Are scientists dumb?

[Chris H]

Originally posted by Blackhawk


This is not a good argument because you are attacking your oponents intelligence and not their beliefs.  I think if you stick to their beliefs and your argument is much stronger.   

Not intending to attack intelligence. I'm just very frustrated when I see the same arguements made against evolution, many of which are non-sensical.

Chris

 

[Chris H]

Sorry if I came across the wrong way.

Chris

 

[Nate16]

How did a 1 celled organism end up being me?

 

[MSBS]

well, early in gestation, after the sperm has pentrated the egg, the new single cell, which was you, began to devide.......

Oh, did you mean something else?

 

[Havoc]

Nate:
Get a minimum background in Cell Biology and Biochemistry first. There's no way I can tell you how it works in two paragraphs on a BBS.

That's the trouble with people who argue against evolution. Generally they do not have the background to understand the basics but they want it proven to them in 5 minutes. I have a BSc in Invertebrate Morphology and I still have to defer to the experts on the subject.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Nate16
How did a 1 celled organism end up being me?

Well About 1.3 billion years ago the first eukaryote (a single cell organism with a complex inner structure) which contained many internal organelles such as mitochondria appeared, having evolved from the prokaryote. From the eukaryote, the multicellular metazoa evolved about 680 million years ago. All modern complex life developed from these.

 

let me know if i left anything out.

 

[Gerry]

And lastly, why is it that almost every argument against evolution comes from someone with an obvious religious bias (and a Judeo-Christian bias, at that)?

Why is it almost every argument pro evolution comes from someone with an obvious bias against the Judeo-Christian God?

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by Chris H
Not intending to attack intelligence. I'm just very frustrated when I see the same arguements made against evolution, many of which are non-sensical.

Chris

I understand. And I make the same type of errors in my posts sometimes.  And I would request that if anyone ever sees anything like it to post about it so I can correct it because I am here (and I think you are too) to argue beliefs not put down anyone else.  But I kind understand the frustration. 

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Gerry
Why is it almost every argument pro evolution comes from someone with an obvious bias against the Judeo-Christian God?

Ahh, but this one isn't true.

The problem is, in all the time I've watched these debates, not just here but elsewhere, I've *NEVER* seen a single argument against evolution offered by someone who didn't think that a literal interpretation of Genesis was the
correct alternative.

I've seen evolutionary theory supported by Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, and just about everyone else.

There are many evolutionary biologists who feel that evolution is a stunning testimony to God's glory. They have no bias against Him; if anything, they are biased in favor of seeing His glory everywhere. (A good bias to have, IMHO, but a bias nonetheless.)

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by Gerry
Why is it almost every argument pro evolution comes from someone with an obvious bias against the Judeo-Christian God?

They don't. I believe in God and that evolution is true.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Chris H


At least Canadians aren't teaching creation science in their public schools.

Chris

Well, we're almost there. In the Ontario public school system evolution has all but disappeared from the classroom (except for grade 12 biology). While I doubt we'll ever see creation "science" in the classroom, I wouldn't bet 100% against it.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

So, the answers so far are:

"Are scientists dumb? Not at all. But many of them are blind."

Which is pretty much just rephrasing part of what I wrote and trying to pass it off as an answer.

and,

"Why is it almost every argument pro evolution comes from someone with an obvious bias against the Judeo-Christian God?"

Which has already been pointed out as false, given the variety of faiths by members on this very board. And incidently, I have nothing against God, either. Actually, from what people tell me, He sounds pretty swell.

This has been very telling.

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by Gerry
Why is it almost every argument pro evolution comes from someone with an obvious bias against the Judeo-Christian God?

Not true. Look at the Christians even on this board who belive in evolution.

It's been suggested before by several people but you might try the book Findng Darwins God by Kenneth Miller.

Chris

 

[clue]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
I mean, really, are scientists that bloody ignorant about all this stuff? Are they arbitrarily discarding mountains of evidence just because it doesn't fit in with their pre-existing beliefs about the world in which we live (whatever those may be)?

Do Scientists Cheat?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by clue
Do Scientists Cheat?

I hereby issue you membership card #2 to the "All Scientists are Stupid Liars" club.

 

[Smilin]

Thanks for the thread Pete,

I'll turn the question around...and simply ask...Are all Religous people REALLY gullible (and stupid enough) to take religous teachings and declare them scientific facts?

Proves a point a good friend of mine made in here once:
Most Christians go to church...simply because they are to lazy to study
the bible on their own. I'll add my observation, most Christians reject science that they are 'told' by their pastors, mentors, leaders, etc. to be unbiblical simply because their too lazy to study science.

Turn off your trashy Sitcoms of a night and study...if you seek truth.

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by clue
Do Scientists Cheat?

Wow, someone made a documentary about scientific ethics.  What were it's conclusions?  What is the prevelence of academic research dishonesty?  Did you even watch the documentary?  How does it support your viewpoint?  Looking forward to your answers.

 

[clue]

Originally posted by MSBS
Wow, someone made a documentary about scientific ethics.  What were it's conclusions?

Of course scientists cheat!

Originally posted by MSBS
What is the prevelence of academic research dishonesty?

I'm not sure I understand this question.

Originally posted by MSBS
Did you even watch the documentary?

No, it is no longer available for purchase.

Originally posted by MSBS
How does it support your viewpoint?

NO ONE goes into studying something totally objective.

"Scientists, contrary to the myth that they themselves publicly promulgate, are emotional human beings who carry a generous dose of subjectivity with them into the supposedly 'objective search for The Truth'. ...The anonymous aphorism, 'I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it' is a continuing truth in science. And of course, it cuts two ways: you often see what you expect to see and not what you don't." [Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987, p. 18-19]

in "Do Scientists Cheat?":

"If you want to impress people with how good your science is, if you want to get tenure in a modern university, if you want to get a research grant, you can't afford to come and say, 'Well I think this MIGHT be the case BUT there are all sorts of indications here that it MIGHT NOT be the case and it's all sort of confused.' People always tend in science, as elsewhere, to sharpen up and clean up a story." [Leon Kamin of Northeastern University]

"It doesn't take much to take a little bit of the data, change it the way you want it to look and then publish it - and it's impossible to detect that." [Dr. Bruce Dan, Senior Editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association]

"After the initial inquiry by this committee into this subject [scientific fraud and misconduct in connection with scientific research], the committee has had growing reason to believe that we are only seeing the tip of a very unfortunate, dangerous, and important iceberg." [John Dingell, Chairman of Congressional House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations]

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by clue
Do Scientists Cheat?

I'm willing to grant that there are dishonest scientists, just like there are dishonest doctors, dishonest babysitters, dishonest plumbers, and yes, dishonest creationists. Human nature pretty much dictates you'll find dishonesty no matter where you look.

But that's not the point. So what if a few scientists are dishonest? The only reason we even hear about it is because their work is exposed (I notice that the first "highlight" on that list was Piltdown Man; how ironic).

My original assertion was that if it's so easy for AIG, ICR, etc, to disprove all this scientific work, and in such a manner that even the ignorant layman can understand, why is the theory of evolution still going strong?

Why aren't biologists saying, "Oh darn, you disproved the entire theory of evolution. Guess it's back to the drawing board."

Why aren't archeologists saying, "You mean C-14 dating is flawed? Wow, I had no idea! Guess all my work has been worthless!"

Why aren't geologists saying, "You're right! There was a global flood 4000 years ago! How could we have missed that?"

Do you honestly and truly believe these people are that dumb?

 

[wildernesse]

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a giant cultural need for the everyday Joe/Jane to outsmart those egghead idiots in their ridiculous academic setting. The scientists need to be dumb so that the layman can make them look foolish and assert control and stability over an important piece of their lives.

In a perfect fable, the scientists would say, "Golly, I've never looked at it that way before! You must be right!"

It's more American than apple pie that the average joe/farm kid/street-smart kid outsmarts the formally educated buffoon. We're all middle class here in the US, all average--which makes our acheivements even more impressive. hardy-ha-ha.

--tibac