Calilasseia

CM, creationists are in fact a peculiar species of Luddite.

The inability to continue to educate themselves is wilful. Indeed, if one examines their core beliefs, it is a necessary duty for them to remain ignorant, because if they were to learn, this would mean in turn that they were adapting to their environment, which in turn would mean that they were in a sense, evolving ... something their belief system not only says is impossible, but the work of Satan. The ignorance they manifest is displayed proudly as a badge of honour and righteousness in many cases, they revel in the fact that they resist all attempts to understand anything outside a narrow, prescribed remit set by their inbuilt "inerrancy censor". And, at bottom, that "inerrancy censor" exerts the influence it does because one of the core beliefs underlying its very existence is the idea that knowledge is evil, arising in turn from a woefully naive, indeed positively anencephalic, interpretation of the Adam and Eve story. The chilling corollary of this viewpoint is that anyone who pursues knowledge is also evil, which means each and every rational thinker here. Douglas Adams had something to say about this when he wrote about the Krikkit Wars.

Having followed the Archaeopteryx comedy trail in another thread has simply demonstrated how entrenched the mindset is once it takes hold, and how the relentless commitment of the adherents of that mindset is, as I remarked earlier at RDF, both pathetic and insidious.

Constant Mews

James Blish wrote a set of three novels - to which he gave the name of After Certain Knowledge - concerned with the pursuit of secular knowledge. In one of his commentaries, he claimed that a central Christian question was whether all seeking after such knowledge was not, in fact, a sin. Dave does not appear to regard the acquisition of scientific fact as a sin - he gives the appearance of being unable to understand the facts that he acquires.

Toto

James_Blish May I suggest what may be a more useful source for understanding fundamentalists: The Book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist Language and Politics (or via: amazon.co.uk), written by a cultural anthropologist who studied Falwell and fundamentalists the same way other anthropologists study Voodoo trance dancers. (Anthropologists actually have a lot of respect for trance dancers, and Susan Friend Harding has a lot of empathy for her subjects, even when she knows that they are delusional.)

I recommend the chapter on the Creationist Museum in particular, pages 223 ff, in which the author finds a post-modern take on creationism, with creationism as a conscious parody of science.

Constant Mews

Interesting. Thank you.

ericmurphy

We wouldn't be amazed if such "nice, normal people" turned out to be entirely ignorant of almost any scientific subject. Especially if they're anything like you, Dave.

ericmurphy

Why would you expect to read anything about volcanism in the Lake Suigetsu paper, Dave? When you say things like this, you make it screamingly apparent that you just cannot be made to understand how this whole consilience thing works. I've explained it to you at least half a dozen times now. Why are you incapable of getting it?

If you can calibrate radiocarbon in one place, you can calibrate it everywhere. You don't need to have coral growth rings and tree growth rings and ice cores and lake bed varves and marine sediments all in the same place. Once you've got radiocarbon dating calibrated, it's calibrated everywhere. Is that such an impossible concept for you to grasp?

Except you haven't shown those faulty assumptions, and it wouldn't work if you could. HOW CAN THEY ALL BE WRONG FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, BUT ALL WRONG BY THE SAME AMOUNT? This is a recording.

Jesus Fucking Christ, Dave.

Silent Dave

How do you know? Have you tried radiocarbon dating everywhere on Earth? Maybe the laws of physics are different in Japan.


Memetic conspiracy, remember?

Constant Mews

Indeed, Dave has made a very clear claim regarding consilience - that all scientists are completely incompetent or engaged in a massive conspiracy. Dave has provided no evidence of either.

ericmurphy

In which case, we're right back to square one: either all scientists are liars, or they're all idiots.

Which one do you believe, Dave? (I mean, the other Dave.)

Craigart14

No; that is your hypothesis. The next step is to define "shoehorn" as it applies to science. Then see if there is any evidence whatsoever to support your hypothesis. If there isn't, you have to drop it. Of course, if you can find a few thousand scientists who admit to "shoehorning" data, someone might start calling it a "theory."

Craig