The Epitome of an Elitist

[Colossus_500]

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." — Richard Dawkins

Stella, I think the results of your poll speak directly to Dawkins' quote. 

[Dos Equis]

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." — Richard Dawkins

Stella, I think the results of your poll speak directly to Dawkins' quote. 

Good grief.  Certainly describes a number of people on this board. 

I listened to this guy when I was stuck in a hotel room the other day and he is one arrogant bugger.   

[columbusdude82]

That's not elitism by any stretch. Sorry guys, but it is an absolutely true statement. If you do not "believe" in evolution, odds are you haven't learned biology.

Evolution is at the heart of modern biology, and without it all of biology falls.

Hope this helps.

[Camel Jockey]

it's called having expections in your fellow man.

some don't live up. 

[calmus]

This thread made me lolololz (decided to buy into the X board shtick).

Two gramps melting down as their old world fades away. 

[Butterbean]

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." — Richard Dawkins

I wonder why he thinks people that don't believe in evolution could be considered wicked?

[calmus]

I wonder why he thinks people that don't believe in evolution could be considered wicked?

I often read posts on the politics board and wonder if people are just really blind, willfully blind, or wicked. 

[columbusdude82]

I wonder why he thinks people that don't believe in evolution could be considered wicked?

Some people have a financial incentive in spreading creationist lies. They know it's crap, but they lie to sell books to uneducated religious folks, telling them lies about evolution.

Google "Kent Hovind" the creationist jailbird, if you want an example.

[Hedgehog]

I wonder why he thinks people that don't believe in evolution could be considered wicked?

Even the most "elite" Christians accept evolution and the big bang (see the Vatican thread).

Does it somehow change your beliefs when you see that other Christians are "allowed" to believe in Evolution and traditional "science"?

[loco]

Richard Dawkins quote is misleading and he knows it.  It is meant to confuse and intimidate Christians so that they'll be ashamed to say that they do not "believe in" or accept Darwin's theory of evolution, macroevolution or particles-to-people evolution.

The quote is misleading because Dawkins knows very well that even creationists "believe in" or accept evolution, microevolution that is, or in other words any evolutionary change below the level of species.  Creationists even accept evolutionary change at the level of species.

What creationists, and even some main-stream scientists who are not creationists do not "believe in" or accept is macroevolution, or in other words any evolutionary change above the level of species, or particles-to-people evolution.

Modern scientists such as Dr. Lee M. Spetner, Sir Fred Hoyle and Marcel-Paul Schützenberger rejected macroevolution too and I would not call them "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked."

[columbusdude82]

loco, you are still posting the same old fallacies that I have refuted before, so I will keep this brief:

1. In biology there is no clear-cut distinction between micro and macro evolution. There is a continuum. Just like people aren't all either tall or short, but can lie somewhere in the middle, so do evolutionary changes like on a continuum.

2. None of the scientists you mention in your post are qualified biologists, so if they reject evolutionary theory, then in Dawkins' quote they would fall under "ignorant."

I will urge you once again to take some time and read up on biology for yourself, instead of reading creationist pamphlets and creationist websites online, and what they have to tell you about biology.

Then make up your mind whether evolution constitutes a threat or a problem for your faith or not.

My guess is, once you learn a bit about the gene's view of evolution, you won't have any problem with it, or at the very least, your reasons for opposing it will be more sophisticated than stupid creationist lies like macro and micro, missing fossils (which aren't missing at all), or attacking the messenger...

[loco]

loco, you are still posting the same old fallacies that I have refuted before, so I will keep this brief:

You never refuted what I just posted.  All you did is send me to the library.  Just because in your mind you think that you refuted it, does not mean that I accept your refutal, if there ever was one.

1. In biology there is no clear-cut distinction between micro and macro evolution. There is a continuum. Just like people aren't all either tall or short, but can lie somewhere in the middle, so do evolutionary changes like on a continuum.

And this is coming from the same guy who went on record as saying that the term macroevolution is not used in evolutionary biology.

2. None of the scientists you mention in your post are qualified biologists, so if they reject evolutionary theory, then in Dawkins' quote they would fall under "ignorant."

Ignorant?  I would not call them ignorant.  This is very convenient.  Richard Dawkins uses computer science and math to illustrate or explain his evolutionary theories, but when computer scientists or mathematicians reject macroevolution, they do not count because they are not biologists.   

I will urge you once again to take some time and read up on biology for yourself, instead of reading creationist pamphlets and creationist websites online, and what they have to tell you about biology.

Then make up your mind whether evolution constitutes a threat or a problem for your faith or not.

My guess is, once you learn a bit about the gene's view of evolution, you won't have any problem with it, or at the very least, your reasons for opposing it will be more sophisticated than stupid creationist lies like macro and micro, missing fossils (which aren't missing at all), or attacking the messenger...

This is what you did last time, send me to the library, then you claim this as a refutal.

[columbusdude82]

Would you rather I bring the library to you?


Man, what an awful punishment that is, going to the library

[Butterbean]

Some people have a financial incentive in spreading creationist lies. They know it's crap, but they lie to sell books to uneducated religious folks, telling them lies about evolution.

Of course I don't think creationism is crap but this is a good explanation to my question.

Even the most "elite" Christians accept evolution and the big bang (see the Vatican thread).

Does it somehow change your beliefs when you see that other Christians are "allowed" to believe in Evolution and traditional "science"?

No.  Why do you ask?

[drkaje]

Of course micro-evoloution is possible.... just look at bacteria.

That being said (whether you call it God or not) there has to be some organizing force in the universe. Things are just too complicated yet perfect to have came about by happenstance. Why nitwits want to believe said organizing force demands worship is beyond me however.

In general, I believe religion is a human creation so people could relate better to confusing aspects of the world they live in. As people become better educated, aspects of religion make less sense. But, technology is advancing way to fast so people needing more simplistic/fundamental way of looking at the world to have emotional security.

[Dos Equis]

Of course micro-evoloution is possible.... just look at bacteria.

That being said (whether you call it God or not) there has to be some organizing force in the universe. Things are just too complicated yet perfect to have came about by happenstance. Why nitwits want to believe said organizing force demands worship is beyond me however.

In general, I believe religion is a human creation so people could relate better to confusing aspects of the world they live in. As people become better educated, aspects of religion make less sense. But, technology is advancing way to fast so people needing more simplistic/fundamental way of looking at the world to have emotional security.

You must be "ignorant, stupid, or insane . . . or wicked . . . ."

[Hedgehog]

Of course I don't think creationism is crap but this is a good explanation to my question.

What is your opinion about creationism?

[Butterbean]

What is your opinion about creationism?

I like it.

[ToxicAvenger]

People fashion their God after their own understanding. They make their God first and worship him afterwards.

Oscar Wilde

[wavelength]

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." — Richard Dawkins

Stella, I think the results of your poll speak directly to Dawkins' quote. 

Dawkins does not seem to be able to differentiate between fundamentalist nutcases and people who critizise scientific positivists for their absolute believe in science. Since it's easier to attack the nutcases, he just declares everybody stupid who doesn't agree with him 100%. He seems to be a halfway intelligent guy, so maybe he knows better and just does it to market his "books".

[Deicide]

Dawkins does not seem to be able to differentiate between fundamentalist nutcases and people who critizise scientific positivists for their absolute believe in science. Since it's easier to attack the nutcases, he just declares everybody stupid who doesn't agree with him 100%. He seems to be a halfway intelligent guy, so maybe he knows better and just does it to market his "books".

Hahaha. Der Typ, der das geschrieben hat, ist ein Fundamentalist. Der glaubt an Kreationismus. Der glaubt woertlich an Genesis....hahaha.

[wavelength]

Hahaha. Der Typ, der das geschrieben hat, ist ein Fundamentalist. Der glaubt an Kreationismus. Der glaubt woertlich an Genesis....hahaha.

My post was meant as a response to Dawkins' statement, not as an affirmation of all believes of the thread starter.

[Nordic Superman]

He seems to be a halfway intelligent guy

If you think any other than Dawkins' being anything other than intelligent that you're deluded.

His grasp of evolutionary biology is astounding as is his ability to regurgitate it in a manner that the common man can grasp.

[Butterbean]

Hahaha. Der Typ, der das geschrieben hat, ist ein Fundamentalist. Der glaubt an Kreationismus. Der glaubt woertlich an Genesis....hahaha.

Deicide, could you please post in English?  If you want to practice, please post the same in English also for our benefits....we are interested in what you have to say.

What does the above say please?

[Nordic Superman]

Deicide, could you please post in English?  If you want to practice, please post the same in English also for our benefits....we are interested in what you have to say.

What does the above say please?

He's basically saying: "Boy, I'm now a believer! Praise the Lord!"