What's worse, creationism or homophobia?

[Tony Benett]

sayonara wrote:

 

[part snipped] "(2) In an interview with the BBC last year, Vardy stated that he 'would be concerned if creationism was taught as fact in [his] schools'. So either you are wrong, or he is a liar".

 

REPLY:

 

Excuse me?

 

Look carefully once more at what I actually wrote:

 

"A recent OFSTED report found that Sir Peter Vardy's academy schools in the north of England, where pupils learn 'creation science' alongside (note, not instead of) the theory of evolution, produced excellent results - a very high academic standard and students of good character".

 

I spoke the truth. In Sir Peter Vardy's schools, 'creationism' is not taught as a fact; it is presented as an explanation of origins alongside the theory of evolution. Students in his schools can make up their own minds on which explanation better fits the known scientific facts.

 

And what can possibly be wrong about presenting two rival explanations for origins and asking students to use their brains, and processes of logic and reasoning, to work out for themselves which explanation better fits the facts?

 

If creationism is as inconsistent with known scientific facts as you suggest, why not teach the two alongside each other and let people see for themselves just how good a theory evolution is?

 

Trouble is, recent advances in science are coming ever closer to esxposing evolution as an unsustainable theory, which is no doubt why getting on for 50% of Britons and Americans no longer subscribe to the theory, according to a raft of recent opinion polls on the subject

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[insane_alien]

it is presented as an explanation of origins alongside the theory of evolution.

 

ROFL!

 

one isn't an explanation of origins(evolution) and the other isn't scientific(creationism). you need to learn what evolution is.

 

if it is taught in those schools i hope for the sake of the children that the creationism is in philosophical and religious education rather than science.

 

and no offence, but i trust sayonaras info more than yours. he has a good track record for accuracy.

 

And what can possibly be wrong about presenting two rival explanations for origins and asking students to use their brains, and processes of logic and reasoning, to work out for themselves which explanation better fits the facts?

 

well in this case it is 1 theory that isn't concerned with origins(it might as well be creationism versus newtons laws of motion here) and the other is not a theory.

 

If creationism is as inconsistent with known scientific facts as you suggest, why not teach the two alongside each other and let people see for themselves just how good a theory evolution is?

 

ahh right you want us to teach something blatantly wrong instead of something that is correct. yeah that makes sense.

 

Trouble is, recent advances in science are coming ever closer to esxposing evolution as an unsustainable theory, which is no doubt why getting on for 50% of Britons and Americans no longer subscribe to the theory, according to a raft of recent opinion polls on the subject

 

ROFL!

 

1/ all scientists qualified to comment on the theory of evolution say it works very well

2/science is not a democracy it cares not for popularity among the general public it only cares for merit. evolution has merit(stacks of it) creationism has none

[Sayonara]

Excuse me?

 

Look carefully once more at what I actually wrote:

 

Blah blah blah blah.

None of which lends any more credibility to the Appeal that Authority to you were making, or magically makes OFSTED interested in promoting arbitrary religious beliefs.

 

And what can possibly be wrong about presenting two rival explanations for origins and asking students to use their brains, and processes of logic and reasoning, to work out for themselves which explanation better fits the facts?

Nothing at all. But the fact that Creationism is the only "alternative" presented in place of evolutionary theory in these ostensibly Christian schools is a bit of a giveaway, don't you think?

 

 

Trouble is, recent advances in science are coming ever closer to esxposing evolution as an unsustainable theory, which is no doubt why getting on for 50% of Britons and Americans no longer subscribe to the theory, according to a raft of recent opinion polls on the subject

I think you might mean "Creationist and ID lies and misunderstandings", as opposed to "recent advances in science".

 

Evolution comprises a raft of processes which are going on now, and will continue to go on regardless of human sustenance or opinion polls.

 

 

If you are truly trying to make the case that creationism is better than homophobia, you are not doing a good job. One would imagine that someone promoting genuine Christian sentiments would be bigging up the social and personal benefits of Creationism, and denouncing homophobia, rather than attacking the credibility of evolutionary theory (ha!) and the "validity" of homosexuality.

 

Your angle of attack may be slightly different to the typical YEC forum poster, but you are - I can assure you - not being significantly original or compelling enough to put yourself in a new category.

[iNow]

And again a creationists tunnel vision without regard for fact manages to derail a thread. Super job, religion. Thanks for advancing society so well.

 

Why are hate of homosexuals and creationism problematic? Who cares! Creationism stands in the face of science! Yay!

 

I do believe TB has managed to convince me further that homophobia is not as bad as creationism. I suppose that's pretty sick, since homophobia is so very awful.

[Sayonara]

At least the homophobes are honest.

[Realitycheck]

Time to make another sortie into creationist territory. Be back in a sec.

[Tony Benett]

sayonara wrote:

 

"What we consider to be 'bad' about Creationism as a verb (in the sense that it is the one thing we all agree on as a scientific community; obviously individuals will have additional criticisms) is that in its worst form it has several negative effects on the way in which its supporters think:

- It actively seeks to prevent critical thought,

- It seeks to undermine the education of an entirely valid branch of science,

- It is ludicrously selective in its attacks,

- It passes lies as facts,

- It passes fallacious arguments as reasoning and logic,

- It prevents minds from questioning the world".

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

REPLIES: These are interleaved below:

 

What we consider to be 'bad' about Creationism as a verb...

 

REPLY: Que? It's a noun

 

- It actively seeks to prevent critical thought...

 

REPLY: Au contraire. It is those who for one reason or another support the theory of evolution that seek to stifle all questioning of it, often simply by abuse of their opponents rather than actually engaging with the known facts and the surrounding arguments. Let the theory of evolution be tested against other explanations for origins, as would be the case with any other unproven theory

 

- It seeks to undermine the education of an entirely valid branch of science...

 

REPLY: Wait a minute, the 'education'? Isn't that more than a touch loaded? Yes, creationsists seek to undermine a theory which we say cannot be supported by the scientific facts. Any theory worthy of the name should be able to withstand criticisms of it. If I asked you, for example, to give me even a rough approximation of the genealogical line that took us from the original inanimate cells - that somehow came to life 4.5 billion years ago, and from the earliest 'simple' amoeba, right down to homo sapiens, coud you do so? If not, you don't have a very good theory

 

- It is ludicrously selective in its attacks...

 

REPLY: Is it? No, we bring evidence from biology, from the rocks, from the fossils, from physics, from genetics, and it supports our case. Then we look at the weaknesses of the bases of evolution theory, like the ludicrously inexact and contradictory 'science' of radiometric dating, to give but one example. How precisely are we 'selective'?

 

- It passes lies as facts...

 

REPLY: Isn't that a bit rich coming from a group of 'scientists' who invented false drawings of embryos (Haeckel), constructed the fake Piltdown Man, and falsified the evidence relating to peppered moths? Yes, some creationists have been wrong in some of their claims, and that has been admitted and frankly discussed on the ever-growing number of creationist websites. Can you name just one creationist 'lie' on a similar scale as Haeckel's blatant forgeries and the 50-year shame of so-called 'missing link' Piltdown Man?

 

- It passes fallacious arguments as reasoning and logic...

 

REPLY: Let us have one specific example and I will respond

 

- It prevents minds from questioning the world...

 

REPLY: Virtually the same point as "It actively seeks to prevent critical thought" above.

 

Has it occurred to you that in order to become Christians and young earth creationists, after being brought up on a staple diet of 'evolution is a fact - just accept it', have very much had to use 'critical thought' to reach the place they have reached?

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sayonara]

You are now officially just another YEC nutcase. You have nothing new to offer, and have clearly ignored the thread I directed you towards at the end of my first reply to you.

 

Continue to take the thread off-topic by spreading deceit, and you will be banned. This is your only warning.

 

For the other posters in this thread, please don't bother replying to the off-topic posts, no matter how tempting it may be.

[Realitycheck]

sayonara wrote:

It is those who for one reason or another support the theory of evolution that seek to stifle all questioning of it, often simply by abuse of their opponents rather than actually engaging with the known facts and the surrounding arguments. Let the theory of evolution be tested against other explanations for origins, as would be the case with any other unproven theory

 

 

The book of evolution is 50 million times bigger than the quite unsubstantiated Bible, the parts that really matter. The arguments made against evolution are all lies and deception, arguments taught by professional liars, things that don't really matter. I forgot about my secret weapon, straight from the Pope's mouth. You are a cult follower. Your mission is done.

 

"TRUTH CANNOT CONTRADICT TRUTH"

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

[Sayonara]

For moderator reference, agentchange was writing that post while I was writing mine.

[someguy]

You can't compare nicotine addiction with technology, and how is technology responsible for killing everything on the planet. A technology that has been developed to purposely be compulsive could be comparable to an addictive substance...for instance WOW

 

With regards to what YT said, how is a shed on an allotment a public place...unless YT is selling his home brew to the general public from his shed, I fail to see how it classes as a public area. Cigarette smoke stains on the interior of a shed, are hardly a health hazard.

 

I think you can compare them. why couldn't you be addicted to technology? I find that we are. we are culturally and many of us physically dependent on it. we couldn't live without it, we strive to increase it and gradually increase our dosage, and we cannot get away from it. it is individual but also a social addiction of mankind as a whole. it is responsible for killing everything on the planet because our addiction of technology causes us to consume more and more and as is now quite visible we are creating an imbalance of nature, global warming. but we won't be able to get away from it because we are addicted to technology. pretty much all of us anyways, except for like monks and the amish.

 

Creationist claims, creationist defenses, creationist lies, lies, lies, bla, bla, bla. Give me proof that people lived 900 years. Give me proof that the world was created in 6 days. Give me proof that the Red Sea was parted. Give me proof that the Nile was turned into blood. Give me proof that Jesus walked on water. Give me proof that Jesus was actually dead.

 

Surely, if someone was able to live 900 years, they would have a grand tomb with a body that could be scientifically verified as living that long. Nothing but baseless claims. Creationists simply do not comprehend the meaning of the word myth. Offense is so much more fun than defense.

 

actually the exodus was explained scientifically, i saw it on discovery. the red of the sea and the parting of the sea all the dead first sons, but only first sons, all the grasshoppers or locusts or whatever they were, these were all explained by the indirect influence of a volcanic eruption.

[Daecon]

You see, this thread provides a near-perfect example of WHY I started this thread in the first place!

 

What's that, self-referential recursion or something? ;-)

[foodchain]

sayonara wrote:

 

 

Creationism cannot claim any empirical grounds for its view of nature. ID is nothing more then creationism by another name, all it pushes is genesis, and of course ID also lacks anything empirical to support such.

 

You see, naturalist philosophy, the scientific method, the various fields of science, the one thing that they all typically eventually produce in regards to human efforts in such is empirical explanations about nature, from nucleosynthesis to organic evolution, this is why science claims such. Its not a philosophy, not in the sense that such is purely a perception or state of mind, its the fact that people learned why in nature hydrogen will bond with another element in a certain way, or why it has a certain subatomic structure . Anything science or really a field of such touts as truth usually has empirical evidence to support such, not just words.

 

Creationism and ID are absolute opposites of this, in that not only are such like theology in general built from pure philosophy, it does not, and will not simply make the move to require empiricism, and lastly why would it, sort of be self defeating. The best ID and creationism can do, and does is claim scientific proof as its own proof, I don’t know how but they do, then any unknown variables in an equation towards empirical understanding is typically abused as an avenue to push ignorance is some particular format they desire, you see it all thrives from ignorance!

 

For instance, why does god make males born with XXY, instead of just XY, all kinds of problems from this, or what about people with both sex organs, or any particular trait that’s varies from the norm, like brown eyes, or green eyes, or curly hair? You can find a vast array of different forms of explanations for such in a theological perspective, and the one thing they all have in common is a total lack of anything empirical, and thus again its just ignorance.

 

To me religion being a product of ignorance is no big surprise. Anthropology will disagree with me a bit on this, but I think animism, religion and ignorance of the natural world share healthy bonds, I mean why the conflict overall, because the facts conflict, why so many different forms of animism or religion, because ignorance came before science or empirical efforts. I mean look at the computer keyboard, its designed well for human hands, it must be the work of something higher…

 

I will end at that.

 

--------------------------------

 

As to the OP question.

 

They are both just acts of ignorance inflicting human misery overall, its nothing new, its the reason holocausts occur, so my vote is they are equal.

[Severian]

Wouldn't a better question be:

 

"What's worse, people who hate homosexuals, or people who hate creationists?"

[Royston]

Wouldn't a better question be:

 

Why do the most absurb OP's spark up the most discussion on here ?

 

EDIT: However in response to the above post...if the discrimination is plain bigotry, with no valid reason for hatred towards said group, then obviously they're both as bad as each other.

[ParanoiA]

Wouldn't a better question be:

 

"What's worse, people who hate homosexuals, or people who hate creationists?"

 

Or, how about "What's worse, people who hate or people who rationalize hate?"

[insane_alien]

"What's worse, people who hate homosexuals, or people who hate creationists?"

 

people who hate homosexuals. homophobes are predjudiced without reason, people who hate creationists tend to only hate the nutcases who try to force it into schools as science.

 

the anti-homosexuals are unjustified. the anti-creationists are justified unless they are the ones who apply a blanket judgement to everyone.

[thatbiologyg]

 

P.S. If anyone feels inclined to attack the Bible, fisrt give me one - just one - historical fact in the Bible that has ever been disproved

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

ROLF, you're kidding right? It would take days to write all the historical inaccuracies, contradictions and fallacies in the bible here. I'll just link to this site: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[ParanoiA]

the anti-homosexuals are unjustified. the anti-creationists are justified unless they are the ones who apply a blanket judgement to everyone.

 

Hate can be justified? I think hate is far more dangerous when it's rationalized by otherwise thinking people....

[YT2095]

by definition the word "Hate" implies "Without Rationale".

 

I therefore think that perhaps the Wrong word is being used here, or Bad terminology.

[thatbiologyg]

 

Isn't that a bit rich coming from a group of 'scientists' who invented false drawings of embryos (Haeckel), constructed the fake Piltdown Man, and falsified the evidence relating to peppered moths? Yes, some creationists have been wrong in some of their claims, and that has been admitted and frankly discussed on the ever-growing number of creationist websites. Can you name just one creationist 'lie' on a similar scale as Haeckel's blatant forgeries and the 50-year shame of so-called 'missing link' Piltdown Man?

 

 

 

Isnt that a bit like categorizing all Christians as lying hypocritical jerks because a few of their ranks have committed sexual improprieties (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5112770,00.html)?

 

 

As for creationist arguments against evolution, what a joke and what a massive waste of my time. If God created all species de novo, then why should they form neat little phylogenies showing there genetic and morphologic relation to each other. Why should they have any relation what soever, why should we share hox genes with invertebrates (nice little link if you don't already know about this http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evodevo_05)?

 

It's fine if YOU choose to substitute blind faith for logic, but please don't suggest that our children be asked to do the same. I find it repugnant that my daughter should go to a public school and be taught a "theory" founded in religion.

[ParanoiA]

by definition the word "Hate" implies "Without Rationale".

 

I therefore think that perhaps the Wrong word is being used here, or Bad terminology.

 

Well, not really.

 

1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.

2. to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.

–verb (used without object) 3. to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility.

–noun 4. intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility.

5. the object of extreme aversion or hostility.

 

"Hate" is more a description of the level of aversion, whereas "rationale" is about the reasoning for that aversion. When someone tries to make a case that it's ok to hate something, that's rationalizing hatred.

 

Like, hating child molesters is an example of hatred with rationale.

 

Now, I would certainly challenge the logic behind rationalizing hatred for creationism, but not for child molesters.

[insane_alien]

maybe it was bad terminology.

 

but then again, paranoia made a good point with the levels of aversion which was kind of what i wanted to get at.

 

as such, my position on the matter is that i hate neither the creationists nor the homosexuals. i do have a strong opposition to the methods and tactics of the more extreme creationists though.

[ParanoiA]

Isnt that a bit like categorizing all Christians as lying hypocritical jerks because a few of their ranks have committed sexual improprieties ([url']http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...2770,00.html)?[/url]

 

Not really, because he's not advocating hatred nor justification of hatred toward any group, rather defending a group being hated.

 

As for creationist arguments against evolution' date=' what a joke and what a massive waste of my time. If God created all species de novo, then why should they form neat little phylogenies showing there genetic and morphologic relation to each other. Why should they have any relation what soever, why should we share hox genes with invertebrates (nice little link if you don't already know about this

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0/evodevo_05)? [/quote']

 

So because no answer is forthcoming, that proves there's no answer? As a scientist you should know better than that. How about evolution as the mechanism? The moral of the bible compliments our lack of proof in science. Requiring blind faith would imply that no proof could ever be found. If god truly is as he's been conveniently defined, you would be convinced of his non-existence in terms of evidence, and that is the case isn't it?

 

It's fine if YOU choose to substitute blind faith for logic, but please don't suggest that our children be asked to do the same. I find it repugnant that my daughter should go to a public school and be taught a "theory" founded in religion.

 

I agree.

[YT2095]

Well, not really.

 

1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.

2. to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.

–verb (used without object) 3. to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility.

–noun 4. intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility.

5. the object of extreme aversion or hostility.

 

"Hate" is more a description of the level of aversion, whereas "rationale" is about the reasoning for that aversion. When someone tries to make a case that it's ok to hate something, that's rationalizing hatred.

 

Like, hating child molesters is an example of hatred with rationale.

 

Now, I would certainly challenge the logic behind rationalizing hatred for creationism, but not for child molesters.

 

a very fair point.

I tend to consider Extreme Emotion of any sort irrational by it`s nature.

it is Driven not by the Head but by the "Heart" to put it in more Floral terms.

 

ergo it made sense to me that trying to rationalise the Given Irrational, would be fruitless.

 

you`re probably right though.