Why do people get so personal about defending evolution?

[JollyRoger]

Absurd. Need I remind you that it was religious insitutions and religious men that kept science and learning alive during that period?

Need I remind you of who was trying to kill it during that time period?

 

[LordRahl]

Everybody knows science, just like religion requires faith. Take your computer for example. Stop believing and it will disappear in a puff of smoke... [/sarcasm]

 

[frob2900]

Need I remind you of who was trying to kill it during that time period?

This side-track will only lead to unfruitful discussion, since the fact of the matter is that before the 16th century science was both being kept alive and fought against by people inside the religious establishment.

The only concrete statement that can be made about it is that the top echelons of the religious establishment were anti-science.

 

[IglooDame]

Copernicus was a catholic priest and Galileo remained a devout catholic all throughout his persecution.

Precisely.

My point being, church doctrine can conflict with scientific discovery, even when the discoverers are religious individuals.

 

[frob2900]

Precisely.

My point being, church doctrine can conflict with scientific discovery, even when the discoverers are religious individuals.

We crossposted.

 

[Che Guava]

But that does not imply a "closed priesthood" that some seem to think science is. If people are so concerned about being left out of science, maybe they should stop watching so much TV and spend some time actually reading. It costs ca $150 to stock up with a library of books that takes you from completely uninitiated to having a full grasp of e.g. quantum mechanics or general relativity. It costs nothing if you go to the library.

I'm not saying that everyone has to do this, of course not. But don't complain about being left out science if you can't bother.

It's a like grossly overweight chain-smoker complaining about being left out of the "sporting establishment".

I absolutely agree: there's always ways to learn if you want to, and the rates of science literacy in the developped world are frankly kind of appalling, especially when you consider that science is a primary driver of change in our society. It's an 'open priesthood' for sure...

I guess what gets me is the number of books, experts, websites out there that offer 'shortcuts'. Without getting into any specifics, there are some some fine examples on the web of 'creationist science' that take complex scientific ideas and reduce them to a presentation of selected 'facts' that leads the uniformed reader to certain conclusions without the benefit of learning the background. Most of these sites tend to use a mix of selective evidence and oversimplified 'common sense' that gives the reader the sense of having made thier own conclusions about the facts without having actually seen all of them, or without gaining a basic level of understanding in the area to give the topic real critical thought.

So I guess that's why I get defensive about evolution: there doesn't seem to be a real debate between creationists and evolutionists because we're not even playing on the same field. When someone tells me that the eye could not have possibly evolved on its own because it's 'too complex' or that 'a blindman couldn't put together a watch' it gets me damn upset. Dismissing the work that hundreds of scientists have done in the area of evolution on the grounds that it is too complicated to be likely (without gaining a real appreciation of the complexity of life as we know it) is akin to me completely dismissing the existance of god because I prayed for sun today and got rain instead. In both cases, it's applying simple reasoning to very complex ideas to confirm pre-existing notions, and that is no way to move forward scientifically or philosophically.

But a completely unrealistic one, and anyone who demands that is just spoilt. I doubt many working scientists have had fireside chats with nobel prize winners

That's why you have to choose an obscure field of science so that you can meet the 'scientific superstars' in that area without all the hullaballoo!

 

[Agent Cooper]

Absurd. Need I remind you that it was religious insitutions and religious men that kept science and learning alive during that period?

...and why was it then, that science and learning needed to be 'kept alive' in Europe during this period?

Because established Christianity and the power of it's advocates and rulers peaked during the Middle Ages - a power partly based on surpressing anything thought to be a threat to the Christian dogma and view of the World.

What brought about the dark ages wasnt that type of thinking, it was pestilance and ceaseless war.

The dark ages are called so, because overall development in Europe (scientific, cultural, political etc.) came to a halt during this period, mainly because of religious impact - actually it moved backwards in some regards. In contrast, the Middle Eastern nations progressed in this period.

Some of the brightest scientific minds our world has ever known were religious men.

Yeah some were, but the everlasting ones became so because they did not let their religious beliefs interfere with their scientific work, which is exactly where Creationism fails.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Actually, most modern historians think "Dark Ages" is kind of a misleading term. The traditional modern view of the past is often highly flawed.

 

[El_Machinae]

This side-track will only lead to unfruitful discussion, since the fact of the matter is that before the 16th century science was both being kept alive and fought against by people inside the religious establishment.

The only concrete statement that can be made about it is that the top echelons of the religious establishment were anti-science.

I think it's because their lifestyles were subsidised by the efforts of the peasants. This is why we have more of every intellectual and non-intellectual pursuit these days: there's more food available per person, even though fewer people are producing food.

 

[frob2900]

I think it's because their lifestyles were subsidised by the efforts of the peasants. This is why we have more of every intellectual and non-intellectual pursuit these days: there's more food available per person, even though fewer people are producing food.

Lol at the analogy with Civ 4. More after the Biology tech gives opportunity to run more scientist specialists

 

[Masquerouge]

Actually, most modern historians think "Dark Ages" is kind of a misleading term. The traditional modern view of the past is often highly flawed.

ooooh And Africa isn't the Dark Continent?

 

[El_Machinae]

Lol at the analogy with Civ 4. More after the Biology tech gives opportunity to run more scientist specialists

I've never seen Civ 4. I swear I thought of that on my own, as a result of courses regarding Industrial Economics.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

ooooh And Africa isn't the Dark Continent?

Yeah, traditional modern geography is often pretty bad as well.

At least dark chocolate is real.

 

[MobBoss]

The dark ages are called so, because overall development in Europe (scientific, cultural, political etc.) came to a halt during this period, mainly because of religious impact - actually it moved backwards in some regards. In contrast, the Middle Eastern nations progressed in this period.

Religious impact? Please.

The largest cause of the dark ages was the fall of the roman empire and the resulting increase in power of the barbaric tribes who had no use for science what-so-ever. Combine that with disease and plague and voila...nice 600 year period thats called 'the dark ages'.

Yeah some were, but the everlasting ones became so because they did not let their religious beliefs interfere with their scientific work, which is exactly where Creationism fails.

Oh, I think you very wrong in that. I am more than willing to bet the YEC folks are researching science to help them prove their theories. Now you may call their findings whack or whatever; but I dont think they are just sitting back saying thus and so.

 

[C~G]

Religious impact? Please.

It was largely because of religious impact.

Of course because of different kind of religious impact over time (mainly education and arts etc.) culture was able to rise out of the ashes like phoenix.

Oh, I'm such a poet at times.

 

[Phlegmak]

Oh, I'm such a poet at times.

You're a poet and you didn't even know it!

 

[frob2900]

Oh, I think you very wrong in that. I am more than willing to bet the YEC folks are researching science to help them prove their theories. Now you may call their findings whack or whatever; but I dont think they are just sitting back saying thus and so.

The problem is that YECs start off with a theory and then do anything they can to massage the facts so that they fit. Real science is by definition in thrall to the facts and will immediately abandon its position when the facts obviously don't fit. Real science also never makes unfalsifiable claims.

Whereas creationists have:
A 6,000 year old earth. No evolution. Adam&Eve. etc.
A hodge podge of stuff that either doesn't fit facts or is completely unfalsifiable and thus completely redundant.

[EDIT]

I've never seen Civ 4. I swear I thought of that on my own, as a result of courses regarding Industrial Economics.

Oh sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were making an analogy with Civ 4 or that you hadn't thought of that. I agree that it was a valid and commendable argument. I was just lolling at the fact that it happened to resemble a Civ 4 game mechanic

 

[Phlegmak]

Lol at the analogy with Civ 4. More after the Biology tech gives opportunity to run more scientist specialists

El_Machinae is exactly correct. More food produced by fewer people => other people can pursue other activities, such as manufacturing or whatever else. This is the central premise of the book Guns, Germs, and Steel.

 

[MobBoss]

Whereas creationists have:
A 6,000 year old earth. No evolution. Adam&Eve. etc.
A hodge podge of stuff that either doesn't fit facts or is completely unfalsifiable and thus completely redundant.

I am not sure you list it right. For one, I was under the impression that evolution was ok with them, just in that all of it has occurred since the creation 6k years ago. Perhaps our local YECer can confirm?

 

[frob2900]

El_Machinae is exactly correct. More food produced by fewer people => other people can pursue other activities, such as manufacturing. This is the central premise of the book Guns, Germs, and Steel.

Yes, I know. I never said he was wrong.

It's also the central premise of the Civ 4 strategy known as "post-biology specialist spam".

Jared Diamond talks funny.

[EDIT]

I am not sure you list it right. For one, I was under the impression that evolution was ok with them, just in that all of it has occurred since the creation 6k years ago. Perhaps our local YECer can confirm?

That's even more crazy than the claims I listed!