Rational BAC

pz---

Very cute answer.

However you are talking to a REAL mechanic, not your ivory tower version of one.

I was an AC/Refrig technician for 20 years. I actually enjoyed legitimate questions from my customers and enjoyed explaining in a layman's terms very technical problems. I considered none of them to be chattering pain in the butts. (Well there were a few chattering idiots like you describe to be honest about it---------but they were a definite minority.)

And any technician that I ever meant who was competent felt the same way. It was the INCOMPETENT TECHS who did not know the answers themselves who considered all customers to be chattering brain damaged types.

There is the truth of it pz---and remember you got it here.

Have a little more faith in the basic intelligence of people, even when outside their field.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And xixax----

You also have my permission to quote me. (somehow doubt you will though)

Godless Dave

Rational BAC, the key word in your post is legitimate questions. Of course biologists should be open to scientifically-based questions about existing theories. And of course you will find a minority who become so emotionally invested in their ideas that they will ignore or dismiss legitimate critique. But YEC creationists and Intelligent Design advocates do not ask legitimate questions. They consistently use deceit, misdirection, and mischaracterization to criticize evolutionary theory.

pz

I don't have an ivory tower version of one. My father was one of them there REAL mechanics, too.Hey, what a coincidence! A bit more than 20 years ago, my father arranged for me to have training and an apprenticeship as an AC technician. He did this with the best of intentions -- I understand it is a very good, relatively lucrative career -- and he never did quite understand how I could turn it down to go on to college and grad school.You haven't quite got the point. Legitimate questions are good. The thing is, creationists are not asking legitimate questions. They are doing the equivalent of the dumbass customer telling the mechanic that his understanding of the machine is all wrong, and that his cockamamie idea about monkeys in the crankcase is the TRVTH.

Even that analogy does not carry the depth of the aggravation and futility we are dealing with.

You have to imagine that there isn't just one brain-damaged cousin with this crazy idea -- there are millions, and they have lots of political clout. Even the president of the US believes this nonsense. And they aren't just hovering over your shoulder while you work. They have been trying to get laws passed that require all drivers and mechanics to get training in the care and feeding of monkeys. That hasn't gone over well (the mechanics have been incredulous), so now, instead, they are trying to get all the mechanic training programs to omit any mention of that silly 'internal combustion' theory.

There is also a school of thought that points to pictures of camshafts as proof positive that engines contain pedals; to avoid the stigma of being one of those monkey-in-the-engine loons, though, they are careful to avoid taking a position on whether there are actually monkeys in there, or whether they might instead be hamsters, or perhaps some exotic Martian cockroach. Some people seem to find that persuasive.

Your experience as an AC technician doesn't help you understand this here, because you simply never got the depths of stupidity, misrepresentation, and outright in-your-face lunacy about air conditioning systems that we get about evolution.

Xixax

There is a large difference between this and YEC's questioning biologists involved in research.

1) If you explained something to them about the AC unit, they probably would not object on religious grounds.
2) They were asking legitimate questions, not questions that have been shown ridiculous nearly as long as they have been asked.
3) They wouldn't try and use the bible to direct your work on the AC unit, and then try and use that as a stepping stone to preaching the gospel to you.

I believe there is a great deal of faith in the basic intelligence of people, just not in YEC's. It's an exception to the norm to find an intelligent YEC, and then they are so obviously compartmentalizing the world around them that it's sickening.

I don't see how the two relate very well.

Tom Sawyer

I used to sit next to a guy who was a YEC but was otherwise very intelligent. He was a good guy and we got along and agreed on many things apart from the religious ones which we didn't really discuss all that often in order to make for a more amicable workplace (I once yelled at him for fifteen minutes when he tried to convince me that the speed of light has been slowing down for the past few thousand years, which is why we can see things billions of light years away).

I think it is very easy to be an otherwise intelligent person to have wierd, unsupportable ideas. I know smart people who think lots of crazy things like that communism is a valid socio-economic theory or that Iraq could have launched a WMD strike within 45 minutes. At my last job, I was sure that if I put in a lot of overtime and did good work, I would survive the first round of layoffs even though the other guy competing with me for the one position that would remain was good friends with our boss. Obviously, I was labouring under a delusion that was empirically tested to be invalid. That doesn't mean that I was stupid, merely misguided in this one area. I didn't listen to the warnings of people who told me not to bother putting in the extra time since I wouldn't get anything out of it - I was so sure that the boss would do what was best for the company and keep me (I was a hell of a lot better than the other guy) rather than let his friend keep his job solely because he was his friend. It turns out that they were all right, but the reality of that didn't sink in until it actually affected my life (by getting fired).

My point in that (other than just plain venting) is that misguided ideas generally aren't dropped by people unless they cause some sort of negative impact on their lives. If I had had an anxiety attack or something like that, it probably would have had the effect of my not trying so hard to keep the job, since my life would have been adversely affected by my misguided belief. For YECs, there is absolutely no negative effect on their lives by holding to their belief. If they get sick, people who do understand how evolutionary biology works will have developed medicines to help them. They won't face reduced job prospects (except maybe if they are part of the insignificant few who work in biology) and they have a lot of friends and community support, so they aren't affected socially either. It can be argued that the long term consequences of this dumbing down of the general population will have negative effects, but few people are motivated by what might happen in the future when they are fine with what's going on now.

When debating with YECs about their beliefs, understand that their holding to their misguided beliefs doesn't put them out at all. They have absolutely nothing to gain by changing what they believe, aside from the fact that they will no longer be wrong, which doesn't really carry any intrinsic benefit when they are surrounded by groups of people who are wrong with them.

Peez

Wondering is very acceptable here. The theory of evolution is questioned legitimately by scientists, constantly, just as any other scientific theory (gravity, relativity, etc.).I recommend that you look up "theory" in the dictionary. I am not trying to be condescending or a smart-alec, you seem to be using one particular sense of the term "theory" (an unsupported guess), and evolution is not a "theory" in that sense. In fact, "evolution" (as used by biologists) is a process (a particular kind of biological change), a fact (descent with modification from common ancestors), and a theory (mutation, natural selection, etc.).The YEC deserves absolutely no credit for their "constant vigilance." Creationism is a social-political movement, not a scientific one. The objections that creationists raise are ludicrous, unscientific, and contribute exactly nothing to science. They typically have little or no understanding of evolution, biology, or even science.Perhaps we could discuss this further. There are "holes" in evolution in the sense that there are "holes" in gravitation and "holes" in every area of science: there are questions that remain to be answered. However, there are no "problems" with evolution in the sense of data that contradicts it. Is there anything specific that you feel is "inconsistent" in evolution?The debate between "evolutionists" and "creationists" is not a scientific one, since creationism is not science at all.Like any other area of science. The frustrating thing is that creationists, lacking any science, rely on social and political pressure in an effort to change what is taught as science. It is truly offensive.

Peez

Rational BAC

PZ and others-------

Your points are well taken. I was just a little afraid of the elitist mentality that can too easily dismiss questions which are either legitimate or even seem to be legitimate to a layman.

I realize that some of those 100 things that evolutionists hate to think about (or whatever it was) were absurd, but some were very puzzling---at least to a layman. A very simple explanation in layman's terms about the scientific truth of it all will work much better than just dismissing some questions as idiotic and not worth replying to. Elitism turns most people off.
------------------------------------------------------------------

And pz---

That part about you being at one time an apprentice AC/refrig mechanic and your father was fascinating.

My story is backwords from yours. And mine worked just as well as yours did.

I had worked my way through college and graduate school using those old 60's NDEA grants and fellowships just short of a PHd in French Literature (all course work done--just had to write a dissertation)----

--- with the wholehearted approval of my father (who was a high school dropout---through necessity--he was a very smart man)------- But he loved the idea of having a "doctor" in the family.

Went to a job fair just after starting my dissertation. There were no jobs worth anything at all in my field. (It seems that the 60's emphasis on language study overdid it a little bit --A LOT--way too many candidates for way too few positions)

Best I could get was a $5000 a year job in a junior college and that only if I promised to complete my doctorate within a year.

I had a wife and a 4 year old to support. It was not a time to be making mistakes financially.


I said to myself "self--I can make $5000 a year doing any damned thing without all the aggravation."

I said "to hell with the whole thing --I will start over" ---much to the dismay of my father.

Got a job bending boat rails and easily made more than $5000 a year doing that.---the first year.

Went to night school, learned AC/refrigeration and turned that into a a very lucrative 20 year career. Raised 2 daughters on that income and sent them through college and grad school on the income from my "lowly trade".

My father eventually forgave me for not becoming a "doctor".

And I watched all my former fellow graduate students have their careers completely trashed in the mid 70's when language study was 'de-emphasized'====no longer required. They all lost their jobs.

The last I saw of one of my old grad school buddies--he was playing drums in a small band just to get by-------and was seriously mad at the world. The last time I talked to him (a very long time ago --1975 I think) he was regretting (and almost suicidal) losing his $11,000 a year position--his wife was divorcing him, he was losing his home.

I never told him (did not want to make things seem any worse than they were)-----but I was making twice that much money doing AC/refrigeration service work. However, I did learn that I had definitely made the right decision.

My French (which I have not totally forgotten) does come in handy during my sometime travels in Europe.

Alan G

Ok I emailed the site admin ofScience Against Evolution asking what his definition of kind was as he said

"Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. "

his reply was:
So from this would I be correct in assuming his standpoint is:

A>Evolution is not possible as eventually mutations would not lead to speciation
and
B>All species alive today, and the ones extinct in the last 6000 years MUST have been on the Ark as they could then not have evolved within the 6000 years.

just want to check anyone elses reading of this before I continue playing with him...

I'm so happy, this is the first creationist to return questions in email. When I harrassed "Dr" Kent Hovind about his absurd statements on Genetic Algorithms and AI he replied saying to phone him. I wasn't phoning transatlantic, I wanted all his ignorant replies on record

scombrid

Just popping off a response before I finish the thread so if I repeat, sorry.

The YEC movement doesn't keep evolution valid and they do not pose challenges to the theory in a legitimate manner. Legitimate questioning would be in journals and at seminars and symposia. Wedging their agenda into primary classrooms is dishonest. It is an attempt to bypass legitimate scientific review. It disrupts science curricula and often perverts the very idea of the scientific method.

unregistered_user_1

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

BANG! You've hit the nail on the head with that! THIS is why creationism is so prevalent! This is why people who are real smart buy into this. It fills an emotional need and quells their fears about death, and "basis for morality" and stuff like that. What I don't like is them passing their fears onto others in order to propagate their beliefs!

We're fighting an emotional battle, not an "intellectual" one.