Liberal educated non-fundies accept evolution; conservative uneducated fundies don't

[Ediacara]

Or:

Here's a graph telling us something we all essentially knew already.

In graph form.

The percentage of respondents believing in human evolution is plotted simultaneously against political view (conservative, moderate, liberal), education (high school or less, some college, graduate school), and respondent's religious denomination (fundamentalist or not). Belief in evolution rises along with political liberalism, independently of control variables.

From Science Magazine via ScienceBlogs.

[deadmessengers]

1. In other news...

...Bush has a double-digit IQ, the sun occasionally rises in the east, and water tends to be wet

:rofl:

[sakabatou]

120. Hah!

[patrice]

2. Fearful people need to define God in order to feel safe.

No Mystery.

No Faith.

:-(

[Quantess]

123. Your short post says a lot!

Spirituality is mystery. "God" cannot be fully known on this earth. "God" cannot be defined by humans, because we don't have the capacity to know the entirety of the supernatural.

That's how I feel, anyway.

[SmokingJacket]

3. What I find interesting is the middle ground: fundie liberals, for example.

Or highly educated conservatives. It seems that liberalism is a more accurate indicator of acceptance of evolution than either religion or education. WOW.

[LoZoccolo]

156. And yet we still have people using the word "fundie" to describe people who take our positions. n/t

[young_at_heart]

4. So, how do we explain Bush? He has a Master's degree!

Doonesbury today captured this subject very well. The professors who passed Bush along should be ashamed.

[DuaneBidoux]

147. I'll bet he does secretly believe in evolution but won't say so

because of political expediency (that is, fear of offending his conservative base).

I don't think anyone could possibly get out of Yale (even a "C" student) without accepting evolution as a scientific fact.

[mainegreen]

5. So 14% of Grad School non-fundies don't believe in evolution?

So, what the hell do they believe in?

:shrug:

[Reterr]

8. I was caught by that too

I also hate it when the media puts it thise way "believe in the theory of evolution", "believe in global warming".. Yeah cause its faith-based :eyes:

[krispos42]

18. And, of course, believe in the theory of gravity...

[WindRavenX]

40. you mean "intelligent falling"

:sarcasm:

[krispos42]

43. rotflmfwao!

:spray:

Oh, that's a good one! I'll have to remember that!

:yourock:

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

86. Aye that's a major flaw in our language

We need to keep the verbs to believe (faith based), and to think or know (logical/factual deduction based) completely seperate. The way we organize our language really sets the limits for what we're capable of thinking to a degree.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

92. "Believe" is only taken to mean "faith-based" by a small section of the populace.

Apart from some atheists, most people don't regard the term "belief" as having any connotations as to how that belief was arrived at. I would certainly say I believe in the truth of the theory of evolution (not quite the same as "I believe in the the theory of evolution, but the difference is largely semantic) without thinking about it, unless I was talking on DU where I know the word "believe" raises hackles oddly.

[Hippo_Tron]

118. Evolution is fact, Darwinism is theory

Stephen Jay Gould wrote about how opponents of evolution mix the two up so that they can call evolution a theory when it really isn't.

[BlooInBloo]

11. Keep in mind: they still count low-objective-test-scoring fields such as education and journalism...

... as "graduate".

EDIT: Indeed, I've got $10 that says 50%+ of those graduate creationists are in "education" programs.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. And we all know how stupid teachers are

:sarcasm:

[BlooInBloo]

24. Yup.

EDIT: You can bitch all you want, but I'm nothing more than an unafraid messenger of a KNOWN issue: http://www.illinoisloop.org/gross.html )

[WindRavenX]

49. that link has no statics or anything quantifiable to support your hypothesis

So, game over.

I don't doubt that there's grade inflation--it happens in ALL fields. Business, English majors all have it. Doesn't mean they're dumb.

[proud2BlibKansan]

53. That 'claim' has been going around since before you were born

It wasn't true then and it's not true now.

And it makes me ill to see it here on DU.

[WindRavenX]

59. yup

Very sad.

Of course there are bad teachers. Doesn't mean the whole idea of educators is a scam.

[proud2BlibKansan]

61. There are also bad doctors, bad lawyers, bad politicians,

and I have a really bad neighbor. I wonder what he did for a living before he retired? hmmm

[BlooInBloo]

69. Oh. When was I born?

[Zhade]

73. Yesterday, apparently, since you don't even know your source is a RIGHTWING LIAR.

NT!

[BlooInBloo]

78. lol - thanks for that piece of info. Thankfully the straight gre numbers can't lie.

But thanks for the info on that link tho!

[Zhade]

81. No, see, your argument has been defeated.

Your link to a rightwinger doesn't even have the evidence you claimed it did.

You lied, and you're lying about the GRE numbers, as p2bl already busted you on.

You lost. Deal with it, and be glad that you were wrong about how 'dumb' teachers are.

[WindRavenX]

82. what numbers?

You haven't posted anything--repeating "teachers are stoopid" enough doesn't make it any more true.

[BlooInBloo]

108. Sorry - was watching the football game. Ok, I whipped this up from ETS...

... please confirm my calcs. It's a medium-sized dataset, I could easily have made a mistake.

http://sherifffruitfly.googlepages.com/educationdoesn%26%2339%3Btmixwiththegre

lol - It actually didn't occur to me that anyone actually doubted the simple numbers. I guess it makes sense, if everyone bitching here is an education major... Vested interest and all...

Anyway - Lemme know if I screwed up some calculation or other.

[ulysses]

76. she wasn't talking to you. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

112. Actually I wasn't talking to you

But that is pretty easy to figure out once you learn how to negotiate this message board.

[BlooInBloo]

68. LOL!!! You don't like 1 link = game over. Must be a teacher.

[WindRavenX]

71. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

You've provided 0 evidence in support of your hypothesis.

Next.

[Zhade]

77. Not only that, the source is highly dubious.

(That's another way of saying that bib's source is a lying rightwing asshole.)

[WindRavenX]

79. just saw that. LOL.

sigh.

[Zhade]

75. Your one link is to a LYING RIGHTWINGER, game over.

NT!

[Zhade]

70. Why are you buying lies from a rightwinger?

Look what else that author (and I use the term loosely) has written:

Masters of the Dream by Alan L. Keyes and Martin L. Gross - yes, THAT Alan Keyes.

The Great Whitewater Fiasco: An American Tale of Money, Power, and Politics by Martin L. Gross - what fiasco? The only fiasco was the rightwing lies about it.

The list goes on and on. Your source is a LYING RIGHTWING NUTJOB.

Things like this, and your past anti-gay remarks, reflect quite poorly on you.

[Quantess]

124. I'm going out on a limb here....

My GRE scores were better than anyone I knew of. My GRE scores were so high, they were the make-or-break factor for me getting accepted into very competetive Grad programs in Speech-Language Pathology.

I never intended to work in schools, but that's mostly where I ended up working.

I was NOT a very good high school teacher. I blame the working conditions about 50% of the reason I was not very successful in High School Education.

I was never trained to teach high school classes. I have had extensive training in small-group special education, which is what I'm good at, but, I stank teaching high school. Honestly, I'm sort of upset they (the school district) put me in charge of regular-ed students, and special-ed students who did not have Speech-Language IEPs, all together in a classroom, with no curriculum.

[Quantess]

128. And now I feel like I'm a huge failure.

I'm obviously a smart person with great academic skills.... and amazing GRE scores.
But I'm not a *great* teacher, and I do not want to continue in Speech Pathology.

I chose the wrong profession, now what do I do? I'm stuck with a Master's degree in Speech Language Pathology. I'm a smart person and I feel like a big failure.

[ulysses]

28. but aren't you glad to see the support

from our political compadres?

:eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. And again with this "Teachers have low SAT / GRE scores crap"

Where do they get this nonsense? Graduate schools won't accept students with low GRE scores. That's what the GRE is for - duh!

[ulysses]

47. besides which, I figure I'm bright enough to have figured out

that one score on one test is a fairly poor basis on which to determine a construct like intelligence.

Then again, I teach. ;-)

[BlooInBloo]

142. Have a look at the ETS' numbers? (Just saw this thread pop back up)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

145. Teachers don't have to grad school

So what does GRE have to do with anything?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

96. I'm writing this title and the first paragraph with an open mind, then I'll google.

The title of this post, and this paragraph, are written with an essentially open mind on the standards of teachers in the US. I don't know whether they're on average less intelligent than other fields, and have no information as to whether they are or not. I have a slight suspicion that they will be, based on conversations with a couple of (extremely intelligent) newly-qualified teachers here in the UK who believed that a great many of those in training with them were stupid and/or ignorant, but that's neither a rigorous measure or a statistically significant sample.

I'm now going to google to see what I can find on the subject on the internet, and try and form an opinion one way or the other based on that.


(Pause for reading here).



The first thing that strikes me is how hard it is to construct a google search that produces relevant information.


http://ace.acadiau.ca/arts/phil/why_phil/scores.htm is a list of SAT scores by major, but no indication of where they come from. If they're reliable, it's fairly conclusive evidence that people taking education majors are, on average, less intelligent than other college graduates (although presumably more so than the population at large). I see no reason to doubt that they are.

Observations: Undergraduates who major in Education score worse on average than any of the other listed majors in GRE verbal; considerably worse on average than any other major in GRE maths and something called the "Law School Admission Test" (whatever that is), and worse than anyone except business majors in the "Graduate Management Aptitude Test".


http://www.reformk12.com/archives/000094.nclk is explicitly trying to make the case that standards among teachers are low. This one does quote sources; it takes its information from the reports of the College Board. It observes that Education majors do worse, on average, than practically every other major in SATs.


http://www.illinoisloop.org/gross.html is the link that BlooinBloo provided. It's been repeatedly and angrily dismissed as "right-wing lies" but no serious attempt at a rebuttal has yet been produced in this thread as far as I can see (my apologies if I've overlooked one), which inclines me to credit it more than I would otherwise. Again, no sources are referenced. Ignoring its analysis, the factual claims it makes include:

:-Education majors on average score lower than other all majors on GRE tests
:-Education courses in colleges are easier to score high grades on than those in some other subjects.
:-That doctorates of Education have lower standards that PhDs.

http://www.aft.org/topics/teacher-quality/prep.htm is a resource from a teacher's union. It says

"The current state licensure exam system poses several serious problems for those concerned about the quality of teachers entering the classroom:

:-The tests measure low-level knowledge and skills, not the candidate's command of college-level work;
:-Cut scores for those tests are often very low and, on occasion, are waived even at that low level;

etc"


My initial conclusions:

:-I'm not convinced I've got a balanced set of sources; it wasn't obvious how to go about googling this up, and I suspect I've hit sites "attacking" more than those "defending", if such exist. However, the fact that even a teacher's union is expressing concern about the standards of some of those entering the profession is striking.

:-The claim that education majors are, *on average*, less intelligent than those majoring in other subjects, appears to be well-founded.

:-I am inclined to believe the claim that modules in education in colleges are, *on average*, easier than those in science, but I'm not totally confident of that. I *am* reasonably confident that in the UK A-level system "traditional academic" subjects (maths, English, physics etc) are quite a lot harder than "soft" ones like media studies and business studies; this makes me suspect that the same is likely to be true of "soft" majors (of which I suspect Education is a classic example) in American colleges, but this is obviously not in itself evidence.

:-All the comparisons I've found have been between those majoring from college in education and those with other majors. I haven't found any comparisons between teachers/education majors and the American populace as a whole.

[ulysses]

99. so, what's your take on the claim that

"50%+ of those graduate creationists are in "education" programs", or that teachers are the stupidest among the "educated" populace?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

140. I doubt the first; the second needs more qualification but has some truth to it.

The first claim strikes me as deeply improbable. It appears from the OP that about 40-50% of those Americans in college, and 20-40% of those in grad school, are creationists.

I suspect that 50% of those numbers is considerably more than the fractions studying Education, so even if every single teacher-to-be was a creationist they probably still wouldn't account for 50%, and I very much doubt that's anywhere near the case.

It may well be the case that a higher proportion of ed majors are creationists than is true of other majors, but equally it may not - I suspect ed majors are disproportionately liberal, and hence may actually be less likely to be creationist.



The second claim is doubly overgeneralised. Firstly, it leaves out the *crucial* words "on average", and secondly, the evidence appears to support "among the" but not necessarily "the" - school administrators and government majors appear to score comparably low.

The claim that Education is one of the, and posssibly the, subjects whose majors are on average the least intelligent does appear to be reasonably well supported, however.

[BlooInBloo]

174. (a) thus the conceptual interest in the bet I made (with myself, as it were)...

... (b) Curious: what *other* *standard* ways are there to *correctly* attribute a characteristic to a large aggregate? (In other words: I didn't leave it out - it *didn't need to be said*.)


EDIT: On my (a): It's my impression that, by contrast with, say, agriculture majors, education majors are more-or-less uniformly distributed across regions of the country (as a percentage of all local majors, perhaps), and (2) being liberal or conservative has substantially more to do with where one is within the country than it does with being-or-not an education major. So, e.g., I would expect that the difference in likelihood of being conservative between an Arkansas ed major vs an Arkansas anything-else to be small, compared to an NYC anything vs an Arkansas anything.

Of course it's possible that I'm mistaken in that, but *given* that, it might make it easier to see how my bet with myself doesn't appear to be trivially lost.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

177. "X are more Y than Z" without qualifiers means "All X are more Y than any Z".

The claim "Education majors are more stupid than other majors" can be refuted by finding any one education major more intelligent than any one person majoring in something else.

This is particularly relevant to gender rights debates, where a lot of people make roughly the following sequence of claims:

"Men are on average taller than women; see these statistics that prove it."

"Men are taller than women"

"As height is a vital quality for potato farmers, no women should be allowed to farm potatos"

and then appear blind to the suggestion that a better way to recruit potato farmers is to measure the height of each individual, rather than only to admit men.

"On average" is a vital, vital qualifier (especially if, like me, you're a mathematician). The majority of statements that are true if you include it become false if you remove it.



I still think your bet is trivially lost because I suspect that there are far fewer than half as many education majors than there are Creationists in colleges across the US. Something less than 1% of the American populace are teachers; there will be more education majors than that but not by an order of magnitude; something more than 40% are Creationists.

[BlooInBloo]

179. "false"'/"invalid" isn't the same as "elliptical"/"enthymematic".

What I did was provide anyone with the specific *goal* of saying I was wrong with a specious means of doing so. Someone even slightly open to the idea that what I said was true would immediately supply the obviously required concept.

But it's a minor issue in any case - the general GRE-bottom-of-the-barrel issue would seem to be settled.

[proud2BlibKansan]

102. "That doctorates of Education have lower standards that PhDs."

Uh, doctorates in education ARE PhDs.


Kinda blows that theory right outta the water, eh?

[JohnLocke]

107. No.

The Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) can be earned in education (Ph.D. in education). It is a academic degree.
The Doctor of Education (Ed.D) is a professional doctorate (sort of like a J.D. or M.D.) in education.

They have different requirements but are at the same level (they are both doctorate degrees, and thus are equal).

"Since the Ph.D. is the most popular and common form of the research doctorates among university professors in the United States, there is often a perceived bias in favor of the Ph.D. over other doctoral designations, however, in the United States, for educational administration positions, the Ed.D. degree is often preferred and looked upon as more practical than a research Ph.D. degree. The U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) recognize numerous doctoral degrees as equivalent (but see footnote 2 here). A list can be found at doctorate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Education

Aside from that purely factual note, I have little to offer to this conversation (and aren't particularly interested). :)

[proud2BlibKansan]

111. PhDs in Education are PhDs

I know several of them. I applied and was accepted in a PhD program. Yes, they are the same as PhDs in other fields.

Yes there are other types of doctorate degrees in education, like the ones you mention. But there are indeed PhD programs that are just as intense as in any other field. It depends on what university you get your PhD from.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

134. i have seen

I have seen some pretty damned stupid Ed.D.'s as staff at a medical school. Complete idiots. I don't know if they are easier to get than the Ph.D.

[BlooInBloo]

109. Here's the ETS' numbers, if you find that helpful...

http://sherifffruitfly.googlepages.com/educationdoesn%26%2339%3Btmixwiththegre

Draw your own conclusions.

[WindRavenX]

22. excuse me, I will be going into education to TEACH biology

I will be graduating in may with a biology degree from a top 20 college and I do not appreciate your implying that those in education are somehow less intellectual.

[BlooInBloo]

25. (shrug) Noted.

[proud2BlibKansan]

56. Have you been here long enough to notice

there are quite a few DUers who are teachers? Public school teachers.

Did you know that protecting and supporting public education are progressive values?

You will find we will be glad to discuss problems in education with you but you'll find we insist on keeping it an honest conversation.

[Zhade]

80. bib didn't start honestly; the link is from a rightwing author.

Busted THAT lie pretty fast. :)

[proud2BlibKansan]

105. High Five!!

:hi:

[BlooInBloo]

110. lol! error = lie only to education majors. And an admitted error....

... an error whose resulting gap has now been plugged.

lol! Gotta love education majors (and/or their supporters).

[Zhade]

114. You lied about the GRE significance, as p2bl busted you on.

And you linked to a rightwing liar.

I don't care that YOU'RE not convinced; others can read your argument and conclude that it's full of shit on their own.

[BlooInBloo]

116. Oops - replied in wrong sub-branch....

... lol! I *definitely* hope someone checks my calcs of the ETS numbers now - doesn't seem to be my night - lolol!

[BlooInBloo]

115. I lied about nothing. You're welcome to continue repeating it though...

... I have no doubt that a large number of DUers will happily rally around anything, if repeated often enough. Hop to it!

EDIT: For example, the idiotic notion that Pelosi is 3rd in line for the Presidency.

[Hippo_Tron]

119. Pelosi isn't 3rd in line for the Presidency?

Did they change the Presidential Succession Act?

[BlooInBloo]

121. Note to self: Don't ever overestimate people.

[Hippo_Tron]

135. See post #125 you'll find I've replied to you in the 3rd person

[Hosnon]

125. Second...if you want to be anal about it. I'm sure you know that it goes

President, Vice-President, Speaker, etc. (which is why it is anal to say 2nd not 3rd). The Veep is the first in line for succession while the Speaker is second in line.

Furthermore, the President and Veep, for all practical purposes, have to die together. If the President dies alone, the Veep becomes the President and then appoints a new Veep. If the Veep dies alone, the President appoints a new Veep. In other words, there is a mini succession/appointment thing going on in the offices of the President and Vice President which pretty much guarantees that succession will never get beyond the Veep...unless there is some major event or both die together.

[BlooInBloo]

126. lol! Now the difference between 2nd and 3rd in line for the POTUS is being "anal"....

Good job DUers - make the succession of the Presidency into an issue of being "anal" - for the craven reason of diverting attention from being mistaken. And all when a moment's thought (rather than bitching and whining at me, on a topic about which I'm correct) would have avoided the whole error in the first place.

[Hosnon]

127. First off, I was not mistaken. Second, you know that s/he knows what

the order is.

If it is the line of succession, Pelosi is second. If you call it the "number in line to be the President, including the current President", Pelosi is third.

Bottom line, the poster knows that it goes: Prez, Veep, Speaker and that is what is most important. Indicating that you overestimated his or her knowledge and NOT simply providing the answer is uncalled for.

Edit: And I didn't bitch and whine at you...I didn't even respond to your post.

[BlooInBloo]

129. (shrug) You're the one who said it was "anal".

[Reterr]

130. Wow -you are really not very bright

:wow:

[Hippo_Tron]

133. I was going to say second, but I didn't want to argue with his premise

Wanted to figure out exactly what he was talking about. My assumption was that he was going to present us with a conspiracy theory that before Pelosi could ever assume the presidency they would assassinate her because she's a woman.

Perhaps I assumed wrong and he meant that people think she is 3rd instead of 2nd, and technically 2nd is correct in the context we are talking about. I just assumed we weren't arguing over numbers and it was something else.

[ulysses]

29. let us know how the bet turns out.

[WindRavenX]

31. LOL!!

:rofl:

[ulysses]

37. just for fun, maybe I should pull something out of *my* ass and offer

to put $10 down on it.

"I've got $10 that says that half of those who make harebrained comments about teachers on online message boards are just using their cleverness to make up for their deep-seated insecurities stemming from an elementary school frustration with helping verbs."

Just by way of example, of course. :D

[BlooInBloo]

34. I will - I just don't know offhand how to easily settle it.... Don't matter tho.....

... the teacher-defenders-no-matter-what DU crowd would STILL not take any lessons from it even if the fact were as I'm willing to bet they are.

And so teachers will continue to be among the dumbest segment of "educated" society. Sigh.

[WindRavenX]

36. you're a real treat

if you had a bad experience with your education, I'm sorry.
But most of us are in the business not to mold minds or tell our students what to think and believe, but how to be critical thinkers and to question authority--even the authority that they are being taught from. That's the mission of science teachers. To create critical thinkers and scientifially literate students.

I'm sorry you had an axe to grind against educators.

[BlooInBloo]

41. I don't just the dumb ones, and those who don't want smarter ones.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlooInBloo]

65. (shrug) Blame the football game :)

[ulysses]

38. oh, ok.

And so teachers will continue to be among the dumbest segment of "educated" society. Sigh.

It's fun when opinion masquerades as fact.

[BlooInBloo]

42. I'll take your word for it.

[ulysses]

46. no need for that.

Rather, I would hope that you might embark on a study to discover just how stupid teachers really are, and thus back up your hypothesis.

[ulysses]

83. you *are* going to do this, aren't you?

Surely you would want to prove yourself, right?

[Reterr]

93. Good God man

You keep making these sweeping statements about people in education-does it occur to you that making a sweeping generalization like saying that an entire field is full of "stupid people" is ummm somewhat stupid?

And as for the GRE score-its one of the most useless metrics out there. When I went to grad school for engineering, I routinely had my ass kicked in class after class by people who had GRE scores much lower than mine.

You don't back up what you say with a single fact. You argue like a 12 year old and you are calling other people stupid?!

You know there was study in Nature a while back which showed this IQ curve and it was split up into three sections: the first section consisted of people whose IQs were so high they could guage their own intelligence and had a realistic idea of how bright they were, the second section people who weren't as intelligent as those in the first section but who were bright enough again to be able to arrive at a realistic estimate of their own intelligence/abilities and the third section consisted of-to put it bluntly, people who are stupid and too stupid to even realise that they are stupid and are therefore extremely cocksure and think they are really smart.

Your posts at least read like those written by someone in that third category :eyes:.

[Zhade]

98. And using lying rightwing nutjobs as "proof" is pretty, well, stupid!

NT!

[Reterr]

113. Yup

and no amount of punctuation with "lol" can change that ;).

[Kerrytravelers]

122. Bwwwwaaaaahhhhh !!!!!!!!

Well, I think I found my first Block Poster candidate. This thread has been quite enlightening, hasn't it?

[nam78_two]

131. Yup

Some people are not as clever as they think they are. Quite the reverse actually...

[Zhade]

52. Do you have anything to back up your opinion?

Aside from lies about GRE scores, of course.

[BlooInBloo]

66. Nope. Just the truth about gre scores. Well, and a jillion google links.

[ulysses]

72. LOL!

Unsubstantiated statements about one standardized test and Google. Whee! :D

[Zhade]

84. Um, no, your 'GRE truth' was debunked as a lie upthread.

And screaming "but I kin google, ah swear!" doesn't cut it.

[Reterr]

132. I am fascinated by you

No doubt these comments will be deleted (as they probably should be since they are "personal attacks") but I have had too much wine tonight.
Anyway I have never seen such a potent mixture of sophomoric smugness & self-satisfaction coupled with such abject ignorance and stupidity.

"jillion google links", "truth about GRE scores"..:yoiks:

It is quite fascinating to watch someone who is so patently err...not very bright (to put it kindly) rip on others for "being stupid". I am more blunt than most of the other DUers on this thread who are clearly thinking the same thing but are too polite to say it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

60. And your degree would be in what field?

I am just trying to figure out what gives you the authority to call teachers dumb. A mean 3rd grade teacher who belittled you in front of your peers won't cut it, BTW.

[BlooInBloo]

67. Which one? lol - doesn't matter - none of the three are in education - that's enough...

... for present purposes, no?

[Zhade]

85. It might be, once you actually present some credible evidence.

I mean, maybe YOU think lies about GRE statistics and linking to a rightwing author constitute credible evidence, but we liberals tend to disagree.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proud2BlibKansan]

103. I kinda figured none were in education

None of my degrees are in quantum physics. So guess what? I don't pretend to be an expert in that subject. :eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

162. Let me guess...

Computer Repair, Private Investigating, and Bridal Consulting.

[knitter4democracy]

95. I'm an education grad from an evangelical college.

I can't remember very many, either in elementary ed or secondary ed, who were Creationists. Most were religion majors, Christian education majors, and business majors.

[LoZoccolo]

155. Self-delete. n/t

[Marr]

64. I know a guy with a degree in Biology who doesn't believe in evolution.

I've discussed the subject endlessly with him, and he's never offered a single bit of information to explain his skepticism. He just doesn't buy it.

He joined a religious cult shortly after graduating from college, then left it, then took a job in a lab. I honestly think he chose his area of specialization based on the fact that likes playing with animals. He certainly doesn't know shit about it.

[Quantess]

6. Fundamentalist vs. Not

Question: is that among Christians in general, or are agnostics/atheists included in the "Not Fund" category?

This is really interesting. Could you get a link to the entire article?

[Ediacara]

21. Here is the ScienceBlogs link

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/american_political_conservatis.php

And the cite for the paper in Science is:

Mazur A (2007) Disbelievers in evolution. Science 315(5809):187

[Zhade]

54. A/As can't be included, as this graph plots the religious, not those lacking religion.

NT!

[knitter4democracy]

7. How did they define fundamentalist?

I'm just curious. The church I grew up in was occasionally (and still is) called that, but theologically, they're evangelical, which is different and probably would have different numbers.

[Reterr]

9. Non-fundie "moderates" significantly dumber than their liberal counterparts.nt

[Zhade]

55. That's because today's 'moderate' is yesterday's conservative.

NT!

[seabeyond]

10. a friend and i, and our kids went thru a museum at our university.

she is going for her third degree. very intellectual and smart. and a fundamentalist. we get to the end of the musuem and it is showing a huge ass display, four walls of evolution of earth in the millions.... soil, dinasaurs ect...

i ask her, spreading arms wide, emcompassing all the glorious display with fact... and you say the earth is 6000 yrs old. how do you reconcile that with this....

science isnt factual she says

and i walk off laughing, loud enough to be offensive

my father that raised me, i know so well, been with him my whole life.... would never in earlier days teach me the earth is 6000 yrs old was sucked into fundamentalist movement a couple years ago and put that in front of me.

my brother, really smart wont go for the 6000 years, but will stand up for fundamental right to have it taught in school. he is the most honest person i know. i told him, we know it is not factual, i want academics in the school, not storytelling as fact. yet still he feels both sides should be given and he KNOWS it is not true

[badgerpup]

12. Oh, well that explains EVERYTHING then...(refers to bold text below)

Family was trying to force down my throat convince me that their brand of evangelical fundamentalism as sold by the Church of God Likes Me Best was the ONLY way to avoid burning in HEELLLLL...

Tried to explain, very courteously thank you for your concern, I love you too, but I was not able to share their beliefs.
Sister: "Why do you believe the way you do? Because it's WRONG!"".
Me: "Because it makes sense to me."
Father: "Faith DOESN'T make sense!"
Me: (biting tongue very hard so I DON'T say)
Dad, that's got to be the stupidest, most irrational thing I've ever heard you say.
"......I think the cat wants out."

Why I Bit My Tongue...
My father had been recently, desperately converted. He'd had surgery, radiation and chemotherapy for a glioblastoma...a malignant brain tumor. The treatment had bought him a year, and my sister was POSITIVE that there was going to be a 'miracle'; that not only would the tumor disappear, but all Dad's brain function would magically regenerate.
Didn't happen.

At Dad's memorial service, they kinda lost sight of the fact that HE HAD DIED.
The Good Guys had won! They'd converted him, and they were congratulating themselves and each other, because Dad had 'held out' until about two months before he died. :puke:
Sister was "Oh, he's in Heaven with the Lord, I'm so happy, really I am..." but she was sobbing so hard it was damn near impossible to understand what she was saying.

[seabeyond]

16. living in california i didnt come up against the fundamentalist. catholics, yes

a lot. but never a fundamentalist. living here in the panhandle of texas i have learned so much over the years, things i never knew existed in faith.

[WindRavenX]

33. that's tragic

:hug:

[WindRavenX]

13. "science isn't factual"?

damn, that hurt to read x(

sorry you had to deal with that.

what museum was that?

[seabeyond]

15. damn, that hurt to read

that is funny. it must be what the churches are teaching their people to say when the age of earth is brought up because i have heard that more than once, when i ask if someone is seriously saying earth is 6000 yrs old.

A & M west texas university. the museum is on their campus.

[WindRavenX]

19. well, my SO's entire family & friends don't believe in evolution...

...and since I'm a biologist and going into education, I take this stuff very seriously.

How would your friend react to the fact that there are trees with 7,000 + rings-- meaning it's older than 6,000 years. There's no way getting around that--what could they say?

It really is fundamentalism that's the problem, because while my family has been raised Catholic, there's something about a Jesuit liberal arts education that somehow resists this sort of anti-science horsecrap.

[seabeyond]

23. it is the fundamentalist, i agree. and the answer, i told you.... science is theory

not factual even to those 7000 yr rings. that is the answer to all things. the canyon, trees, rocks, bones, layer of earth.

i am with you. i have argued hard in this area i will to allow academia to teach my kids lies. school is too important to me, and my children's education is too important.

btw, in this area i notice my few friends, the catholic, my hubby... catholic. i always tend to go toward the caqtholic. and there are not that many in this area. my hubby of course a non practicing, lol. but cathlics in claif were always the easiest to get along with... along with the methodists. except when catholics told me i was going to hell cause i didnt confess my sins to a priest. only he could talk to god. never bought into that one.

[WindRavenX]

27. but by definition the tree rings are factual...

omg, I hate arguing with those types of people :crazy:

btw, kudos for taking your kids to mueseums-- all too often kids don't get the experience to be exposed to science.

[seabeyond]

35. that is why when i said what i did to friend, knowing it was there and we

would be getting to it. me, with full intent to ask the question. and i got her answer, i just laughed. doesnt do to argue. they know how stupid it is. they know how stupid it sounds. they are educated. they are taught not to argue the bible it is arguing with god and that is a sin. so they accept it and promote it all the while knowing it isnt truth.

i have told them, i do not take bible literally and i am sure that in some sense their is a truth in what it says, but i do not have to argue facts.... and science to make the bible correct. i can say,.... i do not know all, and i dont know how this works out, but i am sure there is a way somewhere, and i will leave it at that. so much easier when i dont feel a need to battle,... for god. i let universal power have that job.

both boys very intellectual. just today son said something intellectual and i praised him and told him how much i enjoyed his intellectualism, now go off and learn something else, get smarter. many kids today embrace stupid. i was blessed with boys that enjoy being smart. tis a good thing. i dont do stupid well. what kind of mama would i be to a child that continually said "i dont know". eeeew

[WindRavenX]

39. smart IS a good thing-- good for you!

I have seen so many children--particularly girls-- who are not praised for their interest in learning, ESPECIALLY in science.

you rock. :thumbsup:

[Zhade]

87. Good move. Laughing at people who believe insane shit is necessary.

"Science isn't factual" - yet the bible is?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[pinto]

94. IMHO, I disagree. It's not necessary to laugh at people, unless they're fair game,

i.e. public figures, politicians, folks that purposely put themselves out there for public comment. I still hold to some room for a neighbor that believes insane shit and such, long as they don't intrude on my insane shit...lol.

[Zhade]

97. If they vote, I disagree - then they're trying to inflict their insanity on everyone.

NT!

[seabeyond]

100. we are good friends. i told you she is smart. i laughed because it was funny

i was amused. and i know she knows better. she knows i know she knows better. she is educated. same as my father. i know he knows better too. and once they have played this card, there is no need to go further, but a laugh. and whatever.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. Only 57% of conservatives in grad school believe in evolution?

How the hell does a person make it to grad school and still not believe in evolution? That is downright scary.

[WindRavenX]

20. welcome to America

We have probably the most scientifically illiterate population in developed countries. It's a damn shame.

[Ediacara]

26. An that's not just "conservatives," it's non-fundy conservatives

Among fundy conservatives in grad school, the figure is hardly one in three!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

30. And only 86% of liberals in grad school believe in evolution

That's even scarier, to me.

It's almost tempting to put the issue to a DU poll, maybe there are some interesting, liberal, educated alternative explanations to the diversity of species.

The mind boggles.

[WindRavenX]

32. DU has a lot of sympathetic psuedoscience nuts

ID, new age shit...yada yada. It's scary.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

50. Yeah, I'm ignorant of "ID" and "new-wave shit"

But maybe they're new ideas. I was in grad school many years ago

Can anyone summarize those non-evolutionary theories in a sentence or two that a dummy like me can understand?

[WindRavenX]

57. I'll try...

ID: the world is SO complex and SO vast that it couldn't have arisen from "chance" (which is an incorrect understanding of Darwinian mechanics to begin with, lol) alone; thus, there must be an "Intelligent Designer" (read: Xtian God) who made the natural world the way it is.

Dangerous thing about this: it is being tried to be taught AS SCIENCE.

New Age: A lot like ID, only some other stuff I don't remember. Sometime involves a shared "consciousness" or something. Still isn't science.

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. I am beginning to wonder about this poll

no link

hmmm

[Warren DeMontague]

101. Here's the link:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/american_political_conservatis.php

[Hippo_Tron]

117. I'm in college and I could get by without a biology class if I wanted to

I'm actually taking two because the physics and chemistry classes are very difficult and I'm not a science major and have never been great at science. But if I wanted to avoid biology I could definitely do so.

And if they went to a Christian high school that leaves evolution out of the biology class, then there's your answer.

[Zhade]

48. The damages of magical thinking, plotted out for all to see.

Nice find!

[Patchuli]

58. Interesting graph

but I didn't see a space for liberal, education Christians who do believe in evolution and also that the Creator made everything, including evolution.

That aside, I vehemently disagree with the fundies who are affecting the teaching of science to the young. What they believe or want to believe is fine until they affect others' education.

[Ediacara]

104. You would be on the non-fundy side

non-fundimentalists means moderate and liberal Protestants, Catholics, and all non-Christians.

[timtom]

62. why get hung up

over one person's mythology versus another's?

[WindRavenX]

63. science isn't mythology

NT.

[timtom]

137. Can you imagine a fundie making the same statement?

[Warren DeMontague]

74. I don't even know where to start with this post.

You want to fly on airplanes designed by people who were taught "faith based" science, mathematics, electronics and wind dynamics?

...who cares if the wing just fell off? PRAY!

:crazy: :think: :freak: :think: :crazy:

[timtom]

138. Holy Mackerel!

As it turns out, I don't want to fly on any airplane whatsoever until the Draconian airline "terror" problem is rolled back to about 1965 conditions.

Now, then...do YOU want to fly on airplanes designed by people who were taught "faith based" science, mathematics, electronics and wind dynamics?

[Warren DeMontague]

141. The point is, trying to argue that science backed up by physical evidence is an equivalent "myth"

to creationism constitutes some seriously inane blibber blabber. It's essentially equivalent to saying, "The concept of the Moon being made of rock is an idea, and so is the concept of the moon being made of cheese. Since they're both ideas people are capable of holding, it's discriminatory to argue that one is "better" (or "more true") than the other"

Bullshit. The moon IS made of rock. It's not made of cheese. Both ideas are not created equally.

[Zhade]

89. This is science versus mythlogy, not a war between equals.

Science - evidence.

Mythology - none.

See the difference?

[timtom]

139. So, then...

You're in a position to weigh in on, say, quantum chromodynamics, for example. Being a scientist and all, I mean.

[Warren DeMontague]

143. You don't have to be an expert in Quantum Mechanics to know that evolution is a FACT.

Or maybe you thought that you could just get everyone to quake with fear in their urine-filled boots (or, at the very least, stop dogpiling on your head-shakingly goofy post upthread) because you are capable of throwing out big words like "Quantum Chromodynamics".

I'll see your Quantum Chromodynamics, Raise you an Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky thought experiment, toss in a Bell's Theorem and a Wigner's Friend, and call your bluff.

[timtom]

168. There. See?

Now I know where you live.

But what does the end result of quantum mechanics teach us? (And if you still think this discussion is about Evolution/Creationism then you're very linear, indeed.

What glaring proof have we derived from super string theory? What's the essence of it all?

That the giant turtle DIDN'T really carry a flat world on its back?

[Warren DeMontague]

170. Yes, but you don't get to the places where science is weird

by junking the very evidentiary processes and bodies of knowledge which got you there. To accept the implied possible weirdness of quantum mechanics is also to accept the centuries of scientific discovery which preceded and underlie it.

And as for the quantum weirdness factor- junk science sources like "What the bleep do we know" notwithstanding, anyone who tells you that they *know* what quantum mechanics means is most likely a liar. The majority of physicists who developed our understanding of it have taken the approach of "we're not going to worry about what it means- all we know is, it works"

Yes, this discussion is about evolution/creationism, because that's what the thread is about. All the larger metaphysical considerations, or big cosmological questions that still remain unanswered, in the world don't make evolution an equivalent "mythology" to creationism.

[timtom]

173. Ok...

(By the way, as acerbic as your posts are, you ARE intelligent.)

Here's a bit of a non sequitur: While driving home from work this very afternoon, I turned on Randi Rhodes. She played five minutes of a speech by Martin Luther King (the anti Vietnam "war" speech). About three-quarters of the way through it, I began to sob uncontrollably (well, at least I didn't crash). I wept at the sheer power of his voice and his oratory prowess. I wept that the like of him is not around these days. I wept because HE isn't still with us. And I wept at the country that could have been and now isn't. Much as I am weeping somewhat right now in recalling that experience.

Who on this thread would be the one to approach Dr. King, were he here now, and tell him how fucking stupid he is for subscribing to creationism (as he certainly did)?

[Warren DeMontague]

175. There's a few things going on here.

What you write deserves a considered reply, which I'll try to do even though I don't have a ton of time right now.

First off, look: part of the acerbic-ness you sense is a long-time weariness with fighting these battles, and frustration that in 2007 we're still at it. Maybe not with you, but with people who genuinely think that "both sides" of the evolution "debate" should be taught in public schools. That either the Earth is 4.7 Billion years old or that it's 6,000 years old, so why not teach both? I understand that your goal in this thread was ostensibly to get people to challenge their preconceived notions- more on that later. But primarily, given the political situation this country is in, my reaction to arguments like "science is just another form of mythology" is wont to be a little irritable.

The right complains about "moral relativism" even as they are pushing something far more insidious, a kind of reality relativism where all facts (or, more precisely, the ones they find inconvenient) are questionable, all views on matters pertaining to reality are equivalent. Thus we have a "debate" (for which is, of course, the "jury" is perpetually "still out") on evolution. on Global Warming. No answers are ever accepted. This is a gross perversion of the scientific method, and it has been helped, mostly unwittingly, by some of the purveyors of junk science in the popular culture.

So it's a little frustrating, because these arguments don't take place in a vacuum. Certainly not when every couple years religious right school boards from Pennsylvania to Kansas keep trying to bash science teachers over the head with big, wooden crosses.

But lets get to Dr. King: First off, I'd like to see evidence that he was a "creationist". Not that he believed in "God", clearly he did- but that he specifically discarded or discounted Evolution and Charles Darwin. The argument here isn't about "God"; plenty of people believe in both "God" and evolution- it's about evolution vs. creationism. And even if Dr. King was a creationist, would that nullify his abilities as a leader? His impact on the hearts of millions, including you and I? I don't think so. But it also wouldn't mean he was right about how the human race got here. Einstein was almost certainly wrong about quantum physics- but that doesn't mean Einstein was an idiot, or a bad man, nor does it mean that there is something inherently incorrect about QM just because Einstein couldn't accept it. But I don't believe that Martin Luther King ever argued the Earth was 6,000 years old, or that Dinosaurs were on "Noah's Ark" - Whether or not he was a "creationist" is debatable, hardly "certain". And again, he was a great leader and speaker, but he wasn't a scientist. Hell, people have said that he was a shitty husband- does that make what he did in the context of civil rights any less important? No. It just means that he was human. If he really was a creationist, I would argue that he was wrong about that- but it wouldn't impact the things that he was right about.

Now. Elsewhere in this thread you state that your "goal" in posting your original comments was to "ruffle some feathers" and presumably provoke people to question their preconceived notions. That's great. However, it does poke a big logic hole through the other presumable foundation to your arguments, that all belief systems and outlooks (or "mythologies", if you will) are inherently equal. Because merely by asserting that people should question preconceived notions, by acting in favor of the ruffling of feathers, you are displaying a bias towards a certain worldview, or, if you will a certain approach to the world. An approach that involves asking questions. Challenging assumptions. Looking beneath the surface. Examining the evidence despite what one may think they know.

Without trying to be overly pedantic, that bias is essentially otherwise known as the scientific method. Faith doesn't ask questions of itself; science does. Science is asking questions. Faith is not inherently self-examining, self-critical, self-updating as new information arrives, Science IS. Hence, I think a scientific approach to "where do we come from" is inherently superior to a faith-based one. And that's precisely what this whole deal is about. But the flip side to asking questions is being able to accept the answers, even as one accepts that today's answer may not be the final answer. (it's still a better answer than yesterday's, if it's based on more and better evidence)

...Dig?

Peace.

[timtom]

176. Here's the simple truth:

When it comes to evolution, I go, "OK! Cool!" And when it comes to Creationism, I go, "Hmmm. Probably not how it happened, but anyway..." Each is an attempt to explain or account for a set of conditions which we perceive. And you know as well as I do that this and others points of view continue to vie for supremacy. It is our orientation -- the way we look at the world that pushes one way or another. I believe that Creationism is an attempt to make such an accounting. It's quite naive and limited by today's standards, but every story carries with it a germ of truth. In the final analysis, there may very well be no conflict in the truth each represents. It's just the manner of telling that seems to get people riled up.

I promise I have no horse in this race. Like you, I sometimes snap at the divisiveness of it all.

As to Dr. King. Let's talk, rather, about his belief in God. I would then rephrase my challenge as to who at DU would confront him with how stupid he is for believing in God. And there are those who would do it because they are strong atheists. Personally I wouldn't attack someone over their beliefs, irrespective of how stupid I thought them to be. Except for those who ever supported Bush. Or Reagan. Or Nixon. Those are deal-breakers for me.

Having said that, I guess I understand that everyone has their deal-breakers.

You've made some solid points and I promise to dwell on them.

To paraphrase Adam Clayton Powell, Keep the faith, baby. Let's remember who America is supposed to be and keep fighting the good fight.

[Warren DeMontague]

178. I'd disagree with a few things there.

I don't think "every story carries with it a germ of truth". I don't think there's anything inherently truthful about the creationist accounting of life on Earth. I think every single one of their assertions has been roundly shown to be false, at least the ones that attempt to account for real-world phenomena tied to physical evidence in the observable universe.

As to Dr. King. Let's talk, rather, about his belief in God. I would then rephrase my challenge as to who at DU would confront him with how stupid he is for believing in God. And there are those who would do it because they are strong atheists. Personally I wouldn't attack someone over their beliefs, irrespective of how stupid I thought them to be. Except for those who ever supported Bush. Or Reagan. Or Nixon. Those are deal-breakers for me.

Well, whoa there. That's a rather large piece of goal-post moving you're attempting to do. If your problem is with "strong atheists" on DU who would supposedly call Dr. King "stupid" for believing in God, perhaps starting a thread with some variation of that as the core thesis would be a good place to start.

But let me put it this way; whether or not I am affiliated with "strong atheism" (whatever that may be) on or off DU, it's not in my nature to call anyone "stupid" for saying "I believe in God". I also realize that for some here, merely openly stating "I don't believe in (your) God" constitutes "strong atheism" or even an "attack" on belief. I consider myself an atheist for purposes of the lowest chakra political debate in this country, particularly because I don't believe in anything resembling the Western Monotheistic "God". But that points up an interesting issue; in these debates, people will often bring up the fact that a large percentage of the population supposedly believes in "God" and, well, how could all those people be wrong? (And how dare you call them "stupid" by disagreeing with them) What is failed to be noted in that argument is the question of how many of the "believers" actually agree on what the word "God" means-- not to mention what "he" has to do with humanity or how directly involved "he" was in putting us here, etc. etc. Hell, go into some AA meetings, and you'll find folks doing perfectly fine with the concept of "God" as a doorknob, or a forest of trees. Jefferson's "God" was not Pat Robertson's "God" which is certainly not Dr. King's "God". Some people believe "God" is Love. I believe in Love, so I guess I believe in "God". Some people believe everything is "God", and I certainly think everything exists as much as anything exists, so...

...although I'm not sure what the difference is between saying "everything is god" and "everything is everything". If you say everything is tapioca pudding, tapioca pudding as a concept kind of loses its meaning.

I wouldn't "attack" someone simply over their belief in "God" (nor do I see that done as a widespread phenomeon on DU) but that doesn't mean creationists- particularly ones with a stated agenda of wrecking science education in public schools- get a free pass. Is everyone who believes in "God" an idiot, in my book? Absolutely not. But in my opinion, are the people who genuinely believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and Dinosaurs were on Noah's ark deluded and ultimately, undeniably wrong (without even a "kernel" of truth to their explanation) about reality? Yes, I think so, and I intend to keep saying so.

[Kelly Rupert]

106. How very ignorant n/t

[timtom]

136. excuse me???

All I did is ask a question. You have revealed much about your ability to parse ideas. You seem to be an emotional time bomb unable to deal with ANY thing that challenges your world view.

[Warren DeMontague]

144. "All I did was ask a question" No, you called evolution an equivalent mythology to creationism

and you shoehorned that assertion into a question.

[timtom]

146. It's your fucking arrogance in having

a hammerlock on the "Truth"!!!! You have an issue with certain belief systems that don't coincide with yours. Rational debate is one thing, but the vehemence of the responses to my little post is another. You are all so angry that I called YOUR belief system's validity into question, when, indeed, your beliefs are the absolute truth!

Nothing and I mean Nothing is for certain. Get that, Skippy, and you will have taken a giant step toward wisdom. Until then, you're just another spouting sophist with nothing but more opinions to back up your certitude.

MOreover, you still don't know where I stand on the issue.

[DuaneBidoux]

148. Would you consider the theory of gravity to be a mythology?

I do recognize that there are some post modernist philosophers who believe that everything is a mythology (meaning a lattice work of signs and symbols) that give life meaning and that there is no objective truth.

Is science a mythology to you?

[timtom]

151. In no way is this about what I believe or don't believe

This is about the arrogance of positing a heliocentric universe. This is about the arrogance of asserting once and for all the absolute truth of Newtonian physics. Or Einsteinian, for that matter. Reality is a moving target, and it is asinine to pretend otherwise. We each of us adopt a model of reality that suits us. But for the love of God that doesn't give anybody the right to go "Cock-a-doodle-doo! I'm right and you're wrong!" Because of my initial comment, assumptions were (erroneously) made about my beliefs and then those assumed belief(s) were challenged. Evolution is not the issue. Creationism is not the issue. And my comment to Skippy about wisdom still stands. If one gets hung up on a debate whether the chair is brown instead of red, it might be useful to know that one's opponent is colorblind. And THAT's wisdom.

I'm on the side of Socrates who enjoined others to question their own assumptions. That's my bias as well. (The question will invariably come up, of course, as to whether Socrates really existed.)

Gravity? I am more likely to buy into its opposite: comedy.

[Odin2005]

152. Postmodernist solipsistic crap sucks.

[timtom]

163. So does nihilistic shallow dismissal.

n/t

[Kelly Rupert]

165. Dismissal of the shallow is not in and of itself shallow n/t

[timtom]

172. Kelly,

You must be a very deep person youself. But let's take a good look at what was just said in the above posts.

I really like the concept of "know thyself". (Socrates, among others). Interestingly, according to Plato (in his Dialogues, Benjamin Jowett translation) every time someone (usually a friend of Socrates') would regale him with the latest "truth". Socrates would politely praise that person for being so insightful and then exclaim, "Wait a minute! Your assertion merits further consideration." Socrates would then lead his acquaintance down one or more rabbit trail and get him to repudiate each former truth they had both arrived at.

There's something quite engaging in that approach, don't you think?

Anyway, I find it quite charming that someone who is trying to be snarkily "in the know" would think of the Socratic method as "post-modernist solipsistic crap".

And I find it even more amusing that you would jump on his bandwagon even when you have a only a vague shadow of understanding of what was said.

Now, don't go out and google Socrates, or it might sabotage your impregnable belief system.

[DuaneBidoux]

157. Believe it or not, I really wasn\'t trying to be snide when...

I asked you if you believed in a \"theory of gravity\" as true.

I was truly trying to understand where you were actually coming from. I now understand that.

You are, (and I was at one time because it is terribly prevalent in university teaching for the last 40 years) a postmodernist. You essentially do not believe in an absolute reality or absolute truth(or, perhaps more precisely you claim that no one has a way to know this absolute reality). Everything is seen through the lens of some imperfect observer and subject to his imperfect perspective.

At one time I was uncertain that there is a reality that is absolute. I now do not feel that way. I am less certain if or if not that reality is knowable.

I am unwilling to state that evolution is not closer to what actually transpired to get us onto this earth than \"creationism.\"

[timtom]

166. You know?

You're the only one who seems willing to entertain an intelligent debate/dialectic without resorting to strident ad hominems.

Truth to tell, I am more of an existentialist than anything. "We pays our money, we takes our chances." I make my choices (just as everyone here has done, consciously or not), live as much in good faith according to my choices and hope I made intelligent choices -- for me. And it is my hope for everyone else that they are permitted to do the same.

The reason I created so much mischief on this thread is because I see this kind of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" sort of thing all the time. And it always carries with it diatribe and marginilaztion of those with divergent views.

DU for me is about slaying the dragon before it is too late. We have BIG problems on our hands and not that much light at the end of the tunnel at this moment.

Thanks for being reasonable and sharing your views.

<edited for grammar transgressions>

[DuaneBidoux]

171. I am a progressive because as Colbert states "reality has a well known liberal bias."

Historically those taking progressive positions have virtually always come to be seen later on as visionaries.

But on occasion I have been quite disappointed with some of the debate on DU. I am a progressive where it makes sense--not when evidence points somewhere else. During the incredibly destructive reign of the Republicans I came to depend on DU for sanity but I have discovered that there are people here who are just as irrational and unreasonable when their beliefs are challenged as any Wingnut I have ever encountered.

[Kelly Rupert]

160. No scientist asserts absolute truth.

The world does not need yet another self-proclaimed philosopher, entreating us all to doubt for the sake of doubt. Doubt is the very basis of the scientific system, after all. But doubt and ignorance are very different things, and you misguidedly swaddle yourself in the latter in your pursuit of the former.

[Warren DeMontague]

149. I don't think I have a hammerlock on "truth". I *DO* think it's idiotic to assert

that creationism and evolution are equally "mythological". It's that kind of "teach the controversy" inanity that allows George Bush to argue with a straight face that "both sides" of the Evolution "debate" should be taught in public schools.

If it's arrogance to say that arguments regarding a 4.7 billion year old earth backed up by every shred of geological evidence we have, and an evolutionary tree of life backed up by the fossil record are not equal to some Sunday School nonsense about a 6,000 year old Earth and dinosaurs on "Noah's Ark", then shit, I guess I'm arrogant.

To boot, according to you I have an issue with "certain belief systems that don't coincide with mine". Okay, care to elaborate? How dare I take "issue" with the idea that evolution and creationism are "myths" on equal footing?

And I have "nothing but more opinions to back up (my) certitude". Oh, really? There is no debate- NONE- on Darwin and evolution in the scientific community. Where is your evidence as opposed to "more opinion" to back up your assertion that evolution and creationism are both "mythological"? Who here is the one spouting sophistry? You wanted to slip that "one little post" under the radar, and now you don't appreciate being asked to back it up.

Where I come from, Wisdom not only includes the humility to understand where the frontiers of our knowledge lie, it also includes the ability to accept settled and proven FACTS, even if they may run smack dab into personal prejudices or theological assumptions or even metaphysical conceits about The Way Things Are.

My own council I will keep on what constitutes Wisdom, "Skippy".

[seabeyond]

153. it is for certain, earth is not 6000 yrs old. n/t

[Kelly Rupert]

159. While I hate to break this to you, philosophy is worthless.

No, nothing is absolutely certain. However, for some things, the uncertainty is so minuscule as to be not worthy of mention. Take, for instance, the existence of President George W. Bush. It is certainly possible that he does not exist, and is merely a mass hallucination or a trick by some prankster politicians. However, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of the existence of President George W. Bush, and anyone who suggested that he might not really exist should be laughed down. Take also, for instance, the existence of Neptune. No human has, with their own eyes, seen Neptune. However, we can see the gravitational effects of it, and we can see it with telescopes. Now, it's possible that the gravitational effects have all just been random, and that every telescope has malfunctioned in such a way as to make it seem as if there is a Neptune. However, the odds of this having happened are so ridiculously low that nobody would seriously propose the nonexistence of Neptune with a straight face.

Your tired "but you can't prove anything's for certain" bleatings have been echoed by a hundred thousand college freshmen. They're really nothing particularly inspiring or wise. You impress nobody save yourself.

[timtom]

161. If you are attempting to persuade

then I would suggest you have an ethos/audience problem. There is nothing compelling about your posts. They have the look and feel of nothing more than diatribe.

If you are NOT attempting to persuade, then you have some anger and communication issues to work out.

[Kelly Rupert]

164. I can tell by the reactions you have received

that you are a gifted master in the art of pursuasion.

[timtom]

167. What, exactly, am I trying to persuade you of

in your estimation?

My initial communication was intended to ruffle a few feathers and admonish against smugness.

Did I fail?

[Kelly Rupert]

158. Your question reveals a fundamental poverty of knowledge,

and your reply an unsettling and unjustified faith in your own mental abilities. When someone calls you ignorant, there is a distinct possibility that they are unable to properly consider your opinions. However, there is also the possibility that they have considered them, and found you so unworthy of reply that they simply called you ingorant and moved on.

Your original statement was utterly without value. Your reply was equally so. You are ignorant of science, and I am not going to be your pro bono biology teacher.

[Arugula Latte]

88. I just read a section from George Carlin's newest book

where he talks about how people who believe in UFOs are treated with contempt and called kooks by the media, yet people who believe that an invisible Sky Fairy controls us all are given respect and assumed to be sane, moral people.

[Zhade]

90. Hell, UFOs exist.

In the strict sense of the term, I mean, not that the "aliens among us" types exist.

Gods? No evidence whatsoever.

[Solon]

150. UFOs exist on the same plane as strangers exist...

Just like I can't know everyone on the planet as a good friend, and therefore most are strangers to me, the same is true of UFOs, I have no clue what they are, and there are phenomena that, when you see them, you can't explain them, and so they remain UFOs. Doesn't matter WHAT they actually are, ball lightening, "blue" lightening, swamp gas, comets, meteors, even alien spaceships, if possible, though, the biggest reason why I don't think they are that is because I don't think we are interesting enough yet.

I figured if we wanted to attract alien intelligences to Earth, the most obvious way is through a global thermo-nuclear war, that would emit enough energy to attract attention, and they would probably send a few scientists to study the aftermath. We wouldn't be around, obviously, and I don't think its the BEST way to attract attention, just the most obvious. :)

[jsamuel]

154. Twice as many conservitive fundamentalists believe in evolution if they have gone to grad school

than if they have gone to high school.

[eagler]

169. I count myself in this group.

Evolutionary theory and the Bible fit together nicely.