To Outspoken Creationists:
Your rejection of science is, in as few words as possible, quite bothersome. Whenever I see a creationist proof that “disproves” evolution (something that 150 years of scientific scrutiny not been able to do) you bring up outdated and, more importantly, refuted evidence. Whenever I see an (even more innane) idea that rejects such concrete fact as plate tectonics and continental shift, the only thing used is flawed logic. Whenever you argue for the existence of your god, of a god, all I have seen are logical fallacies and strawman arguments.
It seems, to me, that your rejection of “controversial” scientific theories (which are in no way controversial outside of your limited view of reality) does not stem from errors in the scientific method, nor does it stem from errors in logic or error of others, nor does it stem from errors in scientific procedures. Your rejection of science (and total ignorance of other science in the world around you, including the science that makes the Internet through which you communicate your ignorance possible) seems to stem (and this may be total conjecture) from your inability to cope with the modern world. Your childhood indoctrination or, even worse, born-again faith has instilled an ignorance in the heart of your psyche. You cling to a world view millenia old, a world view which has been left behind by the intellectuals of the world. These are the same intellectuals who have produced such wondrous and detailed scientific theories as plate tectonics, evolution through natural selection, the Big Bang theory, the expanding universe theory, the theory of gravity, biology, biochemistry, and others.
Science is about weeding out bad ideas and finding evidence for good ideas. You start with a hypothesis, an idea, and you work from there. You experiment. You observe. You record. In the end, you gather the data and observations and determine if your hypothesis was supported or not. If it was, good for you! Time to go to step two. If not, you revise your hypothesis and start over again.
If your hypothesis is supported, you write a final documentation of your entire procedure (hope you kept notes) and send it off to the wonderful gauntlet of peer review. If you use experimentation, people attempt to replicate them. If you made observations, the peer reviewers (let’s just call them “scientists,” in the terms of people qualified and educated to do science) attempt to make these same observations, and they will compare their own inferences with yours. It’s a lengthy process designed to assure that ideas are refined and shaped to all of our past evidence so that, if your findings are found to be true, your findings can be published and added onto the massive tower that is modern science, which itself serves as a pillar of modern society.
Ignorance is bliss; ignorance is fine and dandy, even if you flaunt it to others. No, what creationists do (and I do not mean all creationists, as I myself know a few who are respectable people; I refer exclusively to those performing the deeds stated hereafter) is force this world view onto others. They manipulate fact. They manipulate politics. They rebrand their idea as “creation science” (inherent joke: “science” is in the name) and “intelligent design” (inherent joke: “intelligent” is in the name). They remain blissfully (and sometimes angrily) ignorant of hundreds of years of scientific discovery. You reject the works of thousands, tens of thousands, perhaps...
gracieabrams
gamechangershow
2087
turnnoffyourmind
kianamaiart
yousharknotpass
areudirty
