Why do some groups get blacklisted for the minority of extremists within?

Great Debates
1

In following another thread called “Prove Evolution Right, or Wrong” ( http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=128703), I noticed that there seemed to be a resentment against Creationists that was common amongst most of the posters. In an effort to avoid hijacking that thread, I have started this one.

Why is it that groups of people who have a strong belief about a particular subject are usually thought of in a bad light due to the psycho people who take it too far? Here are a few examples of what I am talking about:

Pro-lifers are disliked because a few extremists bomb an abortion clinic. This is a terrible tragedy, and certainly not the way I, or any of my pro-life friends, would have attempted to handle it.

Creationists are disliked due to a few within their ranks (cough JACK CHICK cough) who say stupid things that are easily proven wrong that make the rest look foolish.

Gays tend to be thought of as men who wear make-up, outlandish clothes, and speak with a lisp. While there are gays who are like this, they are by far in the minority.

The Christian Right looks bad for both Christians and the Republican party. The extremist views held by them are certainly not the opinions of the majority of Republicans, nor do they speak for Christians.

These are just the first few examples that popped into my head. Anyone have any ideas?

2

Because they are the ones people see (or hear) and remember. Because all too rarely do the less extreme individuals actually ever speak out against the extreme ones, or make themselves visible enough to let people know, “Hey, we aren’t all like that!” Even then, it seems that they speak out only to avoid mischaracterization, rather than to actually confront the extremist types about their methods, tactics or views.

3

In the other thread you mentioned, I noticed that you didn’t respond to the comment (i’m paraphrasing) “I’ve never heard a creationist argument that didn’t include lies and/or misstatements.”

So, you believe in creationism either because:
(1) you have faith
(2) you are misinformed
(3) you have good reasons, but refuse to share them.

If its (1), then good for you. Nobody can sway you, and you believe what you believe, and that’s that. Of course, you probably shouldn’t be posting here, because you aren’t interested in a debate.

If its (2), then you’ve come to the right place. I hope we can show you the light.

If its (3), then maybe its time to share your views.
Okay, if there are only 3 reasons to believe in creationism, then how, exactly, are the posters of this board acting unfairly to creationists?

4

To speak in very broad generalities, there is one instance in which a “blacklisting” of a group for the actions of its extremists may be warranted - where the group (inasmuch as a group can “speak”) is unwilling to denounce the extremism.

Sua

5

I felt that I did respond to that. I said,

I suppose you could say I do have faith. However, I have also put some personal time and thought into it, and believe that creationism is simply the more plausible of the theories. It just doesn’t make sense to me that for so long on this planet there was nothing, then there was life. This is spontaneous generation, which was shown to not happen by Louis Pasteur in the 1860’s (I think I have the timeframe right). It just makes more sense, at least in my mind.

In short, I can’t defend those who use lies and misstatements, because they are wrong to do that. My whole point is that because a few do that, it is assumed that all creationists do that.

6

Here is just such a misstatement. Spontaneous Generation was laid to rest in 1859 by Pasteur, as you stated. However, what you are referring to is abiogenesis, not spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is the spontaneous creation, if you will, of fully functional organisms from non-living matter. This is a very different concept from abiogensis, whereby the building blocks of life arose from non-living matter.

And before you say anything about abiogenesis itself being a fantasy, keep in mind that the whole Genesis creation story is entirely about abiogenesis. The difference between the Biblical version and the scientific version is that one necessarily invokes supernatural forces as an explanation, and the other doesn’t.

7

Lord Ashtar, I think you may have succombed to the slippery slope.

Let me explain to you first of all that Creationism isn’t a theory. Period. In fact, most ignorant creationists enjoy painting mainstream scientists as dealing only with a theory as though that let their arguments be more correct, even though there is absolutely NO evidence for the litteral creation myth as outlined in Genesis. (oh, and by the way, when I say absolutely NO evidence, I mean there is not one detail of the story that holds any observed scientific validity).

I sincerely hope you aren’t a young earth creationist and have no qualms with the Big Bang. Those people are just plain ridiculous Don Quixotes fighting windmills.

So then, perhaps you believe in Gap theory? Well, IANAEB (I am not an evolutionary biologist), but it is overwhelmingly apparent to me that Genesis gets the whole order of life’s creation basically wrong according to the fossil record (which is much more complete than cretaionists are apt to admit). But let’s not blame the book; Genesis wasn’t written with the intent to prove a scientific theory, instead it was written to give a faith-based account of creation.

I can, however, counter your argument against abiogenesis. First of all, life appears on Earth almost from the very point when it could. There wasn’t a long time when there was no life and then there was, because basically life couldn’t exist in the brief 500 million years or so before it showed up. Of course, it is rather difficult for creationists to use this to their advantage, because it basically amounts to you admitting that the first life on Earth was microbial, unicelluar, prokaryotic, etc. and there was a progression that followed that looks disturbingly like evolution. So, it is a bit of a mystery as to why life occurred so soon on Earth, not, as you described it, why life was sterile for so long when it could hold life.

If you feel that there is no such thing as abiogenesis simply because spontaneous generation was discounted, then you are living in utter contradiction. Abiogenesis is dealing with very simple life and precursors… NOT flies in rotting meat! I have yet to meet a Creationist who didn’t admit that at some point there was a time when there was no life, and that God created it. Well, in that case a kind of spontaneous generation occurred.

According to current origins theory, abiogenesis occurred at some point, the exact mechanisms of which we are still working out. It may even occur today, but we have yet to observe it as contaminant life is fairly robust at eliminating pristine conditions required for the bizarre entropy-defying life to get going. Of course, one could also be a zoo-hypothesist or a panspermist. In short, one need not resort to creationism to explain away the abiogenesis quandary.

And besides, we know that the precursors to life are found in abiotic conditions. We are also able to demonstrate pre-biotic selection techniques that are peculiarly similar to genetic copying. Life can be explained on the molecular level and Irreducible Complexity does not hold water in dismantling the theories for how such molecular mechanisms develop.

We are working hard to come up with abiogenetic theories of origins, and the evidence indicates that on the timescales we’re talking about life is apt to occur…goldilocks effect-like. Evolution is extremely robust in this case because it only takes a few abiogenetic moments (or perhaps one) to initiate the process. If you are like most creationists, you tend to believe that God makes all species and drops them down in Eden. Of course, I don’t know if you believe this or not, but you are clearly misinformed if your objection to evolution comes from you the fact that you find abiogenesis unlikely.

8

From http://www.howstuffworks.com/evolution1.htm :

The basic theory of evolution is:

  • It is possible for the DNA of an organism to occasionally change, or mutate.

  • The change brought about by a mutation is either beneficial, harmful or neutral. … The process of culling bad mutations and spreading good mutations is called natural selection.

  • As mutations occur and spread over long periods of time, they cause new species to form.

I don’t know that the mainstream evolution theory even attempts to cover how life began from nothing.

So, back to my original point, namely, for what reason do you have for believing that the 3 above points are inaccurate?

9

Well for starters, I would say that anyone who would argue the inerrancy of the Bible–and is therefore a young earth creationist–is an extremist Christian (or Jew).

But here you are misrepresentin’. This is not evolution–which explains how pre-existing organisms change over time–but abiogenesis. Science admits that it does not have strong theories explaining how the first DNA-bearing organisms arose on Earth. It could have come aboard a meteorite, or indeed it could have been the product of intelligent design. But that doesn’t mean the Earth is 6000 years old or the Bible is right.

10

Putting life as a contaminant on board a meteorite simply pushes the question back further and does not really address the issue of life’s primal cause. Clearly, more study is needed.

11

Clearly more study is underway.

That study is being done by molecular biologists.

They study the intricate manner in which macromolecular structures interact, and combine, and then use that knowledge to predict what changes might occur if the molecules were changed in some particular way. Then they test those predictions, and learn if their understanding was correct. This process is called science.

Creationists tend to “study” the matter by reading each other’s work, and seizing on every case where biologists have found their own errors and trumpeting their view that that makes everything any scientist says patently wrong. I am not sure what that type of study should be called.

Tris

“Stoning non conformists is part of science. Stoning conformists is also part of science. Only those theories that can stand up to a merciless barrage of stones deserve consideration. It is the Creationist habit of throwing marshmallows that we find annoying.” ~ Dr Pepper ~

12

Why do groups get dismissed, dissed, and ignored?

If a politician is willing to accept the financial and electoral support of openly bigoted groups and individuals he will be perceived as condoning their point of view. If that same politician tailors his public speech to avoid disagreement with that same faction, he most definitely is condoning, and even encouraging that faction’s point of view. If that politician uses his influence to cause his political party to do the same, he has become an active advocate of the bigotry that minority faction advocates, and if his party follows that strategy, they clearly have done the same.

If a religious organization claims to speak the word of God, and speaks hatred, all the members of that organization that stand silent before that speech are submitting to the defilement of their faith in God. They make their agreement manifest by their silence. While it is not always the case that they do so out of their own hatred, they have chosen to allow their church, their own community of faith, to choose hatred over love. Why should people not assume that you agree, if you say you are of the same religion? If you do not, and the people in your fellowship of faith say they do, you must speak out. If you can do nothing to change their belief, you must leave that fellowship, or you tacitly condone the belief.

If the Fictional Congregation of True Believers in God holds a meeting and turns away all the Lithuanian people, if you remain in the meeting, you are participating in their bigotry. When I find out that you are a member of the FCTBG, it is entirely reasonable that I consider you an anti-Lithuanian bigot. You may claim it is not so, but you participate in such bigotry, and if you are not such a bigot, you will serve, until the bigots themselves arrive, with their pitchforks and torches.

Lie down with dogs, and get up with fleas.

Tris

“When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other.” ~ Eric Hoffer ~

13

If I might ask a question, Lord Ashtar, why, IYO, did God let the earth sit around so long before populating it with life?

14

I thought most people stayed on topic and were polite.

Personally I don’t find biblical creation in conflict with evolution. That’s just my opinion, I am probably wrong. I justify my opinion by assuming that the Bible was not written as a science book. If it went into detail about God’s methods it would be a million volume set.

Let me be clear though, there is a huge amount of evidence for evolution. There are transitional fossils, “missing” links, whatever. Microevolution produces great changes over time. Yes, there have been dating errors, but the decay rates of radioactive elements are observable and useful in dating organic material. Holes in the fossil record are easily explained if you do a little research into what causes a fossil to be preserved in the first place. Most evidence is simply destroyed through the Earth’s natural processes. Some organisms die and never leave any evidence at all.

People did rip into Jack Chick pretty good. I don’t know if you are aware of this, but Jack Chick writes about a lot of issues in such a way as to anger people. This may carry over into discussions about evolution. I don’t think many posters were directing anger at Christians or Creationists.

15

In the case of extremist, so-called “pro lifers” who bomb clinics, all too often the response of non-extremist pro-lifers is along the lines of - Well, I don’t condone their violence, but … followed by some mitigating comment.

Non-nutcase religious people need to oppose Literalist Creationism attempts to shoehorn their bogus science into science classes. Instead many mumble wishy-washy things like - Well, I don’t see anything wrong with presenting both sides.

When GHW Bush and Pat Robertson question the committment of the non-religious to the general welfare of the US, then the Republican Party and Christians should look bad when they remain silent.-

16

I don’t think I dismiss creationists: I am willing to entertain their arguements in almost any forum they bring it to.

But creationism (the kind which rejects evolution: some people quite handily sqaure god’s act of creation with evolution) is not simply a group of people. It is an arguement. And I not only disagree strongly with that arguement, but I find it to be plauged by mistatements, misunderstanding, and slander.

As to creationists, I never make any intimations that they are necessarily responsible for the problems with their arguements. Many creationists simply never have cause to address the problems, and it’s fine with me if they believe what they do. A good life can be based on those beliefs, I sincerely believe that. But when those arguements come out in public, when they are inflicted on our government and public schools, I WILL call them what they are.

—When GHW Bush and Pat Robertson question the committment of the non-religious to the general welfare of the US, then the Republican Party and Christians should look bad when they remain silent.—

Note: Bush on two occasions, the most significant being his Easter address, has stated that non-religious people are good citizens too.

17

GHW Bush and GW Bush are two different people. Father and son if you must know. And GHW has never disavowed his remark that atheists couldn’t, in his opinion, be good citizens. And Pat Robertson has never disavowed any of his ignorant rantings about atheists and atheism, because he believes thim to be “God’s Word,” I guess.

18

My mistake: though initials are not exactly the clearest way to signify between one or the other.

19

Sorry for the hijack, but what is “zoo-hypothesism”???

20

You’re right. I forget that not everyone here is old enough to remember President Calvin Coolidge (just barely) and might not remember, or even know, that Bush I is George** H**erbert Walker Bush. Getting their initials out is difficult for me considering my disdain. Writing the whole name almost does me in. As you can probably tell, I’m not exactly an unbiased source concerning the Bushes.

Anyway, the point of the post was that, as is usual for them, mainstream religious leaders did little, if anything at all, to counter the outrageous statements of the likes of Robertson and Falwell, and Bush wasn’t chasitized by any of them for a gratuitious slur on those whose religious views differ from his.

And that has been the point of many posters on this thread. If the religious would police their allies or at least disavow them, they wouldn’t be tarred by the same brush. They could at least call as big a news conference as do the nut cases and get a reasonable public statement before the world at large.