This is my comparison of "intellectuals smarmy academic" types-- who wax babble nonstop incessant on empty philosophical garbage. This is only because they are too proud to oh so ever and ever accept themselves, humble themselves enough to do manual labor or skilled labor work, such as cleaning, nursing assistant, construction, factory work. But at the same time, they are not intelligent enough to do truly higher critical thinking work. Such as engineering. Biochemistry research. Medical school. Computer programming.
This brings to the surface another topic: that of science. This word is so misused through the entertainment and the news media constantly. (Let's be honest, the distinction between these two media sources grows narrower and fuzzier every day.) Most laypersons probably think that because they paused for ten seconds in front of the TV store while it was broadcasting a news channel report on global warming, on the layperson's way to the indie coffee shop, this means they are scientifically literate.
What is most troubling is that with all the talk of "evolution" and "climate change" in the manner these are depicted by the media, people are misled to believe that all that cute little fluffy fluff is genuine science.
I am afeared that the universities themselves, the very places that are supposed to clear up any misconceptions about these subjects, are the ones perpetuating this vast misunderstanding.
Genuine science does not do this. Genuine science does not posit the notion that just because someone managed to hack up a pseudo-original or rebellious thought, does not mean he/she is right. Re: atheists thinking they are smart for being rebellious and unprecedented and unseen in prior human history. And re: everyone is special in their own way; there is no right or wrong answer, what matter is what you feel like not what the right answer is.
I remember being surprised and relieved to see that this nonsense was not parroted in real science courses.
Atheists think that simply by dint of being atheists, this automatically registers their IQs a couple of points higher. They think this automatically puts them in a higher quotient bracket.
They think that simply because they have a particular opinion, this somehow makes them smarter.___ yes, atheism IS an opinion no different from religiosity. Oh, posh. The only difference is that you like this book "on the origin of species" and dislike this book "bible." Whereas religious types like this book and dislike this book. This is a strange parallel between middle-class white kids who study Philosophy Of Art History -- and atheists.
Go on, one of you atheists. if you are truly so smart
Then they will inevitably produce a diagram of an evolutionary tree, thinking smugly that this proves them smart.
Erm, let's back up and begin with the fundamentals. You think that because you can read a goddamn tree, this somehow makes you scientifically literate? Anybody can look at one of these macroevolution diagrams and easily understand it. Let us be honest-- the ability to read a family tree does not require extensive cognitive capacity. I did a family tree project back when I was in fifth or sixth grade. This was a class assignment. It was a lot of fun.
Do me a favor. Don't whip out a picture of a family tree. Guess what. Uber-religious types can also read a tree. They can trace the lineage of Abraham, down to Yeshua, and Moses, and Joseph. Being able to see a tree does not make you any smarter than those people you love to think you are better than.
If you are as smart as you say you think you are, then you should have no trouble explaining this: thermodynamics. Don't forget to mention Gibbs free energy, [[[[use excerpts fom my bright pink sticky note.]]]]]
Hmm, maybe that is not your area of expertise. Try another one: physics-based calculus.
Let's go for a simpler one -- that trusty old stalwart, The Periodic Table. Describe using chemistry explanations of electronegativity, ion strength, and atom size why water is so unique and powerful a chemical. This is especially when compared to hydrides of the other Group 6 elements.
Or, here's a good one. Since you like evolution so much, why don't you try explaining an interesting phenomenon to your eagerly waiting-with-bated breath audience? The second law of thermodynamics states the presence of entropy. The universe is slowly moving towards chaos, toward disorganization, towards particles becoming more and more randomly scattered throughout the universe. Yet evolution indicates progress, species moving forward, beneficial mutations. More complex aggregates of interacting atoms and molecules, and then cells, and then multi-cellular organisms. How can both of these seemingly conflicting laws of nature occur simultaneously in the same universe? How can randomly, effortlessly dissipating atomic particles be reconciled with beneficial mutations giving some species a competitive edge over other species?
Perhaps you should start off with explaining the central dogma of biochemistry. Do you know what that is, first of all?
You cannot, can you? Didn't think so.
You see, these critical industries of the physical, natural, and applied sciences are absolutes. They are facts. They are definites. *But at the same time* they are complex, complicated, intricate, detailed. They require a very discerning eye as well as the ability to keep all this enormous amount of information neatly organized in the mind. Most people, yes that includes atheists, simply do not have the capacity for this neurological demand.
The reason that so many atheists glomp onto evolution is that evolution is actually pretty easy to understand. On a rudimentary summarized level, before delving into the molecular basis for this theory, it is not a difficult concept to grasp in the minds of average people that are "comfortably ensconced in the middle of the bell curve." (Hehe, "Sabrina the Teenage Witch.") Anyone with an IQ of roughly 100 can understand evolution as it is presented in pop culture and pop media. This includes self-proclaimed "atheists" who most likely also have an IQ of around 100.
It is easy to feel smart and superior with a no-brainer such as macroevolution. Atheists' opinion of macroevolution is that they like it. Atheists love to talk about how they approve of evolution, and macroevolution is technically categorized as science, so this allows them to feel smart.
Again, this is simply a matter of an *opinion* that atheists exploit in an attempt to demonstrate that they are smarter. "Oh evolution is totally science! And since I approve of teaching a type of science [even though this particular branch of science is not difficult], that must mean I am smarter than my small-town hole in a hovel [family including parents] that I am trying to rebel against!"
This brings to the surface another topic: that of science. This word is so misused through the entertainment and the news media constantly. (Let's be honest, the distinction between these two media sources grows narrower and fuzzier every day.) Most laypersons probably think that because they paused for ten seconds in front of the TV store while it was broadcasting a news channel report on global warming, on the layperson's way to the indie coffee shop, this means they are scientifically literate.
What is most troubling is that with all the talk of "evolution" and "climate change" in the manner these are depicted by the media, people are misled to believe that all that cute little fluffy fluff is genuine science.
I am afeared that the universities themselves, the very places that are supposed to clear up any misconceptions about these subjects, are the ones perpetuating this vast misunderstanding.
Genuine science does not do this. Genuine science does not posit the notion that just because someone managed to hack up a pseudo-original or rebellious thought, does not mean he/she is right. Re: atheists thinking they are smart for being rebellious and unprecedented and unseen in prior human history. And re: everyone is special in their own way; there is no right or wrong answer, what matter is what you feel like not what the right answer is.
I remember being surprised and relieved to see that this nonsense was not parroted in real science courses.
Atheists think that simply by dint of being atheists, this automatically registers their IQs a couple of points higher. They think this automatically puts them in a higher quotient bracket.
They think that simply because they have a particular opinion, this somehow makes them smarter.___ yes, atheism IS an opinion no different from religiosity. Oh, posh. The only difference is that you like this book "on the origin of species" and dislike this book "bible." Whereas religious types like this book and dislike this book. This is a strange parallel between middle-class white kids who study Philosophy Of Art History -- and atheists.
Go on, one of you atheists. if you are truly so smart
Then they will inevitably produce a diagram of an evolutionary tree, thinking smugly that this proves them smart.
Erm, let's back up and begin with the fundamentals. You think that because you can read a goddamn tree, this somehow makes you scientifically literate? Anybody can look at one of these macroevolution diagrams and easily understand it. Let us be honest-- the ability to read a family tree does not require extensive cognitive capacity. I did a family tree project back when I was in fifth or sixth grade. This was a class assignment. It was a lot of fun.
Do me a favor. Don't whip out a picture of a family tree. Guess what. Uber-religious types can also read a tree. They can trace the lineage of Abraham, down to Yeshua, and Moses, and Joseph. Being able to see a tree does not make you any smarter than those people you love to think you are better than.
If you are as smart as you say you think you are, then you should have no trouble explaining this: thermodynamics. Don't forget to mention Gibbs free energy, [[[[use excerpts fom my bright pink sticky note.]]]]]
Hmm, maybe that is not your area of expertise. Try another one: physics-based calculus.
Let's go for a simpler one -- that trusty old stalwart, The Periodic Table. Describe using chemistry explanations of electronegativity, ion strength, and atom size why water is so unique and powerful a chemical. This is especially when compared to hydrides of the other Group 6 elements.
Or, here's a good one. Since you like evolution so much, why don't you try explaining an interesting phenomenon to your eagerly waiting-with-bated breath audience? The second law of thermodynamics states the presence of entropy. The universe is slowly moving towards chaos, toward disorganization, towards particles becoming more and more randomly scattered throughout the universe. Yet evolution indicates progress, species moving forward, beneficial mutations. More complex aggregates of interacting atoms and molecules, and then cells, and then multi-cellular organisms. How can both of these seemingly conflicting laws of nature occur simultaneously in the same universe? How can randomly, effortlessly dissipating atomic particles be reconciled with beneficial mutations giving some species a competitive edge over other species?
Perhaps you should start off with explaining the central dogma of biochemistry. Do you know what that is, first of all?
You cannot, can you? Didn't think so.
You see, these critical industries of the physical, natural, and applied sciences are absolutes. They are facts. They are definites. *But at the same time* they are complex, complicated, intricate, detailed. They require a very discerning eye as well as the ability to keep all this enormous amount of information neatly organized in the mind. Most people, yes that includes atheists, simply do not have the capacity for this neurological demand.
The reason that so many atheists glomp onto evolution is that evolution is actually pretty easy to understand. On a rudimentary summarized level, before delving into the molecular basis for this theory, it is not a difficult concept to grasp in the minds of average people that are "comfortably ensconced in the middle of the bell curve." (Hehe, "Sabrina the Teenage Witch.") Anyone with an IQ of roughly 100 can understand evolution as it is presented in pop culture and pop media. This includes self-proclaimed "atheists" who most likely also have an IQ of around 100.
It is easy to feel smart and superior with a no-brainer such as macroevolution. Atheists' opinion of macroevolution is that they like it. Atheists love to talk about how they approve of evolution, and macroevolution is technically categorized as science, so this allows them to feel smart.
Again, this is simply a matter of an *opinion* that atheists exploit in an attempt to demonstrate that they are smarter. "Oh evolution is totally science! And since I approve of teaching a type of science [even though this particular branch of science is not difficult], that must mean I am smarter than my small-town hole in a hovel [family including parents] that I am trying to rebel against!"
0 Comments:
Post a Comment