on one level, I generally love to have this argument with the school of Feminism that believes that all gender is socialized; where science is finding more and more evidence that points us in the direction that these behaviors, interests, whatever are in fact hardwired. (of course your hardcore Feminist likes to postulate about all the evil things men are hardwired for, but refuse to admit that women might have been hardwired by evolution to do specific things)

    And as interesting side note: of course the very same science is pointing to the strong probability that sexual preference is hardwired in exactly the same way.

    But, I would also say this: this all exists in a spectrum, and undoubtedly there are incredibly smart women who are perusing science carriers, and there are many others who would love to do the same.

    So when these very same women are told by a Man that it is their genetic predisposition that is inhibiting their careers–not the sexism that they feel has impeded their careers–I think then they are rightfully pissed.

  4. pursuing, not ‘pursuing’ science carriers, and careers not ‘carriers’

  5. Well, Jon & Walso, I’m glad we found a subject we could agree on. And, fwiw, I’ll concede that conservatives have far, far more than our fair share of boobs who reject mainstream science when their politics demand it. I was merely demonstrating that it’s a phenomenon of which lots of otherwise intelligent people can be guilty of as well.

  6. The real tragedy of the whole creationism vs. evolution battle is that it incorrectly implies that one must be either “for God” or “for science”. The fallacy is a 20th century creation.

    This from St. Augustine (345-430 AD):

    “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men….”

    -St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J., 2 vols. (New York: Newman Press, 1982).

  7. The real tragedy of the whole creationism vs. evolution battle is that it incorrectly implies that one must be either “for God” or “for science”.

    I’m so glad you mentioned that. This bit seems so obvious to me that I routinely fail to mention it, and assume that everybody else is aware of it, too. The God of the Gaps would be so small as to be irrelevant if we pursued this path.

  8. Curiously, one of the GOPper candidates running to fill Leo Wardrup’s seat in the 83rd is campaigning on her belief in creationism. Scary thing is she was elected to Virginia Beach’s school board. Another instance of voters being hoodwinked if you ask me.

  9. I would think that rather than being hoodwinked, that’s more an example of what Wags was talking about: A district where people are more likely to be religious sending “one of their own” to do battle with the “godless.” As he pointed out, it doesn’t have to be that way.

  10. I knew it would happen someday, Smails and I do agree about this particular issue.

    I dont want to pull this off topic, but in the interest of trying to understand Smails and his points of view I have to ask a question. Why is it unconscionable to reject science in favor of preconceived notions relating to creationism, but its ok in the context of Global Warming?

  11. That’s some tasty-looking chum you threw in the water, Tim, but I think I’m going to quit while I’m ahead today. Have a good weekend, everybody.

Comments are closed.