The latest Tangled Bank #92 is available at Paddy K. Go on, you know you want to read it.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
The latest Tangled Bank #92 is available at Paddy K. Go on, you know you want to read it.
The Internet is making us stupid
Legal sage Cass Sunstein says democracy is the first casualty of political discourse in the digital age.
Cass Sunstein
“Freedom of choice is not always good for democracy. This observation is at the heart of University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein’s book “Republic.com 2.0” (an update of “Republic.com” in 2001), which argues that our country’s political discourse is fracturing in the information age. Sure, the Internet has been a boon to democracy in all sorts of ways, Sunstein acknowledges — but if new technology gives us unprecedented access to information, it also gives us more ways to avoid information we don’t like. Conservatives are increasingly seeking only conservative views, liberals are seeking only liberal views, and never the twain shall meet.”
http://tinyurl.com/3684co
And Creationists only read creationist books, articles and websites, while evolutionists avoid this material and concentrate on material that reinforces their ideological point of view.
“To what extent is this polarization a part of human nature, and to what extent does it come from new technologies?”
I think it’s a very firm part of human nature that if you surround yourself with like-minded people, you’ll end up thinking more extreme versions of what you thought before. So this group-polarization thing is robust — it’s been found in lots of different countries, and it’s just in the nature of most people to do this.”
Bzzt. Wrong. That may be a decent description of the creationist side, but somehow, I know more about creationists and have read more of their drivel than I ever could have in, say, 1995. People who complain about “group polarization” on the Internet forget that not everybody is the same. Some people actually enjoy delving into the morass. Why do you suppose so much of Uncommon Descent’s traffic comes from ScienceBlogs? Why did Conservapaedia not take off until ScienceBlogs noticed it?
“Why do you suppose so much of Uncommon Descent’s traffic comes from ScienceBlogs? Why did Conservapaedia not take off until ScienceBlogs noticed it?”
I suspect it is because arrogant, condescending supercilious smart-asses get great pleasure out of ridiculing, mocking and trying to humiliate creationists and ID proponents for their own amusement and delight.
I doubt very much that it is because they thoughtfully intend to actually listen to what the have to say and open-mindedly consider it.
Creationist bashing and ID denunciation is great sport, is it not? And where better to do it than in their own atelier?
If they don’t want to be ridiculed, they shouldn’t hold such ridiculous beliefs.
“Creationist bashing and ID denunciation is great sport, is it not?”
Kind of like shooting fish in a barrel, but I guess that could qualify as sport.
If they don’t want to be ridiculed, they shouldn’t hold such ridiculous beliefs.
While it is true that YEC views are hard to swallow based on the huge amount of emperical evidence that debunks them, we must not paint everyone with the same brush.
Criticizing Darwin and the efficacy of mutation, natural selection and other random processes as the driving force in evolution and suggesting the need for intelligent design does not a creationist make. It falls squarely in the realm of natural science.
Evolution and intelligent design are perfectly compatible views, just like you can believe in both God and evolution, as most Catholics do.
I daresay we’ve listened to what creationists have to say with more thought then they put into saying it. We’ve weighed them in the balance — and found them wanting.
There’s a difference between keeping an open mind and letting your brains fall out.
No, it doesn’t. First, while mutation may be random, natural selection isn’t, so your description of what biology is starts off with a mistake. Second, no evidence has yet come to light that mutation, selection, genetic drift and other such natural mechanisms are insufficient to explain the evolutionary process. Without solid evidence indicating that our understanding of basic evolutionary principles is incomplete, “suggesting the need for intelligent design” is an exercise in banal sophistry. It invites a pointless regression: So, intelligence is necessary to explain where intelligence came from? Well, then how did that intelligence arise?
“First, while mutation may be random, natural selection isn’t, so your description of what biology is starts off with a mistake.”
It’s not a mistake. It is a well known and universally accepted fact that natural selection can change the frequency of genes in populations. Those genes that are better adapted to the environment will increase in frequency; those less suited will decline. This is the only non-random component of natural selection.
“no evidence has yet come to light that mutation, selection, genetic drift and other such natural mechanisms are insufficient to explain the evolutionary process.”
You’ve made my point. You apparently have ignored the large amount of evidence that challenges the darwinian mechanism and debunks the idea that random processes are capable of driving evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ancestry
http://www.panspermia.org
Sigh. Char— I mean, Kamehameha, you want to know why creationists are ridiculed and mocked? It’s because they don’t pay attention. The first few times around, it seems like maybe there’s some new way of explaining that no, they have misunderstood something a basic and fundamental level; their understanding of evolution is wrong, and they’ve missed seeing the fundamental contradictions in creationism and intelligent design.
Then, after a long, long stretch of continued explanations and argument, they post something so fundamentally stupid that shows that they have not been paying attention; not reading, not thinking, not even trying to bother to understand.
Just like what you just posted.
So after going to all that wasted effort, yeah, even the most patient debater is going to feel deeply annoyed at being ignored, and maybe vent that annoyance with some harsh words.