I am grateful to a colleague at the science forums for pointing out this amusing little diversion
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin
Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain
Gotta love the Onion and those crazy evolutionists.
LOL! Brilliant!
Nice to know that this kind of craziness isn't limited just to religious fanatics, but fanatics of all kinds.
Well actually ocalhoun, I'm pretty positive the article is strictly satirical and fictitious. It IS from the Onion after all. 
"Evolutionists", lol!
"Evolutionists", lol!
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Nice to know that this kind of craziness isn't limited just to religious fanatics, but fanatics of all kinds. |
Ya realize it's the Onion, right
But yeah, it's probably not far off the mark of how some extremists of evolution behave (incidentally, they're often not too up on the actual principles of evolution and approach it much like a religion).
| Ankhanu wrote: | ||
Ya realize it's the Onion, right
But yeah, it's probably not far off the mark of how some extremists of evolution behave (incidentally, they're often not too up on the actual principles of evolution and approach it much like a religion). |
For example?
i have heard people talk about evolution extremists, but i have never seen them myself. Since you seem familiar with them, perhaps you could give us examples of some of these extremists? i'm rather curious to see what kind of person might not be too far off the mark from this parody.
I love the last line of the article ""It's a miracle," she added", that was the best part of the whole thing.
| Indi wrote: | ||||
For example? i have heard people talk about evolution extremists, but i have never seen them myself. Since you seem familiar with them, perhaps you could give us examples of some of these extremists? i'm rather curious to see what kind of person might not be too far off the mark from this parody. |
Well, I could name names, but I doubt you'd know them. Surely you've met people who take evolution/Darwinism in blind faith, practically religion style.
| Ankhanu wrote: |
| Surely you've met people who take evolution/Darwinism in blind faith, practically religion style. |
Nope. Never met a single one.
| jeremyp wrote: | ||
Nope. Never met a single one. |
Nope - me neither. I've met plenty who don't understand modern evolutionary synthesis - I don't fully understand it myself since it is extremely complex. The basic theory, however, is very simple to understand and so obviously correct that it can easily be grasped by most people, unless they are determined to misunderstand or misrepresent it.
Hmm. Guess my life's just been blessed :/
i guess i haven't been blessed, because i'm in the same boat as Bikerman and jeremyp. ^_^;
Like Bikerman i've met lots of people who accept evolution (not Darwinism, by the way... Darwinism fell out of vogue in the 1920s) without understanding it... but that's doesn't necessarily make it "blind". i'm sure you accept that we have put a man on the Moon and sent probes to Mars, and it's a pretty safe wager you haven't observed any of those events nor do you understand rocketry or the challenges behind making those missions work. Do you worship the creed of the JPL?
Scientific advancement has produced so many evidences of its validity that it is not illogical to accept it as true without fully understanding it. (Of course, if you doubt it, you're always free to learn the science to verify it yourself... as many, many people have done.) Given that evolution is entirely unchallenged in scientific circles, and that it is already applied practically in medicine, it is not illogical to accept it as true.
So it is fallacious to accuse people of accepting evolution as true on faith ("blind faith" is repetitive in this case) just because they don't understand it. While it is possible, it is unlikely, and unnecessary. There are three different ways you can believe something is true: faith, reason and evidence (or some mix of the three). It is possible to believe evolution is true based on reason... but that would require understanding evolution, and you are talking about people that don't, so we can rule that out. That leaves faith and evidence. Now, opponents of evolution will cheerfully claim that there is no direct evidence of evolution... but that's false. However, again, in order to understand that, you need to understand evolution in detail, so we can ignore that for the case of people that don't understand it. HOWEVER, there is plenty of indirect evidence of evolution - at least one instance of which i mentioned above. And you don't even need to be half-smart to understand them. So that means that a person who doesn't understand evolution can believe it to be true by faith or evidence (or both). To determine which, all you have to do is ask why they believe.
Now, i have met hundreds of people who believe by evidence (without understanding the biology involved). But i have never met a single person who gave me faith (or a reason that reduces to faith). Not once. But, as i said, i'd be curious to.
No, no. ^_^ The best part was:
Like Bikerman i've met lots of people who accept evolution (not Darwinism, by the way... Darwinism fell out of vogue in the 1920s) without understanding it... but that's doesn't necessarily make it "blind". i'm sure you accept that we have put a man on the Moon and sent probes to Mars, and it's a pretty safe wager you haven't observed any of those events nor do you understand rocketry or the challenges behind making those missions work. Do you worship the creed of the JPL?
Scientific advancement has produced so many evidences of its validity that it is not illogical to accept it as true without fully understanding it. (Of course, if you doubt it, you're always free to learn the science to verify it yourself... as many, many people have done.) Given that evolution is entirely unchallenged in scientific circles, and that it is already applied practically in medicine, it is not illogical to accept it as true.
So it is fallacious to accuse people of accepting evolution as true on faith ("blind faith" is repetitive in this case) just because they don't understand it. While it is possible, it is unlikely, and unnecessary. There are three different ways you can believe something is true: faith, reason and evidence (or some mix of the three). It is possible to believe evolution is true based on reason... but that would require understanding evolution, and you are talking about people that don't, so we can rule that out. That leaves faith and evidence. Now, opponents of evolution will cheerfully claim that there is no direct evidence of evolution... but that's false. However, again, in order to understand that, you need to understand evolution in detail, so we can ignore that for the case of people that don't understand it. HOWEVER, there is plenty of indirect evidence of evolution - at least one instance of which i mentioned above. And you don't even need to be half-smart to understand them. So that means that a person who doesn't understand evolution can believe it to be true by faith or evidence (or both). To determine which, all you have to do is ask why they believe.
Now, i have met hundreds of people who believe by evidence (without understanding the biology involved). But i have never met a single person who gave me faith (or a reason that reduces to faith). Not once. But, as i said, i'd be curious to.
| rshackelford wrote: |
| I love the last line of the article ""It's a miracle," she added", that was the best part of the whole thing. |
No, no. ^_^ The best part was:
| Quote: |
| "It's a stain on a wall, and nothing more," said the Rev. Clement McCoy, a professor at Oral Roberts University and prominent opponent of evolutionary theory. "Anything else is the delusional fantasy of a fanatical evolutionist mindset that sees only what it wishes to see in the hopes of validating a baseless, illogical belief system...." |
Admittedly, I've only met two or three of these people in person; but I've encountered a few in online communities, particularly in pagan chatrooms. They tend to be younger (or younger in mental maturity), i.e. teens, and rebelling against stricter Christian upbringings (I think most I'd encountered were from the American 'South', the 'Bible Belt'). I think the blind-faith like approach to a resolute belief in evolution, without understanding it at all, is part of that rebellion; I believe in x because you don't want me to, and that's as deep as it goes.
| Ankhanu wrote: |
| Admittedly, I've only met two or three of these people in person; but I've encountered a few in online communities, particularly in pagan chatrooms. They tend to be younger (or younger in mental maturity), i.e. teens, and rebelling against stricter Christian upbringings (I think most I'd encountered were from the American 'South', the 'Bible Belt'). I think the blind-faith like approach to a resolute belief in evolution, without understanding it at all, is part of that rebellion; I believe in x because you don't want me to, and that's as deep as it goes. |
Er... so... you're saying that most - if not all - of these "extremists" you've met that believe in evolution "religiously" (without understanding or questioning it properly)...
... are just punk kids?
*ahem*
You'll have to pardon me for not being impressed. For starters... no one expects them to have a rational grasp of evolution - they simply haven't learnt about it properly yet. If you are saying they're in the wrong to accept evolution "blindly" at that stage... you are the one in the wrong, for making irrational demands of them at that stage in their lives. They're kids! They can't understand it yet, but almost assuredly they will one day.
And ragging them for believing evolution on the basis of rebelling?!?! ^_^; Again, they're kids - rebelling is their prerogative! If they didn't rebel i'd be sorely disappointed. Even if they rebel for stupid reasons, it's still acceptable, because it's all part of establishing their own identity. If they're being stupid, one day they'll wise up - and if their rebellion is smart... well, hell, it can change the world (cf. the 60s in the US).
i'm frankly aghast at the idea that you're offering up a bunch of shit-disturbing kids as "extremists" of "religious" evolution. Part of me is laughing at the lunacy of it, part of me is crying at the incredible wrongheadedness of it. And it is appalling at how belittling it is toward those of us who level the same criticisms at religion. Do you seriously think that when we talk about religious nuts who behave like those people satirized in the Onion article, that we are talking about stupid kids?!?!? We criticize world leaders, the heads of religions, millions of adults around the world who literally do these kinds of things (praying to stains on the wall and ranting about miracles, EVEN MURDERING IN THE NAME OF THIS SHIT!!!)... and you offer up as comparison mouthy kids on the internet?!?!?!?!
i'm... i don't even have a word.
Whether they're young (into their 20s; those I've met personally have all been university students) or old is immaterial; fact is, they're out there. That's all I was asserting, nothing more. You're reading far too much into it, chill.
Related topics
 |