Holy crap

"BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather" (bugeyedacura) 02/04/2014 at 16:44 • Filed to: None

2

50

IO9 started a Creationist in school witch hunt, I replied that I was okay with it, and now I have all these "enlightened" individuals looking to slit my throat. Never again. Sticking to morning spoilers.

Ravey Mayvey Slurpee Surprise > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 02/04/2014 at 16:47

4

I'm not going to berate you (because here in Oppo, we respectfully disagree and love each other), but I do think creationism has no place in science class rooms.

wtrmlnjuc > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 02/04/2014 at 16:48

2

These people seem more self-entitled than "enlightened".

BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather > Ravey Mayvey Slurpee Surprise 02/04/2014 at 16:49

1

I mean I'm not a literalist. I believe that the Big Bang was more of a being than a simple odd happening. But I think to throw out certain parts of it to say that we came from monkeys is just not the way to go. Thank you for politely stating that though. They went ham on me and I can't do another round.

Gamecat235 > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 02/04/2014 at 16:49

10

ttyymmnn > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 02/04/2014 at 16:51

5

They say that the best way to ruin a dinner party is to bring up politics or religion. These two topics are assiduously avoided in Oppoland, to everybody's benefit.

Anima > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 02/04/2014 at 16:51

4

Welcome back to the only polite place on the gawker network. Have a morning spoiler to cheer you up!

BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather > Gamecat235 02/04/2014 at 16:52

1

I'm about to. I think it would break their hearts if their punching-bag-of-the-day wasnt there any more.

Great gif BTW.

Mattwith2ts > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 02/04/2014 at 16:52

1

yeah, God has no place in the comment section of io9.com

Because he's too busy making intergalactic worlds beyond the scope of human comprehension.

I've been in a few of those before and you're better off not taking the bait. That site is cool and has a lot of great content but it's run by a bunch of godless, liberal dorks. I've sent several awesome emails to the editor that were both entertaining, courteous and brief on this subject and never got a response. not even a single line. It's just weird that a site all about wonder, and amazement and the beauty of the universe can't include any philosophical or theological discussion. Why that's just lame.

WolfmanJimCBW > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 02/04/2014 at 16:52

0

I can't stand it when people go out trying to basically start crap. It doesn't matter the subject. I hate it more than people trolling. It makes no sense.

crowmolly > Anima 02/04/2014 at 16:52

1

Spoiler alert! LOL.

BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather > Anima 02/04/2014 at 16:52

0

Thanks man :)

Ravey Mayvey Slurpee Surprise > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 02/04/2014 at 16:53

8

Just a polite correction: evolution doesn't claim we come from monkeys; rather from common ancestors. The split (if I recall correctly) came about eight million years ago.

Anyways, there's no point of getting at somebody's throats about their beliefs — that has never changed anybody's opinion in the past. We disagree, we debate, we learn something about the other side, we shake hands, and we move on. At least, that's how it should be.

WolfmanJimCBW > Ravey Mayvey Slurpee Surprise 02/04/2014 at 16:54

3

I also agree that creationism is probably not best suited for a science class where you are studying observable things. Also, we have separation of church and state for a reason and public schools are government ran basically. My children go to a Catholic school and they have religion class for stuff like creationism, but they have never discussed it in science class.

Casper > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 02/04/2014 at 16:55

5

The problem is science has been lost in politics and prejudice. In true science nothing is off the table for discussion, consideration, or hypothesizing about. I personally would disagree that the idea of a creationist hypothesis be taught in school, but I find it incredibly distasteful the way the scientific community acts against groups that deviate from the popular norm. Suddenly "enlightened" people decent into pitchfork waving mobs, less logical and less intelligent than any random beast. The same happens for any politically charged topic. Just watch what happens when people begin discussing climate theory.

There simply should be clear standards for what science is taught and which is not, and that should revolve around provability. The vast majority of what is learned by a person in school will be overturned by future research, but there should be the attempt made to ensure what is taught is the best possible answer of the time in accordance with true scientific research and testing.

crowmolly > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 02/04/2014 at 16:55

3

Don't bother.

The argument about the creation of the species will forever go nowhere. Creationists will always seem like mental patients and Evolutionists will always be the pinnacle of arrogant.

Let it go. Don't talk politics or religion anywhere on here. Stick to talking about how bad ass the Sunoco Camaro is.

Anima > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 02/04/2014 at 17:03

1

No thanks :) , our views on some subjects may differ, but we are all here because we love cars.

Cixelsyd > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 02/04/2014 at 17:04

2

Literalist or not, that doesn't change the fact that creationism is not science and therefore does not belong in a science classroom. If it doesn't involve testable hypotheses, it isn't science, full stop. Creationists are free to teach whatever they want in church.

HammerheadFistpunch > WolfmanJimCBW 02/04/2014 at 17:07

0

That, my friend, IS trolling. Its just ad supported trolling.

Brian, The Life of > Gamecat235 02/04/2014 at 17:12

0

I'm so with you on this one ...

Paul, Man of Mustangs > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 02/04/2014 at 17:14

1

I like how they went all absolutist on you. How "absolutely none" of Christianity and Science can mix, even though star maps and timing of events line up (the Star of Bethlehem was Venus and Jupiter lining up to form a very bright "star" for one instance), or how a large flood in the Mesopotamian region actually happened, or how the great scientists of the Renaissance were studying how God designed the universe. People seem to forget that not all of the Bible is literal, as the Walls of Jericho falling down most likely referred to their defences, not the physical walls. It was likely a "special forces" group that took out the defenses while they were distracted by the parade out front. The story of Creation may have actually spanned millenia, since the order of events roughly lines up with what we know of natural history.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 02/04/2014 at 17:25

1

iO9 - The reddit outlet store

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Mattwith2ts 02/04/2014 at 17:27

1

"Godless, liberal dorks".......Just going to throw this out here that generalization of that magnitude is just as bad as the "Ignorant, inbred religious nuts" stereotype that seems to have been thrown at OP here.

BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather > Paul, Man of Mustangs 02/04/2014 at 17:28

0

That's pretty much where I stand. I believe that God is a scientist. All things follow an order. But for some reason, trying to reconcile the two makes me a moron or backwards. Thank you Paul.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > ttyymmnn 02/04/2014 at 17:29

1

"MY INVISIBLE FORCE IS SUPERIOR TO YOUR INVISIBLE FORCE AND MY BOOK HAS WORDS ARRANGED IN A WAY THAT ARE BETTER THAN YOUR BOOKS AND IF YOU HAVE NO INVISIBLE FORCE OR BOOKS THEN YOU ARE INFERIOR UNLESS THE GROUP AGREES THAT ACTUALLY YOU ARE SUPERIOR SO THEN HAVING AN INVISIBLE FORCE AND BOOKS MEANS YOU ARE STUPID KTHXBAI" - discussing religion on the internet.

Mattwith2ts > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/04/2014 at 17:31

1

I know. Haha. Sorry. I thought i was in a safe spot to drop my spite. I am generalizing a little but generalizations are more interesting.....and quicker.

Mattwith2ts > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/04/2014 at 17:31

0

I know. Haha. Sorry. I thought i was in a safe spot to drop my spite. I am generalizing a little but generalizations are more interesting.....and quicker.

ttyymmnn > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/04/2014 at 17:32

1

WELL SAID!!11!!

Mattwith2ts > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/04/2014 at 17:32

0

Naw i meant io9.com

Mattwith2ts > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/04/2014 at 17:32

0

Naw i meant io9.com

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Casper 02/04/2014 at 17:45

1

The reason why it isn't taught in public school science classes (it could easily be discussed in a religious context either via after-school meetings or elective classes) is that creationism fails the most basic rigors of the scientific method. But then again, the very basis of the concept is that there was nothing before it, so how could you apply it? When you are trying to study the fossil records and piece together what happened millions of years ago, it is antagonistic to suggest things like a "guiding hand" or "spontaneous existence" was at play. It would only be taken seriously when we have a handful of evidence that things existed, but have no way to even comprehend how they came into being. That's about where the origin of life debate must consider a "creator(s)" or force that isn't something terrestrial in accordance with the scientific method.

The goal of public school science isn't just some basic facts and ideas, but teaching you how to approach new ideas. If you recall, most people are taught about the structure/model of the atom. You go through and have to remember ALL of the old models and the characteristics of each one. Even the ones that are horribly wrong. Why? It is the perfect model to explain the advancement of science. As our understanding increased, we refined the model with what we had. So the concepts of evolution can be taught in science classes since you can see our own understanding evolve and grow as we learn more.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > ttyymmnn 02/04/2014 at 17:47

0

WHAT? I COULDN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF ME APPLAUDING MYSELF FOR MY OWN OPINIONS

Korea Miéville > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 02/04/2014 at 17:48

2

Io9 is a site dedicated to science fiction, the branch of the arts devoted to imaginative, open-minded exploration of ideas about the nature of the universe and which embraces the search for truth in all forms, no matter how esoteric or controversial.

Which of course means that its fans are the most rigidly close-minded and hostile to any viewpoint deviating from their own that you will find in any genre.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 02/04/2014 at 17:49

1

The Transporter > Mattwith2ts 02/04/2014 at 17:52

1

It's very similar to the big hoopla they had over football this weekend. I found it quite amusing how many people over there chose to spend precious time out of their busy day to tell the world in great detail how much they didn't care about football or the Superbowl. It's a website dedicated to fandom, but a lot of the people over there can't fathom any other type of fandom except their own very specific brand.

Casper > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/04/2014 at 17:59

0

That's not entirely true. You are overly simplifying the argument. The argument isn't that a religious creation story should be taught akin to a theory such as evolution. The argument is that because there is a theory of evolution, contrary theories are fundamentally disregarded. Some of the hypothesis indicating intelligent design do not directly attempt to disprove natural selection or evolutionary forces, they simply state that those theories do not explain xyz traits or developments and that it would appear as though intelligence were behind the development.

That's exactly right, however, the fundamental flaw of most education systems is the inherent belief that the current phase of understanding is the final phase that seeps in. It is partially due to a poor understanding of the scientific method, but also due to politics and bias/ignorance. There has been a massive increase in people who simply assume as fact a politically popular theory and defer challenges to a belief in a higher "expert" that knows that which we couldn't possibly understand. This has pushed some schools science programs dangerously close to the fundamentals of a religious belief system.

Scientific understanding is always evolving. Nothing should be considered fact unless it can be completely proven. Everything else should be assumed wrong, but evidence of something yet to be understood.

Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 02/04/2014 at 18:12

2

I thoroughly disagree with you. You're entitled to your own opinion, but I don't want my tax dollars funding public schools where kids are taught religion in a science class. It's plainly unconstitutional and since the "intelligent design" movement has been active, the US has fallen behind other developed countries in STEM fields — you know, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math — where all the jobs are in the new economy.

That said, if they're going to teach creationism as science in public schools, we shouldn't limit the explanations to the Evangelical Christians. Why not add in some animist creation stories? Native American creation explanations are just as scientifically valid as the ones from Answers in Genesis.

The fact is that those who are pushing for the teaching of creationism in school are doing so by using logical fallacies and outright lies. They have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of science and often think backward. In its best forms, pure science goes forth without an agenda and looks only at the evidence. It then uses that evidence to form its explanation.

Science isn't trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science is constantly testing its own explanations to learn more about how the world works and what we can do with it. It's not what the "Teach the Controversy," people say it is. It's the best way that humanity has found to explain how the world works.

It is, however, far more nuanced and complex than most people want to hear. It's not absolute, because there's almost nothing in the world that's absolute. People like to hear a definitive statement of absolute truth and science doesn't give them that comfort.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Casper 02/04/2014 at 18:13

0

While other theories could either disprove or perhaps even supplement our current understanding of the evolutionary process, there is little evidence to support that and our questions are not coming back unanswered. I disagree that these other possibilities should be considered, for now, simply because there is a mountain of data and evidence that agrees with what we currently know and another mountain that is pushing us to refine our understanding. To my knowledge, the formerly dismissed "Lamarck Theory" is starting to gain interest. The idea that an animal could, in essence, evolve through sheer will was apparently laughable once we thought we understood genetics. Apparently some species have genetic code that basically says "If this is needed, pass it on to kids. Otherwise, stay as is".It's far from identical to the original idea but I can't help but wonder why we just NOW noticed it despite being fully capable of understanding it for the better part of two decades.

I agree that trying to teach new ideas to some of these scientists is like pulling teeth from a rabid dog. Age is what I blame. The most stubborn members of the scientific councils and university research departments tend to be fossils just waiting to be buried. I wonder how often we've had a great idea or advancement delayed simply because it involved something new. There are many older chemists that I know of in commercial R&D that hate using anything with a computer screen. Yet the "way they've always done it" is somehow superior because it just is. That attitude scares me because if they're missing out on developments when lots of money could be involved......well.....I fear we might one day overlook or dismiss a potential breakthrough simply because someone of importance has their head up their ass and dozens of wannabes are still lining up to kiss a cheek.

Korea Miéville > Casper 02/04/2014 at 18:16

0

I think that, as with everything else in the world, human nature screws up a good thing when it comes to science. Ideally, science allows for — encourages, really — the possibility of being wrong. True scientists don't resist unconventional ideas or differing views — they welcome them. If you practice the scientific method, you don't close yourself off from data just because you don't like it.

But of course, people fall extremely short of those ideals. No one is immune from hubris, especially those who are the most invested in the idea of intellectual superiority. Where they should be humble and open, they're closed and arrogant.

Recently I read the very sad story of Ignaz Semmelweis, a 19th century Hungarian doctor who originated the idea of handwashing to prevent infections. The scientific wisdom of the day held that sickness was caused by bad odors. At the obstetrical clinic he worked at, which had a very high rate of fatal infections, Semmelweis observed that doctors would go directly from autopsies on cadavers to delivering infants. When one of his colleagues died after being poked with a scalpel during an autopsy, Semmelweis theorized that doctors were carrying "cadaverous particles" on their hands and instruments that might be causing the infections. He instituted a policy of handwashing with a chlorine solution before examining patients, and shortly afterward the death rate at the clinic dropped from 10% to 1-2%.

The response from the medical community was to ridicule and ostracize Semmelweis. They blackballed him out of the profession, and Semmelweis fell into severe depression and other mental illness, and ended up in an insane asylum (where he died, ironically, of an acute infection, possibly from being beaten by guards). His name is given to an actual term, the "Semmelweis Reflex," which refers to the tendency to reflexively reject any new ideas or evidence that conflict with existing beliefs.

Casper > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/04/2014 at 18:22

0

There has always been a glaring hole in the theory of random evolution and it was instinctual behavior. The consideration of formerly dismissed hypotheses is the natural flow when one so clearly overlaps the issue. As such, I don't think you are really arguing that other hypothesis shouldn't even be "considered" but rather they shouldn't be taught or processed as a major competitor to current models, which I agree.

Refusal to evolve has long been a weakness in the scientific world. It has a lot to do with the people involved. On the bleeding edge you have true scientists. People testing theories and ideas, thinking way outside the box, and deliberately trying to break down existing belief structures. Much farther to the other side you have science teachers. Teachers fundamentally, my majority, follow a similar mindset. They are a profession of people who believe in the sanctity of "experts". They themselves either understand very little of the actual science or are at the mercy of funding (depending on level of education they teach). The ignorant portion believe they understand much more of it than they do, and have gravitated to a field that feeds egocentric personality types. Those who actually are conducting research but teaching on the side are at the mercy of politics and often play to the side of money far more often than true science. Those people then reside in these positions for absurdly long times with little force from natural selection with their employment. It isn't a great recipe for adopting change.

Casper > Korea Miéville 02/04/2014 at 18:28

0

I remember that story as well. Sadly it has happened many times in history. All too often it requires the die off of the established members of the scientific society before acceptance of chance reaches a level to really investigate and understand a new idea.

It's just very sad that it often happens after the person who was correct and conducting "good" science is defamed and often deceased.

jariten1781 > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 02/04/2014 at 18:30

0

Ah yes, science zealots.

I always imagine if the internet/instant media was around in the past it would go like:

"The plum model of the atom is correct! There is scientific consensus. You're an idiot if you don't agree"

Slave2anMG > ttyymmnn 02/04/2014 at 18:30

0

I work in outside sales in the South. There's 3 things I avoid discussing with every bit of strength in my body - politics, religion, and barbecue. All three will end like like wrestling with a pig - I'm just gonna get dirty and only the pig's gonna enjoy it.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Casper 02/04/2014 at 18:35

0

I bet you a pizza the link to instinctual behavior lies in chemical response leading to nerve development. There are half a million examples of how you can alter the behavior of organic substances by altering the environment is in. A high pH environment typically opens up most mammalian skins. Likewise, low pH closes them up. Temperature, salinity, humidity, brightness, and more can affect the physical properties of organic compounds and substances. My guess would be those responses end up getting tied in to nervous system development over time. How in the hell would that happen? Don't know. Get me my dissecting scalpel and a bottle of rum and I'll do what I can to find out.

Casper > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/04/2014 at 18:41

0

That is one of the most interesting areas for me. For instance how preferences are passed from generation to generation genetically and not via nurture. It has always been a mystery and if we every crack it, it will open a whole new universe... but at the same time terrifying.

I think you would need a really tiny scalpel and a really big bottle of rum.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Casper 02/04/2014 at 18:43

0

Or many scalpels of varying sizes and many bottles of varying liquor.

Casper > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/04/2014 at 18:44

0

Well that just sounds like a party.

ttyymmnn > Slave2anMG 02/04/2014 at 18:48

1

All three will end like like wrestling with a pig - I'm just gonna get dirty and only the pig's gonna enjoy it.*

I've been on some dates like that.

Slave2anMG > ttyymmnn 02/04/2014 at 18:50

0

Dude....

The Transporter > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/04/2014 at 19:16

0

I love the editorial staff at io9 to no end, but "Godless, liberal dorks" is a fairly accurate description, although I'd use the term "nerds" instead of "dorks," myself. Remember the time that Ananlee Newitz used io9's bully pulpit to promote socialism ? I do. I almost stopped going to io9 because of it, although I gave them props for staying out of the Sandy Hook clusterfuck, unlike Gizmodo . The io9 editorial staff is almost entirely based out of San Francisco and it's not because they need a physical location to run a blog like io9. Like tends to hang out with like and from what I've seen, there's not a large spectrum of political opinions in the editorial staff.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

WolfmanJimCBW > HammerheadFistpunch 02/05/2014 at 08:12

0

Yeah. I spose