4 ms·

It's interesting how some groups are actively trying to hold humanity back. -edit, and by those groups I mean creationists. I don't know why this was downvote

It's interesting how some groups are actively trying to hold humanity back. -edit, and by those groups I mean creationists. I don't know why this was downvoted.

Zikes 14y ago
Because those groups would rather attempt to silence a viewpoint that disagrees with theirs than to address it directly and civilly.
- panzagl 14y ago
  Hacker News tends to down-vote the r/atheism love that tries to leak over from that other site.
colin_jack 14y ago
Same for climate chande deniers.
rthomas6 14y ago
Knowing several people who disbelieve evolution or climate change, I think this is not really true and the wrong attitude to take. People that want to teach creation along with evolution in the classroom truly think that evolution is a weakly supported hypothesis that does not fit the scientific evidence. Not just because they believe it contradicts their religion, but because they believe it's physically, literally wrong and is scientifically falsifiable. There is a minority of disbelievers that want biblical literalism taught in the classroom, but I think most truly believe that evolution is probably untrue, and at best, unproven, and simply want what they feel is the evidence taught in the classroom, instead of one unsupported or weak theory taught with cherry-picked evidence. Yes, that's really what they think. Obviously they are wrong, but I think if most of the evolution-deniers truly understood the modern theory of evolution, and understood that it is separate from abiogenesis, I think they wouldn't have a problem with it.
- MichaelGG 14y ago
  Having grown up going to anti-science schools, it's because they simply don't understand the basic idea of evolution. They literally think it's "one day a fish just started walking on land" or "an eye just randomly appeared", which _is_ nonsense. Understanding evolution requires understanding some of the subtleties, a bit of game theory, speciation, and so on. They need to understand that while mutations are random, survival on average is not. Without that understanding, it comes down to "so we just evolved from monkeys? My grandma isn't a monkey!", which is rightfully a stupid idea to believe in. So given their lack of knowledge of what evolution is, they have a perfectly logical stance.
- jakeonthemove 14y ago
  Believing something does not make it true... And hey, if the world was created 6000 years ago by some omnipotent being and made to look like it's several billion years old for some reason, I'm cool with that, but showing me a book written by humans as proof is just goddamn stupid.
  - nthj 14y ago
    I'd consider myself a creationist, but I never understood why so many creationists argue for a 10,000 year old earth. If you'll permit me quoting the Bible, here, to explain my point: there is every logical possibility of 60 billion years occurring between $WHEN_TIME_STARTED and $BIBLICAL_FIRST_DAY_WHICH_MUST_BE_NO_MORE_THAN_10_000_YEARS_AGO. > In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. <hypothesis: stars are created here. some 60 odd billion years go here, giving plenty of time for starlight to reach the earth> > 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. [Also, not really interested in getting into discussions of which scenario is more likely or whether I'm a fracking idiot. I just wanted to point out that I find it an intellectual curiosity that many creationists get so hung up on the young earth thing, since I'm not convinced that a 60 billion year old earth & biblical literalism are mutually exclusive.]
sliverstorm 14y ago
I don't know why this was downvoted 1) Your comment is politically loaded 2) Your comment contains little actual content outside the political payload.

It's interesting how some groups are actively trying to hold humanity back. -edit, and by those groups I mean creationists. I don't know why this was downvoted.

Zikes 14y ago

Because those groups would rather attempt to silence a viewpoint that disagrees with theirs than to address it directly and civilly.

panzagl 14y ago
Hacker News tends to down-vote the r/atheism love that tries to leak over from that other site.

colin_jack 14y ago

Same for climate chande deniers.

rthomas6 14y ago

Knowing several people who disbelieve evolution or climate change, I think this is not really true and the wrong attitude to take. People that want to teach creation along with evolution in the classroom truly think that evolution is a weakly supported hypothesis that does not fit the scientific evidence. Not just because they believe it contradicts their religion, but because they believe it's physically, literally wrong and is scientifically falsifiable. There is a minority of disbelievers that want biblical literalism taught in the classroom, but I think most truly believe that evolution is probably untrue, and at best, unproven, and simply want what they feel is the evidence taught in the classroom, instead of one unsupported or weak theory taught with cherry-picked evidence. Yes, that's really what they think. Obviously they are wrong, but I think if most of the evolution-deniers truly understood the modern theory of evolution, and understood that it is separate from abiogenesis, I think they wouldn't have a problem with it.

MichaelGG 14y ago
Having grown up going to anti-science schools, it's because they simply don't understand the basic idea of evolution. They literally think it's "one day a fish just started walking on land" or "an eye just randomly appeared", which _is_ nonsense. Understanding evolution requires understanding some of the subtleties, a bit of game theory, speciation, and so on. They need to understand that while mutations are random, survival on average is not. Without that understanding, it comes down to "so we just evolved from monkeys? My grandma isn't a monkey!", which is rightfully a stupid idea to believe in. So given their lack of knowledge of what evolution is, they have a perfectly logical stance.
jakeonthemove 14y ago
Believing something does not make it true... And hey, if the world was created 6000 years ago by some omnipotent being and made to look like it's several billion years old for some reason, I'm cool with that, but showing me a book written by humans as proof is just goddamn stupid.
- nthj 14y ago
  I'd consider myself a creationist, but I never understood why so many creationists argue for a 10,000 year old earth. If you'll permit me quoting the Bible, here, to explain my point: there is every logical possibility of 60 billion years occurring between $WHEN_TIME_STARTED and $BIBLICAL_FIRST_DAY_WHICH_MUST_BE_NO_MORE_THAN_10_000_YEARS_AGO. > In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. <hypothesis: stars are created here. some 60 odd billion years go here, giving plenty of time for starlight to reach the earth> > 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. [Also, not really interested in getting into discussions of which scenario is more likely or whether I'm a fracking idiot. I just wanted to point out that I find it an intellectual curiosity that many creationists get so hung up on the young earth thing, since I'm not convinced that a 60 billion year old earth & biblical literalism are mutually exclusive.]

sliverstorm 14y ago

I don't know why this was downvoted 1) Your comment is politically loaded 2) Your comment contains little actual content outside the political payload.