Disbelief in Evolution is not an indicator of scientific literacy

[GIGObuster]

@Conservian

Anti-vaccine people have nothing to do with the enormous amount of federal funding that pours into the ‘scientific community.’

I missed this way too ignorant point. You do not know about the funding Dr. Wakefield got and his unethical research that almost single-handedly started the anti vaccination movement of today.

The Facts In The Case Of Dr. Andrew Wakefield

The point here is that bad peer pressure and bad reasons for funding can be identified, and scientists can identify and discourage the use of flawed research once more research points to the evidence that showed that Dr. Wakefield was bananas.

[Voyager]

@Conservian

Peer review by the very same who have everything to lose supporting I.D.? I’m gonna say I.D. is just in its early stages of its ascendancy.

You know that Behe, the person who came up with ID and who is a legitimate scientist, accepts evolution, don’t you?
The intelligent design spoken of in creationist circles is creationism scratched out and ID written in its place in order to avoid the Constitutional problems of teaching religious doctrine in schools. A strategy which failed.

And you didn’t answer my question about what evolution says. I’ve read the entire Bible, have you read a legitimate book on evolution?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Conservian

Firstly, I could care less about “how many” scientists subscribe to Darwinian Theory. There’s a history about just how wrong those vast majorities forming a ‘consensus’ have been in the past.

Secondly, One would have to be in a state of willful denial or quite naive not to believe that ‘funding’ and ‘peer pressure’ play a role in ‘who’ signs ‘what.’

Do you apply this principle to the rest of your interactions with scientists?

I mean, in the end, there isn’t a lot of money in evolutionary studies, I would imagine. There’s a shitload in energy or computing, though! I hope you’re appropriately wary when driving or posting on here. I mean, if “funding” and “peer pressure” play a role in hiding the flaws of evolution - Wow, the holes there are going to be in theories that corporations actually have cash on the line for!

[wolfpup]

@Conservian

I’m not the one claiming “majority” automatically wins in Science.

Anti-vaccine people have nothing to do with the enormous amount of federal funding that pours into the ‘scientific community.’

Peer review by the very same who have everything to lose supporting I.D.? I’m gonna say I.D. is just in its early stages of its ascendancy.

Damn! I was ninja’d on a response to this…

@Twoflower

I’m sure it’s possible for some people to be generally scientifically literate while also being willfully ignorant in certain fields. However, we have here at least one data point strongly correlating disbelief in evolution with scientific illiteracy.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that Conservian has an equally expert opinion on climate change, too! Unlike actual knowledge, scientific illiteracy freely extends across many different subject domains.

[GIGObuster]

@Voyager

You know that Behe, the person who came up with ID and who is a legitimate scientist, accepts evolution, don’t you?
The intelligent design spoken of in creationist circles is creationism scratched out and ID written in its place in order to avoid the Constitutional problems of teaching religious doctrine in schools. A strategy which failed.

And you didn’t answer my question about what evolution says. I’ve read the entire Bible, have you read a legitimate book on evolution?

I wondered if we were talking about the same Behe, but I think I found what I had missed.

Michael Behe

In 1996, Behe authored Darwin’s Black Box, which argued that biological systems were irreducibly complex and therefore could not have evolved. Controversial when published, many of the claims in the book have since been refuted, as Behe himself admitted during the Dover trial (see below).

Behe’s second book The Edge of Evolution, published in 2007, abandons many of his earlier positions, to formulate a new idea of the intelligent designer as the “great mutator,” driving the mutations which drive evolution. The abdication of his former ideas, and the substitution of such a weak and strange theory, led Richard Dawkins to refer to him as “a man who has given up.”[2]

So less controversial but loopy still, so much for ‘I.D. being in its early stages of its ascendancy.’ In reality it is fading and many creationists missed the memo.

[Voyager]

@GIGObuster

I wondered if we were talking about the same Behe, but I think I found what I had missed.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
So less controversial but loopy still, so much for ‘I.D. being in its early stages of its ascendancy.’ In reality it is fading and many creationists missed the memo.

That’s the right Behe. He has written several Op-Ed columns in the Times where he plainly states that he accepts evolution. The original ID saw the hand of God (or something) in various structure which are supposedly too complex to evolve. It is kind of like theistic evolution, except in the original ID God left his fingerprints in the genome.
That’s very different from the ID which is creationism with a more secular name. Behe allows himself to be used by the creationists. I suppose the invitations are exciting for a run of the mill professor at a run of the mill university.
IIRC it came out in the Dover case that Behe didn’t actually read the ID textbook he supposedly endorsed.

[GIGObuster]

@Voyager

That’s the right Behe. He has written several Op-Ed columns in the Times where he plainly states that he accepts evolution. The original ID saw the hand of God (or something) in various structure which are supposedly too complex to evolve. It is kind of like theistic evolution, except in the original ID God left his fingerprints in the genome.
That’s very different from the ID which is creationism with a more secular name. Behe allows himself to be used by the creationists. I suppose the invitations are exciting for a run of the mill professor at a run of the mill university.
IIRC it came out in the Dover case that Behe didn’t actually read the ID textbook he supposedly endorsed.

Indeed, I was just pointing out that back in 1997 Behe was willing to toss more bones in one ID camp and now he is tossing more in the more theistic evolution one, IMHO he looks more like someone that wants to have it both ways by supporting evolution and at the same time having “The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution” as the subtitle on his first book and talking then about a ‘failure of Darwinism’. The subtitle on his latest book has “The Search for the Limits of Darwinism” Oh, well, he did go from Darwinism being a failure to “it is just limited”.

One can say that his positions have… evolved. :D;)

[Voyager]

@GIGObuster

One can say that his positions have… evolved. :D;)

Yes, and the selection criteria has something to do with the size of his bank account.
Here’s my theory: Behe, who is a devout Catholic, thought he found something which supported theistic evolution. He was wrong,. but plenty of scientists have been wronger.
Then the creationists desperate for support from someone with real credentials got involved.
Behe: So you want me to speak at your meeting. And you are going to pay me lots of money and give me lots of press. And you totally misunderstand my position. okay. Ka-ching!
Just like a politician when they think they won’t get caught at it.

[common_good]

@Conservian

To the contrary. IMHO, great is the faith of those Neo-Darwinians who actually believe that macroevolution is a solid scientific theory.

I’ve never even heard the term “Neo-Darwinians”. Shouldn’t that be Neo-Darwinists ?
Which I’ve also never heard of. Are you saying micro-evolution is possible but not macro ?
What if you mix-in several million years ? Can small change add-up to big change ?
If you reason it can, then you accept the integrity and correctness of Darwin’s theory. No measure of faith is required.