# I Hate New-Agers More Than Creationists **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 16, 2009, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992 "2009-10-16T04:25:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992/61 "2009-10-16T22:27:32Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > So is eating meat, right? “Meat is murder”. No, it isn’t. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Yeah, you can never have enough Creationism apologists, or something. Since I’m not a creationist nor an apologist I’m sure it doesn’t apply to me. > [@lissener](#): > > [ol] > [li]You are retarded.[/li][li]The other thing that applies in the U.S. is we mostly know how to read English. [/li][li]Read the actual thread before you try to contradict it.[/li][li]You’re still retarded. I wrote that again since you probably didn’t read the first time I said it.[/li][/ol] Actually it my youngest kid who is retarded, but even with his below average intelligence her could see your contentless ad hominem. Do you deny that this obssession with evolution as the end-all of science is mostly American? > [@lissener](#): > > Seriously? You read the part where I specified “biological sciences”? And the part where \*\*jsc \*\*and \*\*Aji \*\*responded as if I’d said astronomy or physics? Since you mentioned, and I quoted, “science fundamentals” I felt sure that you detected that my answer was directed to that part of your post. * * * CHALLENGE (to any): WRITE A BIOLOGY QUESTION -THAT ISN’T DIRECTLY ABOUT EVOLUTION- THAT I CAN’T ANSWER WITHOUT MY HAVING TO BELIVE IN EVOLUTION. (HELL: **ANY BIOLOGY QUESTION** )…or shut up. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992/62 "2009-10-16T22:33:49Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I don’t care what they do, according to your examples. My problem starts when they presume to try and tell “Me” what to think or what to believe or how to live. My problem starts when they try to make laws and enforce them on “Me”. I agree, that would be a problem. Let me know when it happens. ---
**Author:** ![LurkMeister](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3da27b/32.png) [@LurkMeister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LurkMeister)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992/63 "2009-10-16T23:45:48Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Do you deny that this obssession with evolution as the end-all of science is mostly American? Perhaps that’s because the obsession with writing creationist (and other religion-based) beliefs into law is mostly American? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992/64 "2009-10-16T23:56:01Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Sure, but most creationists will agree on the mechanisms and call it “micro” evolution. Only because they were pushed into a corner because you can’t do many jobs touching on biology very well without acknowledging evolution. It turns out most people’s tolerance for that garbage weakens when it risks killing them. Cancer cells, insects, plants and diseases won’t stop evolving just because someone demands that they follow their fantasy. Praising God won’t stop antibiotic resistant bacteria from killing you. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > BTW; it not like denying gravity, not even remotely. Yes, it is. The evidence is that comprehensive, and denying both can get people killed. > [@jsc1953](#): > > OK, let me try another analogy. Can a physiologist experiment with cancer-fighting drugs without believing in evolution? I think so. And you’d be wrong. Cancer cells evolve. You might as well expect an engineer to design a plane when he denies gravity exists. > [@jsc1953](#): > > But let’s say some go into biological research. They get frustrated when their experiments fail to produce the expected results, and quit. Again…I don’t see the harm. The harm is when they lie to people and use their status as a “scientist” to be more convincing. And when they falsify research or coverup or destroy evidence that proves they are wrong. And when they use force to MAKE people follow their beliefs; Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union was imposed by force because the Communists didn’t like Darwinism. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992/65 "2009-10-16T23:56:25Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > I agree, that would be a problem. Let me know when it happens. [Is it 1925 where you live or something?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial) ---
**Author:** ![lazybratsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ba8739/32.png) [@lazybratsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lazybratsche)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992/66 "2009-10-17T00:00:18Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > OK, let me try another analogy. Can a physiologist experiment with cancer-fighting drugs without believing in evolution? I think so. Biologist here. The answer is really no. That physiologist might be able to go through the motions of science, but evolution provides huge amounts of context and background. He’ll be crippled by cognitive dissonance, and even then will have to directly rely on tools that exist only because of our understanding of evolution. And he won’t be able to come up with very good experiments without having evolution in mind. Cancer is a particularly bad example for your case because (wait for it) CANCER EVOLVES. Not to mention that the whole concept of basic biomedical research relies on evolution. We study model organisms because we evolved from common ancestors. That’s why we can use yeast to study the cell cycle, and discover what makes cells divide and (wait for it…) become cancerous. And it’s why we can use mouse models to test out treatments. I really can’t think of much that I do that doesn’t touch on evolution in some way. Your evolution-denying physiologist might be able to make it into some obscure dead-end research job – working for someone who DOES use evolution. ETA: This is the pit so… fuck creationists? But new agers can be worse: don’t forget the anti-vaxxers. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992/67 "2009-10-17T00:04:36Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > [Is it 1925 where you live or something?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial) Kind of a bad example to support your viewpoint…ie, it’s been 84 years since anyone has been prosecuted for teaching evolution. Science marches on, so to speak. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992/68 "2009-10-17T00:07:24Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > Kind of a bad example to support your viewpoint…ie, it’s been 84 years since anyone has been prosecuted for teaching evolution. Science marches on, so to speak. Don’t blame me. You said “when it happens”, and it already happened. But if you insist, how’s this: [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/edwards.html](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/edwards.html) ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992/69 "2009-10-17T00:08:59Z")
> [@lazybratsche](#): > > Biologist here. The answer is really no. That physiologist might be able to go through the motions of science, but evolution provides huge amounts of context and background. He’ll be crippled by cognitive dissonance, and even then will have to directly rely on tools that exist only because of our understanding of evolution. And he won’t be able to come up with very good experiments without having evolution in mind. > > Cancer is a particularly bad example for your case because (wait for it) CANCER EVOLVES. . I certainly bow to and respect your bringing personal expertise to this debate. Wouldn’t it be more precise to say that cancer mutates, rather than evolves? Perhaps a distinction without a difference. Did Gregor Mendel suffer from cognitive dissonance when he worked on plant genetics without understanding evolution? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992/70 "2009-10-17T00:15:36Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > Did Gregor Mendel suffer from cognitive dissonance when he worked on plant genetics without understanding evolution? No, but that’s just it: if you want to study biology without understanding evolution you’ll be limited to Mendel’s level of experimentation. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992/71 "2009-10-17T00:23:53Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Don’t blame me. You said “when it happens”, and it already happened. But if you insist, how’s this: [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/edwards.html](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/edwards.html) OK…a looney state legislature passed a bad law, which was struck down by the District Court, Appeals Court, and Supreme Court. I find this encouraging. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992/72 "2009-10-17T01:54:12Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Yes, it is. The evidence is that comprehensive, and denying both can get people killed. Actually, he’s right on that one. They aren’t really comparable. Denying evolution is much, much stupider than denying gravity. I mean, we still don’t have any real idea what gravity even is, or how it works. Whereas we’ve got the mechanics of evolution pretty well mapped out and lab-tested. As to how important evolution is to understanding biology, I’d say it’s not too important. So long as you’re content with the state of biology as understood in the late ninteenth/early twentieth century. If we want to make any actual _progress_ in the advance of biology, evolution is an absolute necessity. > [@Aji di Galena](#): > > CHALLENGE (to any): WRITE A BIOLOGY QUESTION -THAT ISN’T DIRECTLY ABOUT EVOLUTION- THAT I CAN’T ANSWER WITHOUT MY HAVING TO BELIVE IN EVOLUTION. > (HELL: ANY BIOLOGY QUESTION)…or shut up Why do I have an appendix? ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992/73 "2009-10-17T02:38:31Z")
Creationists usually do not endanger themselves, nor do they commit suicide nor do they reject modern technology and industrial society. New Agers who go to say Sedona and live like hermits are a parasite to society. The only bad thing about Creationists on the other hand is that they demand that teaching evolution in public schools be tampered with creationism. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992/74 "2009-10-17T02:39:38Z")
What do you get when you play New Age music backwards? You get New Age music! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992/75 "2009-10-17T02:44:46Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > The only bad thing about Creationists on the other hand is that they demand that teaching evolution in public schools be **tampered** with creationism. Freudian . . . ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992/76 "2009-10-17T02:50:03Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Freudian . . . 😕😕😕😕 ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992/77 "2009-10-17T03:23:41Z")
SB: tempered ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992/78 "2009-10-17T03:33:17Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > OK…a looney state legislature passed a bad law, which was struck down by the District Court, Appeals Court, and Supreme Court. In other words, they did exactly what **SteveG1** said he has a problem with. So presumably you now agree there’s a problem. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992/79 "2009-10-17T03:33:39Z")
Well, this has quickly gone from ad hominem to absurdem: I have rarely seen an example on these boards of someone more clearly arguing just to hear themselves argue, without even actually believing themselves what they’re arguing, as \*\*jsc \*\*and \*\*aji \*\*have reduced themselves to in this thread. You’ve reduced the tiny island of argument that you’re struggling to stay dry on to the narrowest possible context-free, mechanical “science.” Which still does you no good because even that narrowest possible definition of science as you’ve whittled it down to merely to keep arguing exists entirely surrounded by the context of a science built from millions of scientist-hours of work investigating and proving evolutionary theory, and only works within that same context. Can you work in the biological sciences while refusing to accept the scientific fact of evolution? Sure, if you can call yourself a scientist just because you wear a white coat and clean the mouse cages or wash the beakers. Can you do any substantial work as a “scientist” by the more widely accepted definition of the word? Absolutely not. (And **Aji** , it’s not that America is “obsessed” with evolution. Most of the rest of the educated world takes it for granted as valid science. It stays in the news in America because being retarded doesn’t get your free-speech rights rescinded.) ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992/80 "2009-10-17T04:15:10Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Actually, he’s right on that one. They aren’t really comparable. Denying evolution is much, much stupider than denying gravity. I mean, we still don’t have any real idea what gravity even is, or how it works. Whereas we’ve got the mechanics of evolution pretty well mapped out and lab-tested. > > As to how important evolution is to understanding biology, I’d say it’s not too important. So long as you’re content with the state of biology as understood in the late ninteenth/early twentieth century. If we want to make any actual _progress_ in the advance of biology, evolution is an absolute necessity. > > Why do I have an appendix? While gravity has an ever-present and easily provable relity, evolution requires understanding the process of fossilisation, radiocarondating, radioactive half-life, mutation, genetics, 5’–\>3’, and many other things that are not that obvious. Even if gravity is tiny yellow elves pulling stuff (re:“we still don’t have any real idea what gravity even is, or how it works.”) the effects are there. You cannot tell me that the connection between Dimetrodons and mice is that clear. Let’s see, I don’t need to know evolution to understnad 99.9999% of: ATP production, how haemoglobin works, heart failure, kidney failure, the F1 particle, golgi apparatus, mitosis, meiosis, photosynthesis, cancer, antibiotics, conception, and so on. Since the vermiform appendix apparently performs immune function and also some sort of gut-bacteria regulation I fail to see the problem with a functioning organ. (I agree it is not the most or best studied organ in the body) > [@lissener](#): > > Well, this has quickly gone from ad hominem to absurdem: I have rarely seen an example on these boards of someone more clearly arguing just to hear themselves argue, without even actually believing themselves what they’re arguing, as \*\*jsc \*\*and \*\*aji \*\*have reduced themselves to in this thread. > > You’ve reduced the tiny island of argument that you’re struggling to stay dry on to the narrowest possible context-free, mechanical “science.” Which still does you no good because even that narrowest possible definition of science as you’ve whittled it down to merely to keep arguing exists entirely surrounded by the context of a science built from millions of scientist-hours of work investigating and proving evolutionary theory, and only works within that same context. > > Can you work in the biological sciences while refusing to accept the scientific fact of evolution? Sure, if you can call yourself a scientist just because you wear a white coat and clean the mouse cages or wash the beakers. Can you do any substantial work as a “scientist” by the more widely accepted definition of the word? Absolutely not. > > (And **Aji** , it’s not that America is “obsessed” with evolution. Most of the rest of the educated world takes it for granted as valid science. It stays in the news in America because being retarded doesn’t get your free-speech rights rescinded.) You (and others) made a claim (i.e. evolution is essential for science, later reduced to only biology). The claim is wrong. I (and jsc) refuted it. ANALOGY: Somebody says “Muslims believe that Muhammad is the son of God”. I say “no, Muslims believe he is a prophet”. I don’t believe that he was a prophet, but I’d be reay to debate anyone who made a wrong claim. Absolutley yes. You saying it doens’t make it true. EXAMPLE: I need to see which antibiotic kills more germs. I get my test subject, My antibiotic samples. DOuble-blind it, Check the results. NO Darwin. Take my challenge, prove it, you say it is so crucial. So it is, even if you don’t like it. Stupidity doesn’t take free-speech in most places. Would you like it so? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-new-agers-more-than-creationists/513992.md?page=5)