Thomas wrote:I make observations like this quite frequently, so, arrogant or not, I am very pessimistic about evolutionary biology being widely understood.
I am at a loss to know why you seem compelled to defend yourself from a charge of arrogance. Has someone here accused you arrogance? Point him out, i'll bloody his nose for you. By the way, you didn't answer my question, which was: ". . . perhaps you could expound upon the
creationist fallacy with regard to the amount of 'room there is left for genetic engineering to optimize.'" (Emphasis has been added to demonstrate why it is that i say you have not answered my question.)
The extent to which the
principle thesis of evolution, which i have always understood to be descent from common ancestors with modification through natural selection--originally adduced by Darwin and Wallace through morphological comparison and now studied in alleles--is a far different matter than the extent to which individuals possess a minute knowledge of the details of the data and the conclusions reached by students and scientists of the field. It is quite often the case that even the well-educated, having absorbing concerns of their own areas of expertise, are not currently informed of the most recent results of study. This is germane and crucial in light of your contention that people who consider a theory of evolution to be the most plausible explanation for species diversity do so because of a dogmatic adherence to what they have been told, as opposed to an understanding of the principles involved. It was to this quibble on your part that i referred in remarking upon your elitist attitude.
Quote:Can't help it. Everybody has an opinion on evolutionary biology. But when you actually get to know the field, it frequently turns out to be counterintuitive, technical, and generally hard to make sense of. I would neither have studied this field nor minored in it if I hadn't believed it would make me know more about it than the average guy. If you wish to call this attitude elitist, be my guest.
See what i've written above. The elitist nature of your statement was to basically accuse others of superstitious belief because they do not possess your knowldege of the field. I consider that to be quite unwarranted. The dogmatically superstitious make no attempt to learn anything outside the scope of their canon, and absolutely refuse to accept revision or criticism. That you would characterize well-informed laymen of such an attitude smacks of academic elitism.
Quote:1) I find this remark interesting, since I hadn't constrained my observations to Americans, nor said a single word to this effect in the post you were replying to.
In the post to which i replied, and which reply you have quoted, you began your remarks by reference to George's post. His post referred to your previous post. The portion which he quoted reads:
George, quoting Thomas, wrote:Does Canada have religion classes or something like it? I'm wondering where America's extreme polarization on this issue comes from. And I'm speculating that maybe American creationists are dwelling on the fact that metaphysics and the limits of science are worth teaching in school, but American schools have no straightforward framework for teaching it in. Maybe that's why Americans get the full program of creationist activism, while the rest of the world gets only "murmurings", as goodfielder puts it. (emphasis added)
Therefore, you might understand why i took your remarks to refer to the United States, especially in view of the portion of that post which i have highlighted. I accept that your reference was not so restrictive--i suggest you might understand the origin of my misunderstanding, however.
Quote:Even if I had expressed contempt for the ignorant masses of the United States, what would be your problem with that? After all, your nation is no more exempt from ridiculing and sneering than Elsie_T's and Adele_G's religion.
First, i have not suggested that my nation is exempt from "ridiculing and sneering." Second, do you suggest that one ought not to object on that basis? Certainly Miss Adele and Miss Elsie have done so.
Finally, for my part, at least, i indulged no ridicule until it had been visited upon me for stating that i would be willing to look at Mr. Johnson's book online were it available, but that i would not buy it based upon his personal history in the ID movement, and the fact of its having been published by the major American ID front organization. That was the departure point for the scorn of both Miss Adele and Miss Elsie, and i feel neither guilty nor iniquitous for having responded to that scorn in like kind. I considered their religious beliefs to be fair game at that point at which they refused to name the designer implicit in "intelligent design," and began firing broadsides at atheists, without having established whether or not they were conversing with atheists. Additionally, i was attacked with an accusation something to the effect that i do nothing but run around these fora heaping scorn on religion. I suspect that you might be sufficiently familiar with the range of subjects which i visit at this site, and the amount of my posts devoted to mere silliness and harmless fun, to know that only a very small fraction of the 20,000+ posts i have made deal with the issue of religion. If you lie down with the hounds, you'll get up with fleas. Had Miss Adele and Miss Elsie not wished to make an issue of religion they ought neither to have visited a thread with "religion" as a titular constituent of the discussion, or scorned others on an assumption of atheism.
Quote:1) I'm grossly oversimplifying now, but Germans in general take a back seat to no one when it comes to accepting uncritically what the authorities tell them. I said nothing to the opposite effect in the post you responded to. 2) That said, creationism does play a marginal role in Germany, probably because our authorities don't treat it as a respectable theory. You are always welcome to visit me in Munich and check this out for yourself. Heck, you might even find that I sneer a whole lot less than you think I do.
Refer, if you please, once again to my remarks above as to why i believed that you were indulging in a special scorn for the United States. If as you allege, Germans are given to accepting uncritically what is told them by authority, the fact that authority does not treat creationism as a respectable theory hardly suggests that Germans do not indulge it for sound intellectual reasons. It is also noteworthy that southern Germany, as is the case in Austria, has historically had largely a Catholic confession. Are you confident that the same attitude prevails in the rest of Germany?
