8 ms·

A quote from the article: "You don’t have to be a benighted creationist ..." Can we please keep these type of articles off HN please? I don’t come here to be in

by pcunite 11y ago

A quote from the article: "You don’t have to be a benighted creationist ..." Can we please keep these type of articles off HN please? I don’t come here to be insulted. I have other sites for that! Sir Isaac Newton was not a simple nor stupid man and he gave honor to the Creator. Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. A whole lot of reasons for what allowed the Internet, HN, science, and technology to be where it is at today came out of a nation (silly apparently to the writer) which put "In God We Trust" on everything.

sethrin 11y ago
No one else is required to cater to your religious beliefs, no matter what those may be. Also, this is an article about evolutionary biology, not creationism. The part you object to is easily overlooked. I'm sure this issue is very important to you, but I believe the best move here is to simply turn the other cheek.
Red_Tarsius 11y ago
I think you misunderstood the article. American Creationists are believers who reject what science has figured out in favor of biblical literalism. They even built the Creationist Museum, whose exhibits depict "the coexistence of humans and non-avian dinosaurs, say that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old, and dispute the idea that life evolved into its current forms." – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
solipsism 11y ago
Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. Science isn't trying to figure god out any more than it's trying to figure fairies out. Science focuses its efforts on understanding reality.
- Rexxar 11y ago
  Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. The big question of science is "How ... ?" The big question of religion is "Why ... ?" The two solve different problems and could coexist without so many animosity on each side.
  - shasta 11y ago
    The big question of science is "Why...?" The big question of religion is "Who...?"
    - Rexxar 11y ago
      I disagree here. For example, relativity and quantum mechanics explain how our world behave but we have no idea why these theories are true or even why can the universe be described with mathematical equations ?
      - zornthewise 11y ago
        What kind of answer would satisfy your questions of why these theories are true anyway. I am not sure I can even imagine an ideal answer and this might be a clue that we are asking the completely wrong question.
        Rexxar 11y ago
        I don't have answer on the "Why". I think that this question is not a scientific question because the answer could no be proved/invalidated by experiments. It's a philosophical question and some people find the answer in religion or philosophy, some just admit they don't know and others just don't care.
      - Retra 11y ago
        I suppose religion will tell you why those things are true?
alexqgb 11y ago
Slapping "In God We Trust" on everything was not only a fairly recent development, it was a cynically calculated response by a chastened business class that found itself coming under extraordinary scrutiny in the wake of the Great Depression. The redemption of capitalism by Christianity demanded a heavily modified version of the religion that basically abandoned all the parts about people looking after each other and created a new ethos in which getting rich was both a duty and a reward. Given a bunch of plutocrats who would pay well for effective propaganda and some creative but unscrupulous preachers willing to do their dirty work, a distinctly American (and conspicuously un-Christian) version of Christianity was born. It's been polarizing our politics and supporting the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands ever since. A couple of recent books by Nicole Aschoff and Kevin Kruse have done a good job unpacking this reprehensible hustle. If you have any interest in finding out just how much bullshit has gone into shaping your world view, Elizabeth Bruenig has reviewed both of them here: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121564/gods-and-profits-how-capitalism-and-christianity-aligned-america http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121564/gods-and-profits-h... You can also read Kruse himself, who has summarized his effort (How Corporate America Invented Christian America) here: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/corporate-america-invented-religious-right-conservative-roosevelt-princeton-117030.html http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/corporate-ame... On a separate note, Newton's total disregard of evolutionary theory is not a product of any disagreements he had with the theory itself. Rather, it's due to the fact that died more that 130 years before "On the Origin of Species" was first published. Class dismissed.
- dang 11y ago
  > If you have any interest in finding out just how much bullshit has gone into shaping your world view Personal attacks and acerbic swipes are not welcome on Hacker News. Please don't do this.
lotsofmangos 11y ago
I half agree with you. I do think that the language used to describe religious viewpoints includes off the cuff insults far too often. The word benighted was unnecessary in that sentence and does detract from the article. I don't think it was egregious enough to demand the article not be posted, but I do agree that it is a form of philosophical point scoring that serves neither the article, nor the wider discussion. The first person to derive the Hubble constant and one of the main developers of big-bang theory was Georges Lemaître, a devout Catholic who would later become president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, who described the idea as "the Cosmic Egg, exploding at the moment of the creation", though he didn't like the Pope relying on it in proclamations. I think it would be fair to call him a creationist. Also, Hoyle, who was not a creationist, coined the term 'Big-Bang' to take the piss out of Lemaître's idea and promote the steady-state theory, which he preferred. Hoyle however believed that a god was guiding the fine tuning of the constants to help the evolution of life, so was effectively a proponent of intelligent design, while not being a creationist. Weirdly, the two ideas do not have to go together. I am not saying this from the article offending myself in any way, I am what most people would think of as strongly athiest, though personally I have come to dislike the label. I just think it is a lazy form of signaling that detracts from the argument and also demonstrates an ignorance of the wide variety of religious and philosophical viewpoints held by those throughout the scientific community.
- Retra 11y ago
  Ignoring the argument in order to preach "nice makes right" also detracts from the argument...
  - lotsofmangos 11y ago
    I am not sure that describing creationists to be in a state of pitiful or contemptible intellectual or moral ignorance is anything to do with the argument presented by the article. Also, I was not addressing the article, I was addressing the comment of pcunite and their problem with the language used in one particular sentence, which is something I partly agree with and is nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy of the article itself. If someone tries to teach children maths by telling them "listen up idiots, two plus two is four", and I pick them up for their use of language, it has no real bearing on my view of the usefulness of learning addition.
Dewie3 11y ago
> A whole lot of reasons for what allowed the Internet, HN, science, and technology to be where it is at today came out of a nation (silly apparently to the writer) which put "In God We Trust" on everything. Even a broken clock is right twice a day - imagine then how often a collective of 300 million of those are correct! :) (Just kidding - Americans aren't more broken than any other group. Of course)
x3n0ph3n3 11y ago
Are you crediting the cultural consequences of McCarthyism and anti-Communism in the 1940's and 50's with most major technological improvements since then?

by pcunite 11y ago

sethrin 11y ago

No one else is required to cater to your religious beliefs, no matter what those may be. Also, this is an article about evolutionary biology, not creationism. The part you object to is easily overlooked. I'm sure this issue is very important to you, but I believe the best move here is to simply turn the other cheek.

Red_Tarsius 11y ago

I think you misunderstood the article. American Creationists are believers who reject what science has figured out in favor of biblical literalism. They even built the Creationist Museum, whose exhibits depict "the coexistence of humans and non-avian dinosaurs, say that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old, and dispute the idea that life evolved into its current forms." – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

solipsism 11y ago

Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. Science isn't trying to figure god out any more than it's trying to figure fairies out. Science focuses its efforts on understanding reality.

Rexxar 11y ago
Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. The big question of science is "How ... ?" The big question of religion is "Why ... ?" The two solve different problems and could coexist without so many animosity on each side.
- shasta 11y ago
  The big question of science is "Why...?" The big question of religion is "Who...?"
  - Rexxar 11y ago
    I disagree here. For example, relativity and quantum mechanics explain how our world behave but we have no idea why these theories are true or even why can the universe be described with mathematical equations ?
    - zornthewise 11y ago
      What kind of answer would satisfy your questions of why these theories are true anyway. I am not sure I can even imagine an ideal answer and this might be a clue that we are asking the completely wrong question.
      - Rexxar 11y ago
        I don't have answer on the "Why". I think that this question is not a scientific question because the answer could no be proved/invalidated by experiments. It's a philosophical question and some people find the answer in religion or philosophy, some just admit they don't know and others just don't care.
    - Retra 11y ago
      I suppose religion will tell you why those things are true?

alexqgb 11y ago

Slapping "In God We Trust" on everything was not only a fairly recent development, it was a cynically calculated response by a chastened business class that found itself coming under extraordinary scrutiny in the wake of the Great Depression. The redemption of capitalism by Christianity demanded a heavily modified version of the religion that basically abandoned all the parts about people looking after each other and created a new ethos in which getting rich was both a duty and a reward. Given a bunch of plutocrats who would pay well for effective propaganda and some creative but unscrupulous preachers willing to do their dirty work, a distinctly American (and conspicuously un-Christian) version of Christianity was born. It's been polarizing our politics and supporting the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands ever since. A couple of recent books by Nicole Aschoff and Kevin Kruse have done a good job unpacking this reprehensible hustle. If you have any interest in finding out just how much bullshit has gone into shaping your world view, Elizabeth Bruenig has reviewed both of them here: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121564/gods-and-profits-how-capitalism-and-christianity-aligned-america http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121564/gods-and-profits-h... You can also read Kruse himself, who has summarized his effort (How Corporate America Invented Christian America) here: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/corporate-america-invented-religious-right-conservative-roosevelt-princeton-117030.html http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/corporate-ame... On a separate note, Newton's total disregard of evolutionary theory is not a product of any disagreements he had with the theory itself. Rather, it's due to the fact that died more that 130 years before "On the Origin of Species" was first published. Class dismissed.

dang 11y ago
> If you have any interest in finding out just how much bullshit has gone into shaping your world view Personal attacks and acerbic swipes are not welcome on Hacker News. Please don't do this.

lotsofmangos 11y ago

I half agree with you. I do think that the language used to describe religious viewpoints includes off the cuff insults far too often. The word benighted was unnecessary in that sentence and does detract from the article. I don't think it was egregious enough to demand the article not be posted, but I do agree that it is a form of philosophical point scoring that serves neither the article, nor the wider discussion. The first person to derive the Hubble constant and one of the main developers of big-bang theory was Georges Lemaître, a devout Catholic who would later become president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, who described the idea as "the Cosmic Egg, exploding at the moment of the creation", though he didn't like the Pope relying on it in proclamations. I think it would be fair to call him a creationist. Also, Hoyle, who was not a creationist, coined the term 'Big-Bang' to take the piss out of Lemaître's idea and promote the steady-state theory, which he preferred. Hoyle however believed that a god was guiding the fine tuning of the constants to help the evolution of life, so was effectively a proponent of intelligent design, while not being a creationist. Weirdly, the two ideas do not have to go together. I am not saying this from the article offending myself in any way, I am what most people would think of as strongly athiest, though personally I have come to dislike the label. I just think it is a lazy form of signaling that detracts from the argument and also demonstrates an ignorance of the wide variety of religious and philosophical viewpoints held by those throughout the scientific community.

Retra 11y ago
Ignoring the argument in order to preach "nice makes right" also detracts from the argument...
- lotsofmangos 11y ago
  I am not sure that describing creationists to be in a state of pitiful or contemptible intellectual or moral ignorance is anything to do with the argument presented by the article. Also, I was not addressing the article, I was addressing the comment of pcunite and their problem with the language used in one particular sentence, which is something I partly agree with and is nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy of the article itself. If someone tries to teach children maths by telling them "listen up idiots, two plus two is four", and I pick them up for their use of language, it has no real bearing on my view of the usefulness of learning addition.

Dewie3 11y ago

> A whole lot of reasons for what allowed the Internet, HN, science, and technology to be where it is at today came out of a nation (silly apparently to the writer) which put "In God We Trust" on everything. Even a broken clock is right twice a day - imagine then how often a collective of 300 million of those are correct! :) (Just kidding - Americans aren't more broken than any other group. Of course)

x3n0ph3n3 11y ago

Are you crediting the cultural consequences of McCarthyism and anti-Communism in the 1940's and 50's with most major technological improvements since then?