Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Science is not a democracy, so shut up!

Americans love their democracy. They really, really love it. They love it so much that they go out and fight wars against those who don't have it. Sounds a bit like modern Crusades, but let's move on.

The thing with democracy is that the stupid have the same power as the intelligent. The vote of the person who spends their days watching Jerry Springer (Don't get me wrong, I love the Jerry Springer Show. Seriously.) from their trailer park has the same value as the vote of somebody who actually knows what the issues are. No matter how uneducated and stupid you are, no matter if you watched the debates or even know the names of the major candidates, even if you can't figure out a how to use the ballot (looking at you, Floridians), you are still entitled to vote. (Whether or not the vote counts depends on what the lawyers have to say.)

A problem results because many of the American population are ignorant, gun-toting rednecks who can't handle the concept of democracy and its limits. They believe that because they have a democratic right to voice their opinion on political issues, that they also have a democratic right to comment on any topic they'd like, even those topics that they're completely unqualified to open their hamburger-filled mouths about.

Among those topics that they feel qualified to discuss and debate, is science. Let's be honest, many Americans probably did pretty poorly in high school science, barely scraping by with D's and C's, or not passing at all. Many more didn't even take it in all 4 years, or 7 years, how ever many it took them to graduate. Basic understanding of science eludes most of the population.

Yet for some reason, they feel that they must speak up and fight against scientific conclusions that they don't like. This is why you get people like Rush Limbaugh commenting on global warming, fighting to convince people that it's a hoax. A painstaking search for where Rush Limbaugh has researched and published on the issue proved fruitless. Why oh why can't I find his peer-reviewed published work? Perhaps I'll try to figure out where he got his science degree, and work from there. Checking his Wikipedia biography, I can't find a science degree, or in fact, any degree at all! So what the fuck is this jackass doing opening his mouth to protest the results of real scientists' work on global warming?!

Then we get to the topics of the Big Bang and Evolution. Recent polling suggests that many, many Americans believe in the biblical story of creation. They feel it necessary to not only disagree with the opinions of people much, much smarter than them who actually work, research and publish on the theories, but to vocally fight those opinions in the public sphere. Have they no shame? Here we get people like Kirk Cameron, a man who has a questionable high school education and no post-secondary education (that I'm aware of) in any field (definitely no scientific qualification), lecturing the public on the science of evolution. It's embarrassingly bad, and comes from a man with no authority or expertise at all on the subject, but more importantly, no research or evidence to support his case. Watch the first video from the 6:00 mark, and start the second video from the beginning, through to the 2:25 mark.

How do people people not feel ashamed of their constant fight against the experts, when they themselves know nothing? Why does the public listen to them, without challenging their qualifications? This is democracy gone absolutely mad. Ignorant, uneducated, Bible-thumping retards are opposing experts (who have training in, research, and publish on the issues in question), and a large portion of the public is not smart enough to figure out that there's something wrong with that. Your democracy ends at the ballot box, so shut your fat, ignorant mouths!

The truths of the Universe are absolute and don't care what you 'think' or 'feel'. If you have no education on the topic and don't research the topic, you have no business at all to be opposing the conclusions of those who do.

The only thing that can be said in the defense of the people who believe what Kirk Cameron is saying, is that his high school diploma dazzles them, as many of them failed to even get that far in their education. He would be considered a guru. As for Kirk, and other uneducated morons who continue to spout this crap, there is no excuse.

I have scientific training in the form of a Masters degree, and read current science magazines. And unlike many creationists who comment on Origin of Species, I've actually read it! That, in my opinion, makes me infinitely more qualified to talk about evolution, and other scientific issues, than these fuckwits. It's time that those of us who are actually educated and knowledgeable on the subject cease to give these creationist fools any respect at all. Laughter and ridicule is all they deserve, despite what they'll surely scream about respecting their opinions. Tell them to shove another Twinkie in their mouth (congratulate them for getting 6 in there at once!) and go back to fixing the wheels on their homes!

Edit: for a small clarification of this post, click here.


Anonymous said...

his explanation of why there are different sub-species and similar animals doesn't take into account that there is no distinct line between each species. Species are just grouped by animals that share observable traits; Besides, who's to say that humans aren't just a breed of monkey?

Anonymous said...

Yummy, that chick has fantastic boobs. Seriously though, great stuff.

Anonymous said...

read more pal....lack of information

Admin said...

"read more pal....lack of information"

What a well-written and clearly thought-out comment. And speaking of lack of information, your post certainly qualifies. Can I ask what you're talking about?

Anonymous said...

I have read Marx and Smith. I have studied economics five years now, and I read books, journals and magazines on the subject. Does that make me more qualified to talk about the issue? yes. Does it give me a right to talk compared to others? No. It's everones society, and hence everyone has the right to air their opinion. However I have the right to mock their hollow reasoning, misconceptions and fallacious logic.

However, lay off the anti-americanism. It sort of ruins the piece. There are plenty of religious bigots in Europe and Asia (and elsewhere) too. They just get as much attention in the english media. Point being that yes, America has many ignorant idiots, but they are not ignorant BECAUSE they are american (something that the piece seems to imply).

Admin said...

To the last anonymous poster:

The point of the post is that science is not done by TALKING or ARGUING, it's done by RESEARCHING and PUBLISHING. Anybody is welcome to participate in the scientific process, but they need to speak with their work, not their loud mouths. Science does not work based on people's OPINIONS. It is a process meant to discover the truths of the Universe.

As for the anti-Americanism, there are 2 reasons:

1. It was just the mood I was in on the day when I wrote it.

2. Surveys show that the USA has the highest rate of rejection of evolution among the Western developed world. So yeah, they're the leaders of this movement, so they can take the brunt of my scorn.

Are they ignorant because they're American? Well, perhaps. Their people are fighting to get creationism taught, which will keep future generations of Americans ignorant, if it succeeds. They also need to thump a Bible in order to get elected, something politicians almost NEVER talk about in my country. This will keep future Americans behind the rest of the world in their abandoning of mythology. So it is virtually guaranteed that the USA will come out of this mindset more slowly than the rest of the world, and it's their culture that will cause the slowdown. So just perhaps, they are ignorant because they're American, or more accurately, because they're raised in the USA.

Anonymous said...

Why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the troops? Why do you rape Bald Eagles for your godless enjoyment? Maybe I should get a "degree" on those questions. Growing Pains is not a democracy.

Unknown said...

Yeah you hate freedom! Commie!

Anonymous said...

I made the mistake of watching the first video from the start. That moderator is an ignorant moron! It is so infuriating how badly he mangles evolution. The worst part about these creationist debates is that you often have to debate the moderator as well.

Listen to what he says: "If in the natural world stronger organisms eat weaker ones, the survival of the fittest,..." Then he goes on to challenge the RRS to explain why this does not justify stronger nations taking over weaker ones.

Stronger organisms eating weaker ones? Huh? What does that even mean? This is in no way equivalent to survival of the fittest. If he is trying to refer to the predator/prey relationship, which is "stronger": the lion because it has claws and fangs or the gazelle because it can outrun the lion?

Besides, has this douchebag never heard of parasites? I'd say that's an example of weak eating strong. In fact, most organisms on the planet are parasitic.

Then this fucktard suggests "strong eat weak/survival of the fittest" gives warrant for nations to take over other nations. How do these two concepts even relate? The predator/prey relationship involves animals of different species. No organism actively preys on members of its own species, and last time I checked, all nations are members of the same species. Lastly, survival of the fittest applies to individuals in a population, not populations themselves. Again, this in no way relates to nations taking over other nations.

These fuckwits are so infuriating when they spew this garbage. As soon as you're done correcting one thing, they've already puked up five even stupider things.

Thanks for letting me rant. I had to get that out.

Admin said...

I hated the moderator, too. There's one part of the debate (not sure if it's in these clips or not), when the moderator asks the RRS something like this:

"If we're all transitional species, then tell the audience what they were before they came into this hall today and how that has now changed."

I think the guy is a creationist, and definitely poorly educated in science, unless he's just trying to be as fair as possible, even to stupid ideas.

Jim said...

The moderator has a clear bias towards the creationists. It's totally unfair, even in a rigged debate, which this clearly is. Not only is the moderator biased, but so is the audience, who don't seem to care that the people who know what the fuck they are talking don't get a chance to explain.

If an atheist tried to pull this shit, we'd get called on it hard. When they pull this shit, it's like, "Well, you should have argued your case better."

Anonymous said...

That's right, science isn't a Democracy, so the idea there's a "Consensus" on Global Warming is laughable.

Admin said...

I think you missed the point. This is also an atheism blog. Take your conspiracy theories about global warming elsewhere.