Secular Right | Reality & Reason

Nov/12

20

Dumb sentence of the day

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someoneShare on TumblrShare on Google+

I Believe and Am Thankful: “Believing what was believed to be literally true for a few thousand years is now nutty.” Yes, that’s how it goes in science. Aristotle’s ethics may be relevant for moderns, but his physics most certainly is not. I tire of the attempt to portray Creationists as the only sinners against the truth, when the reality is that some of the most vociferous mockers of Creationists are the most strident evolution rejectionists in any pragmatic sense. But any conservative take on these issues has to admit that the scientific consensus is what it is, and scientific consensus of this magnitude is not to be taken lightly as a ‘theory’ or ‘opinion.’

4 comments

  • Author comment by Steve Cardon · November 21, 2012 at 1:49 am

    Speaking as one who is a layman in terms of studying evolutionary biology, but does understand the basic concepts, it seems intuitive (as fallible as intuition can be) that those same concepts would more broadly exhibit themselves in “most” of life’s various dynamic aspects and Human makeup.

    In your linked “Gene Expression” article you begin with “The propositions to gauge acceptance of evolutionary psychology revolve around sex differences. One can argue whether this is an appropriate measure, but to a first approximation I think it gets to the heart of the matter.”
    It does seem as good a place as any to start, but I believe you could just as easily choose other differentiations whether it is measured intelligence, race, culture, what have you. Regardless of where you started you would likely run into the same phenomenon. For want of more scientific terminology I will call this phenomenon the “Political Correctness Trap”… which I consider to be every bit as insidious as the “Religious Faith Trap”.

    I believe you have very nicely struck upon the paradox which I am not the first Conservative Atheist to remark upon. It seems that Christians do not like the idea that we evolved from pre-human animals, or that we are related ancestrally to the other creatures around us because in their view it implies we are not special AND therefore singled out by god for a special extension of existence.

    Many Liberal Atheists/Agnostics on the other hand, like the ”idea” of evolution because it allows them to feel intellectually superior (special) in comparison to what they view as the more backward and superstitious (unscientific) Christians… it also allows them to feel self-righteous in denouncing the self-righteousness and “ignorance” of those same Christians.

    They are also, ironically and with seeming lack of exception,the guardians of “faith-based” Political Correctness. Liberals almost by definition take as an “article of faith”;-) that we are all equal. Any attempts to suggest one group (pick any group) are significantly different from another on a genetic or social basis is met with self-righteousness, indiscriminate rejection, and accusations of bigotry. They do not really want to see your evidence.

    It would be interesting to make a video wherein many of the same Liberals who cannot explain the actual economic philosophies or proposals of either of the last two presidential candidates (or macroeconomic concepts period for that matter), also attempt to explain the “Theory” of evolution… I am confident that with relatively few exceptions the results would be equally disappointing.

    Many people love Ideas, but don’t want to be bothered with the inconvenient details. Details require too much thought, and run the risk of disturbing ones harmonious ideological certainties. Liberals may love the idea of Evolution Theory, but not its implications where it conflicts with their ideology.

    In this respect I do not find their reasoning processes to be any more “scientific” than that of the Creationists.

  • Christopher · November 21, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    “Any conservative take on these issues has to admit that the scientific consensus is what it is, and scientific consensus of this magnitude is not to be taken lightly as a ‘theory’ or ‘opinion.’”

    Viewing articles on Secularright under the tag of “Climate Change” indicates that this publication doesn’t really think so.

  • CONSVLTVS · November 22, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    Mr. Cardon, I second your point. Further, I suspect that in getting rid of traditional religion–if that were possible–we would only be opening the doors fully to an invasion of Political Correctness Orthodoxy. Still, it is maddening to read the blogs and web sites of manifestly intelligent Christians who remain skeptics on the theory of evolution. Some of them welcome the big bang theory because it implies a creator; they are happy to employ the most subtle science to refute, say, the multi-verse theory in favor of the big bang; but when it comes to evolution and human origin, they suddenly revert to scripture.

    But I’m foolish to complain. They’re just being human, just following their evolved nature.

  • Author comment by Andrew Stuttaford · November 22, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    Christopher, this publication does not take a “collective line” on climate change, or, indeed, just about anything. I’m curious though. Could you cite any specific inaccuracies in what I (and it was almost always me) published on the topic. That way I could give you a fuller response.

<<

>>

Theme Design by devolux.nh2.me