The Danger of Creationism

[GOD Shines Forth!]

So what?…That doesn't change what you wrote about vaccine hesitancy and spreading misinformation about vaccines or the motives thereof. That is the problem I'm referring to.

Your problem. I don’t have it or own it.

I refuse the official narrative and it’s fait accompli, vaccine passports. Everyone spouting the same, though constantly shifting, jargon in service of this only strengthens my suspicion of their motives.

 

[pitabread]

Your problem. I don’t have it or own it.

I refuse the official narrative and it’s fait accompli, vaccine passports. Everyone spouting the same, though constantly shifting, jargon in service of this only strengthens my suspicion of their motives.

Again, which is the problem. And you may be wanting to abdicate your responsibility for your own words and actions, but that doesn't change those words and actions.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Again, which is the problem.

Petitio Principii. That which you must prove you cannot use as your proof.

 

[Bobber]

Creationist organizations actively peddle misinformation about science. Of course they have to account for that.

It was thought that Einstein in 1905 was guilty of spreading misinformation about science. Did he have to give account of that in him having to admit that he was wrong when in fact he wasn't. It wasn't for a number of years where they admitted he was right.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here. Are you trying to suggest that creationist organizations don't have responsibility for what they publish?

Depend on what you mean by having a responsibility for what they publish.

 

[pitabread]

Petitio Principii. That which you must prove you cannot use as your proof.

We know that vaccine hesitancy and anti-vax views are a problem. We have the data re: vaccinated individuals versus vaccinated and the relative rates of infection/transmission, hospitalizations, and deaths. That's not a point of debate; it's just facts.

The thesis of the video linked in the OP is what contributes to this (anti-vax), specifically in the broader context of organizations and individuals spreading anti-science materials and creating distrust of science in general. Your posts are simply serving as an example of exactly what the video in the OP is talking about.

 

[pitabread]

It was thought that Einstein in 1905 was guilty of spreading misinformation about science. Did he have to give account of that in him having to admit that he was wrong when in fact he wasn't. It wasn't for a number of years where they admitted he was right.

Again, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

If you think these are somehow comparable examples, I don't recall Einstein peddling religious beliefs in lieu of science. Challenging scientific paradigms with science is not the same thing as trying to undermine the institution thereof.

Depend on what you mean by having a responsibility for what they publish.

Going back to the thesis in the OP: creationist organizations are peddling misinformation about science and creating distrust of science and scientists. Then when something like a global pandemic comes along and people are asked to trust in science and scientists (e.g. development of a vaccine against an illness), people that have been cultured to mistrust science may be more difficult to reach in that respect.

IOW, these are the unintended consequences of what creationist organizations have been doing for decades.

And yes, I know creationist organizations aren't solely responsible or the only cause. But there does appear to at least be some overlap. That creationist organizations are now getting into arguments with their own followers about vaccines is quite telling.

 

[Mark Quayle]

For treating viral infections?
Why not take measures to PREVENT the infection in the first place?

You haven't responded to 'why ignore treatments that work?'.

I know you have admitted to not being a scientist - are you now a medical expert?
Do you understand the difference between in vitro and in vivo? That dosages for treating a parasitic illness are not the same for others?

If the treatment is shown repeatedly to work, BY SCIENTISTS AND EXPERTS, DOCTORS IN THAT PARTICULAR FIELD, and they get shouted down as 'dangerous', 'ineffective', etc, I don't need to be a medical expert.

I'm tired of a pudgy right-wing trust-funder who has never truly worked a day in his life and has no scientific background telling his gullible audience that masks don't work and the vaccines don't work for purely political reasons.

Who would you be referring to there? (I hope you are referring to me! You would be SO wrong!)

 

[essentialsaltes]

It was thought that Einstein in 1905 was guilty of spreading misinformation about science.

Pics or it didn't happen.

 

[pitabread]

If the treatment is shown repeatedly to work, BY SCIENTISTS AND EXPERTS, DOCTORS IN THAT PARTICULAR FIELD, and they get shouted down as 'dangerous', 'ineffective', etc, I don't need to be a medical expert.

Generally treatments are shown to work via properly conducted and published clinical trials. Are you talking about published clinical trials or something else?

 

[Estrid]

Comparing believers of Young Earth Creationism and anti-vaxxers is a false equivalence.

Creation Ministries, especially, has always been careful to distinguish operational science and historical science. The study of immunology fall under the latter; the experiments involved in that field are repeatable and reproducible, and therefore the reports on the efficacy of a newly-developed vaccine is easily falsifiable by a different laboratory/research team testing the sample of the vaccine on a sample of the virus strain and see whether or not the product works as advertised (although, of course, in vitro and in vivo experiments may produce different results due to the variety of the human body response in different individuals -- which are in turn affected by a myriad of other factors from genetics to pre-existing health conditions -- and this adds the complexity of verifying any scientific claims, especially when it involves health & wellness).

The evolution vs. creation debate, meanwhile, is a historical science. It is neither repeatable, reproducible nor falsifiable, as we cannot re-create the Big Bang or whatever origin story one believes in, and as a result the proponents of any such theory would rely more assumptions and presuppositions (i.e. faith) in order to reach a conclusion on the narrative. History, after all, are based more on eyewitness accounts, testimonies, written records such as letters and memoirs, rather than actual empirical evidence. And while the origin narrative a person holds can have philosophical implications that might influence the rest of their worldview, it doesn't determine the authenticity of their scientific authority -- just as a programmer doesn't need to know how their computer and the history behind its invention, to be able to create a functioning software.

As for the issue of fostering science distrust, I think it has more to do with the people's general wariness against government bodies, large institutions and media outlets who tend to have something to gain by promoting their version of truth claim (whether or not it actually true) and have the power to get away with the consequences if they are disproven. What they believe about the origins of the universe seems hardly a factor in these issues.

All the talking points of the anti science, anti intellectual
position that the professional creationists promote.

Anyone skilled in the art would recognize this sad performance.

 

[Estrid]

Baloney. I’m Covid-recovered, so I’ve looked at life from both sides now.

There's a lot more than two sides of life.
Joni Mitchell notwithstanding.

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

While true, this doesn't absolve creationist organizations from being part of the broader movement fostering mistrust of science and contributing to science denialism.

That's really the point of the video. It's about holding creationist organizations to account for their role in this and being part of the problem.

There is also definitely overlap with anti-vaccine and creationism. Dan talks about this in the video in the context of acceptance of conspiracy theories and the overall mentalities involved.

I also noticed in my own experience here that early in the pandemic (before COVID denialism was banned on this site) that a lot of people here propagating such views were also creationists that had argued against science in this subforum.

Hi men are liars and have theft, murder, a lust for power and control as part of their make up. My distrust is in men not science and the science can be debated and over time the truth will be known. But wicked men will certainly try to create a scientific consensus to forward their schemes.

Vaccines, climate science and all have the highest potential for fraud theft and control.

 

[d taylor]

-​

Atheist and even people who identify as christian, who believe science over God's creation account in The Bible. Just right now, do not really realize how dangerous creation is. The truth of creation in The Bible will eventually bring about the demise of this evolution facade that is part of satan's kingdom rule.

Talk about a new normal, well it is coming and it will do away with the falseness of this age.

 

[pitabread]

The truth of creation in The Bible will eventually bring about the demise of this evolution facade that is part of satan's kingdom rule.

These sorts of goofy predictions have been said for centuries and have zero credibility.

The real threat is going to be climate change and the reduction of a livable climate. But that is entirely a man-made threat.

 

[pitabread]

Hi men are liars and have theft, murder, a lust for power and control as part of their make up. My distrust is in men not science and the science can be debated and over time the truth will be known. But wicked men will certainly try to create a scientific consensus to forward their schemes.

Vaccines, climate science and all have the highest potential for fraud theft and control.

Here we have another example of the types of conspiratorial posts that Dr. Dan highlighted numerous times in the linked video in the OP. And thus further reinforcing the need for vaccine mandates.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

We have the data re: vaccinated individuals versus vaccinated and the relative rates of infection/transmission, hospitalizations, and deaths.

You have the curated data. "It's just facts" won't do when counter data is presented and then summarily dismissed because WE SAY SO.

 

[Estrid]

These sorts of goofy predictions have been said for centuries and have zero credibility.

The real threat is going to be climate change and the reduction of a livable climate. But that is entirely a man-made threat.

Climate change, maybe.
We've soil degradation, microplastics, pollution
of a million kinds, loss of habitat/ biodiversity
acidification of the oceans.
Don't be too sure of your predictions unless it's
"If the thunder don't get you then the lightning will".

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

But wicked men will certainly try to create a scientific consensus to forward their schemes.

Truth.

 

[pitabread]

You have the curated data. "It's just facts" won't do when counter data is presented and then summarily dismissed because WE SAY SO.

What counter data?

And if you're genuinely trying to argue that the pandemic isn't nearly as bad as the data shows, you'll be hard pressed to argue that one. Not unless going into rampant conspiracy theory la-la land, which is where I suspect you're going anyway.

 

[Estrid]

You have the curated data. "It's just facts" won't do when counter data is presented and then summarily dismissed because WE SAY SO.

Who are "we"?

Do btw you say the same of creationist data?