|
Post by MaybeNever on Mar 21, 2009 13:02:46 GMT -5
How about use the word biologist? Because Michael Behe exists.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 21, 2009 14:42:14 GMT -5
There is so much fucking fail in this question. Not just the use of "evolutionists" but that it says organic evolution. Organic doesn't fucking mean what they think it means in science. Organic refers to chemicals that contain both carbon and hydrogen, the word they're looking for is biological. Yes, organisms are organic, but not everything organic relates to life. That's why organic chemistry and biochemistry are separate disciplines. Just throwing this in here, but organic evolution is a term I've heard and read in several places before--I assume it might be convention or something similar. For example, Evolution (the journal) touts itself as: 'Evolution, published for the Society for the Study of Evolution, is the premier publication devoted to the study of organic evolution and the integration of the various fields of science concerned with evolution. The journal presents significant and original results that extend our understanding of evolutionary phenomena and processes.'(http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0014-38200) In that case, my issue with the word "organic" is retracted. How about use the word biologist? Because Michael Behe exists. Fuck Behe, one nutjob is not enough to overthrow consensus. There are quacks in every field, he happens to be one of them.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Mar 21, 2009 15:47:36 GMT -5
Ah Michael Behe, what a toolbag....
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Mar 21, 2009 16:04:45 GMT -5
Isn't it funny how the religious fanatics like to accuse other people of being religious fanatics?
-Creationists now think the word "creationism" carries a negative connotation. Now, they're into "Intelligent Design" (trying to make creation sound scientific) and their name for the theory of evolution is "evolutionism."
-Creationism is purely religious, but they insist that believing in evolution (or being an atheist) requires faith--in fact, they insist that it requires more faith.
-They treat scientists and science in the same fashion they treat religious leaders and religion, and they expect everyone else to do the same. How many times have Creationists accused you of "worshipping" evolution or scientists or atheists? How many times have they tried to discredit the theory of evolution by attacking the personal faults of Charles Darwin? Attacks on the character of the scientists who developed scientifically sound theories don't work; that may work in religion (i.e. Joseph Smith was a racist, Muhammad was a pedophile, Martin Luther was an anti-Semite, etc.) but not in science, because science works on facts and evidence, not the infallability or moral character of scientists. Albert Einstein married his first cousin, and while that is something to be frowned upon, that doesn't mean his theory of relativity should be rejected.
-Creationists tend to take multiple theories and tie them together, as if they were Gospel. When attacking evolution, they attack the Big Bang and abiogenesis as well.
-Creationists treat all scientists as if they are all the same. How many times have you heard someone say, "Scientists are pushing evolution, but aren't these the same scientists who tried to convince us that global warming was real?" No, these aren't the same scientists. One deals with climate change and the other deals with biology. Scientists aren't members of some secret organization like the Free Masons or the Illuminati; they don't hold meetings and discuss secret agendas.
-Creationists complain that evolution teaches children that there is no god, that there is no morality and so on and so forth. Evolution is a scientific fact, not a philosophy. It teaches us about the natural world, it does not teach us morality or a lack thereof. Evolution is not a religion, and no scientists ever pretended it was.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 21, 2009 16:13:24 GMT -5
Scientists aren't members of some secret organization like the Free Masons or the Illuminati; they don't hold meetings and discuss secret agendas. Oh really? Ever read a scientific journal? Not something like Popular Science or Scientific American, but stuff like Nature or PNAS. The language used is just a code, we don't have to hide our agenda, the uninitiated can't understand it.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Mar 21, 2009 16:30:01 GMT -5
Scientists aren't members of some secret organization like the Free Masons or the Illuminati; they don't hold meetings and discuss secret agendas. Oh really? Ever read a scientific journal? Not something like Popular Science or Scientific American, but stuff like Nature or PNAS. The language used is just a code, we don't have to hide our agenda, the uninitiated can't understand it. Guess I missed your avatar when I was typing that....oh shit, now I know too much...*runs away*
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Mar 21, 2009 16:31:39 GMT -5
What? You mean they don't actually do this? Aw, and I was all excited over what a BS degree was.
|
|
|
Post by deliciousdemon on Mar 21, 2009 16:37:18 GMT -5
Scientists aren't members of some secret organization like the Free Masons or the Illuminati; they don't hold meetings and discuss secret agendas. Oh really? Ever read a scientific journal? Not something like Popular Science or Scientific American, but stuff like Nature or PNAS. The language used is just a code, we don't have to hide our agenda, the uninitiated can't understand it. For example: JAK2V617F somatic mutation that drives the development of chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms is associated with the presence of a specific inherited haplotype in JAK2.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 21, 2009 16:57:43 GMT -5
OrietThe votey was the best part about that one. @ deliciousdemon Don't you hate it when kinases don't work and lead to bone marrow diseases?
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Mar 21, 2009 17:00:44 GMT -5
Umm...this question isn't that bad.
Now, before you tar & feather me, let's look at this realistically:
In today's culture, it's okay not to believe in evolution. So, as much as I loathe the [non] word "evolutionist," in this case, I'm afraid it's a necessary evil. They can't say "biologist," because then someone might get butthurt and say, "there are creationist biologists!"
The apes thing and the goal thing are standard dumbass-weeding answers. It's like those questions that say, "what is this word synonymous with?" and some of the answers are completely retarded, like "shoe." It's just to make sure that people know their stuff.
Some of these options leave me going, "Wha--?" so they're clearly above my level. Definately AP-range.
Modern? As we all know, scientific theories change over time.
The organic complaint has already been taken care of, apparently.
So, yeah, I think this question is worded a bit strangely at first, but when you think about it, it really makes sense.
On a similar note, is E the right answer?
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Mar 21, 2009 17:02:05 GMT -5
Umm...this question isn't that bad. Now, before you tar & feather me, let's look at this realistically: In today's culture, it's okay not to believe in evolution. So, as much as I loathe the [non] word "evolutionist," in this case, I'm afraid it's a necessary evil. They can't say "biologist," because then someone might get butthurt and say, "there are creationist biologists!" The apes thing and the goal thing are standard dumbass-weeding answers. It's like those questions that say, "what is this word synonymous with?" and some of the answers are completely retarded, like "shoe." It's just to make sure that people know their stuff. Some of these options leave me going, "Wha--?" so they're clearly above my level. Definately AP-range. Modern? As we all know, scientific theories change over time. The organic complaint has already been taken care of, apparently. So, yeah, I think this question is worded a bit strangely at first, but when you think about it, it really makes sense. On a similar note, is E the right answer? Can we create special Butthurt Forms to be passed out with the AP Exams?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 21, 2009 17:16:26 GMT -5
They can't say "biologist," because then someone might get butthurt and say, "there are creationist biologists!" So? I don't give a shit about butthurt creationists. Creationism is not science, creationism is not biology. Why give them even a little bit of credibility?
|
|
|
Post by wackadoodle on Mar 21, 2009 17:56:20 GMT -5
They can't say "biologist," because then someone might get butthurt and say, "there are creationist biologists!" There are geocentrist astronomers. Better seperate them into Geos and Helios so we dont hurt any moron's feelings.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Mar 22, 2009 8:24:54 GMT -5
Umm...this question isn't that bad. Now, before you tar & feather me, let's look at this realistically: In today's culture, it's okay not to believe in evolution. So, as much as I loathe the [non] word "evolutionist," in this case, I'm afraid it's a necessary evil. They can't say "biologist," because then someone might get butthurt and say, "there are creationist biologists!" The apes thing and the goal thing are standard dumbass-weeding answers. It's like those questions that say, "what is this word synonymous with?" and some of the answers are completely retarded, like "shoe." It's just to make sure that people know their stuff. Some of these options leave me going, "Wha--?" so they're clearly above my level. Definately AP-range. Modern? As we all know, scientific theories change over time. The organic complaint has already been taken care of, apparently. So, yeah, I think this question is worded a bit strangely at first, but when you think about it, it really makes sense. On a similar note, is E the right answer? I'm not one to use the slippery slope arguement much, but given the existance of the 'wedge document' do you think it is wise to give creationists ANY credibility?
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Mar 22, 2009 12:01:16 GMT -5
I'm not one to use the slippery slope arguement much, but given the existance of the 'wedge document' do you think it is wise to give creationists ANY credibility? Absolutely not, that is all they are aiming for, they need some state to legally recognise their "creation degrees" as legitimate to improve their standing. Then you will see creation promotion videos of "recognised creation authority Dr. so-in-so" and the same as talking heads on television broadcasts. This would allow them to present themselves as scientists with degrees to the public when they do not hold any degree in any legitimate scientific field. At least Behe and the others while deluded actually had enough presence of mind and intelligence to actually earn a legitimate degree. Now they want to open the door to the true nutters, the charismatic, the physically appealing, the type that currently become televangelists. Imagine Ann Coulter with an advanced science degree to her credentials to help sway the ignorant... If you allow them this you are letting their foot in the door, you might not ever get that door closed again.
|
|