Comments on: The Childlike Minds Of Intelligent Design (Creationism) Advocates

By: Zython

Zython — Tue, 22 May 2007 22:17:26 +0000

Or perhaps the environmentalist movement (see Gore's intuitive propaganda, promotion of inefficient ethanol, Wasn't your hero, Bush II, the one supporting ethanol? prohibition on clean-burning nukes, Pft, good luck getting public support of that. prohibition on extracting natural resources in a clean way, etc)? Ok, now you're just making shit up. Or perhaps the intuitions of thinking expanded government spending on education versus the evidence of poor performance in inverse correlation? Because cutting funding to the point where schools can't afford text books printed after 1952 is REALLY going to boost test scores. Or perhaps abortion policy (living in the intuitions of the 60s instead of modern science)? Modern science has proven that women aren't people? Show me this fascinating study.

By: mambochicken23

mambochicken23 — Tue, 22 May 2007 17:57:19 +0000

Hey Mike, maybe the people that cannot accurately describe the concepts governing evolution by natural selection are willing to accept it on the basis that people they trust (e.g., scientists) overwhelmingly support it as a scientific theory.

I don’t have to know anything about rocketry to accept the opinions of the scientists at NASA on space flight.

By: Wilbur

Wilbur — Tue, 22 May 2007 17:10:52 +0000

Yes, child-like intuition is only found on one side of the political spectrum.

I wouldn’t say that, but you’ve just proved once again that the lion’s share is on your side.

By: St Wendeler

St Wendeler — Tue, 22 May 2007 15:10:02 +0000

Unfortunately, when it comes to the formation of the universe (ie, what was here before the big bang), intuition is what most scientist have to rely on.

By: St Wendeler

St Wendeler — Tue, 22 May 2007 15:00:13 +0000

shall we apply the same child-like beliefs to socialist (aka liberal in the US) economic policies?

The intuition of any number of liberal economic policies (minimum wage, “free” heathcare, protectionist trade policy, taxation, etc, etc) vs economic evidence.

Or perhaps the environmentalist movement (see Gore’s intuitive propaganda, promotion of inefficient ethanol, prohibition on clean-burning nukes, prohibition on extracting natural resources in a clean way, etc)?

Or perhaps abortion policy (living in the intuitions of the 60s instead of modern science)?

Or perhaps the intuitions of thinking expanded government spending on education versus the evidence of poor performance in inverse correlation?

Yes, child-like intuition is only found on one side of the political spectrum.

By: merlallen

merlallen — Tue, 22 May 2007 11:56:52 +0000

If Rush Limpballs said evolution was real, millions of people would automatically believe in it.
They reject it because they don’t like Al Gore. That is the only reason.

By: Wilbur

Wilbur — Tue, 22 May 2007 05:54:08 +0000

This ‘scientifically credulous subpopulation accepts this information because they trust the people who say it is true

The flip-side of that is that regardless of the facts of the matter people tend to reject claims made by people they don’t like

…which pretty much explains the entire wingnut response to the global warming issue.

By: Rounds77

Rounds77 — Tue, 22 May 2007 04:02:16 +0000

Mike, human beings are imperfect and are therefore incapable of knowing everything. But if we can’t turn to the experts for scientific information, who do you suggest we listen to?

Limbaugh?
Pat Robertson?
Bush?
O’Reilly?
Any fundamentalist windbag?

I.e. those self-proclaimed experts on everything?

By: mwg

mwg — Tue, 22 May 2007 02:42:10 +0000

Evolution seems to be a tough concept for many people to pick up on. The fact that schools tend to skirt away from it doesn’t help any.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 22 May 2007 02:36:20 +0000

Too bad you missed the true nugget of wisdom in this piece, Oliver:

“Many people who accept that natural selection and evolution are reasonable explanations for where species come from, can’t explain the concepts, polls show. This ‘scientifically credulous subpopulation accepts this information because they trust the people who say it is true, says the review.”(emphasis sdded)

I would venture to guess that this measure of scientific illiteracy also explains why so many people think that a consensus of “expert” opinions equals good science.