Evidence for God from Science

A new study apparently suggests that conservatives are basically dumber then the liberals, and liberals are smart ,( the Darwinists are smarter too ) . But I didn't bother reading it only grazing over it as it has the same bitter taste and stink of Darwinists writing an article about the powers of natural selection and random mutation to create spaceships. Its not only an attack against conservatives, its an attack against religion, creationists and also intelligent design proponents, it is quite obvious. Apparently, when I read the following statement:

""There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science."

...it became quite clear to me of what the article actually suggested, and could be summed down to "materialism is a good thing" and "non-materialists are no good for America". I could hear voices in my head of liberals chanting "We want partial birth abortions, we want our scientific revolution, support it or you are stupid and insane"...

I can bet my winning lottery tickets that they used a biased sample rate in the study, where it wasn't in any case random, more of a hand picked sample based on location/region and population, but thats another story altogether.

http://www.slate.com/id/2173965/?GT1=10436

If you differentiate intelligence based on whether or not you fall on the right or left category of politics - than perhaps you yourself (based on such a false dichotomy) should re-evaluate your own intelligence...

It is interesting that an article which only eluded to a 'Darwinist stink' was enough to get you to not even read it completely...

If you differentiate intelligence based on whether or not you fall on the right or left category of politics - than perhaps you yourself (based on such a false dichotomy) should re-evaluate your own intelligence...

If you actually read his post, it says that those who did the study are the ones differentiating the intelligences based on left or right. So, perhaps they should rethink their intelligence.

The first comment wasn't meant to be derogatory - it was a jab at how ridiculous the 'right vs left spectrum' is (in my opinion)... My apologies if you took that the wrong way.

"If you differentiate intelligence based on whether or not you fall on the right or left category of politics - than perhaps you yourself (based on such a false dichotomy) should re-evaluate your own intelligence..."

This article has nothing to do with real hard predictive science or intelligence whatsoever, its a study based on corrupted Darwinists making a huge claim based on a biased study. Just think about it for a sec, do you really honestly believe that Liberals are smarter then Conservatives or Conservatives are smarter then liberals. Do you think that any study made can undeniably quantify this claim? Or is it perhaps that the Darwinists made the assumption beforehand that liberals are smarter then the conservatives?

That wasn't the point of my response... I hope it wasn't missed so completely to others.

Whether its a Darwinist or not - anyone framing a left vs right viewpoint has lost his or her perspective on the matter. Again, the jab was toward the politics themselves - not you (godslanguage) specifically... Consider my point against those nasty Darwinists, if that makes it more appropriate for you...

It is necessary to point out who actually frames the left vs. right viewpoint. Who else but the Darwinists could come up with a political scheme like this to directly attack conservatives and indirectly attack non-materialists. The important thing to realize is that the study was initiated by Darwinists themselves. If you could find me an article that presents a study of how non-materialists determined Conservatives are smarter then liberals, then please, by all means present it. I understand this is politically motivated, but it goes much deeper then just "Bush and the conservatives are all idiots, vote liberals".

Look at each and every single statement here and tell me whether you believe this is more politically driven by the Darwinists then actual hard scientific analysis.

"Apparently. "Liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty,""

"They imply that conservatives, on average, are adaptively weaker at thinking,"

"refusing to deviate from old habits "

"Scientists have found that the brains of people calling themselves liberals are more able to handle conflicting and unexpected information."

"These reports convey four interwoven claims. First, conservatives cling more inflexibly to old ways of thinking. Second, they're less responsive to information. Third, they're more obtuse to complexity and ambiguity. Fourth, they're less likely to change when the evidence says they should."

LOL!...this is indeed funny: "cling to old ways of thinking", you wonder what this kind of statement suggests.
or this one: "less likely to change when the evidence says they should"...LOL!...based on these results we should all accept the powers of the Darwinian paradigm. The evidence is overwhelming

godslanguage wrote:It is necessary to point out who actually frames the left vs. right viewpoint. Who else but the Darwinists could come up with a political scheme like this to directly attack conservatives and indirectly attack non-materialists. The important thing to realize is that the study was initiated by Darwinists themselves. If you could find me an article that presents a study of how non-materialists determined Conservatives are smarter then liberals, then please, by all means present it. I understand this is politically motivated, but it goes much deeper then just "Bush and the conservatives are all idiots, vote liberals".

no problem here's a few:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21404

really any book by ann coulter will do to defeat your point.

here is a refute to a claim by (the conservative) bill o'reilly:

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/ ... know_more/


here's one from the 'natural Neuroscience' (a respected publication), can hardly be pushed off as 'darwnists'

http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/ ... tives.html

also here: http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/09/10 ... eral-bias/


but i think the point animal was making is that it IS absurd to frame intelligence by whom you lean towards during an election year. i always thought if you want to find someones intelligence let him/her speak and express themself not peek over thier shoulder in the voting booth. So i guess we agree?

C'mon. Are you serious? Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity - the entire FOX network for that matter - are you telling me that if I were to do a google search, that NOTHING would come up that would show how conservatives think they are smarter than liberals?

Ann Coulter alone is great case in point - whats the name of her latest book coming out? If Democrats had brains, they'd be Republicans.

Frankly, the study itself is a rather ambiguous - it is interesting that this one study was even pointed out - in any case, the first comment in response to that article suffices:

Saletan's critique is silly. Conservatives performed objectively less well than liberals at this particular task. Full stop. It is reasonable to conclude that there might be some real life problems at which conservatives also perform less well. The question is how relevant this particular task is to real life problems. My guess is probably not very, but who knows?

However, it is not reasonable to presume that based on conservatives performing less well at this task, there must be other tasks at which conservatives would perform better, which seems to be Saletan's major point. It's a completely unfounded leap that doing a lousier job at one task implies that you would do a better job at another.

When Saletan loses at tennis, does he announce that he must be a good bowler?

Two words for you, "liberal bias". If you know anything about that, then you know that the media clingers to the liberal agenda and not the conservative. I had a hunch you'd mention "Fox news", as it is the only news channel available that promotes more conservative ideals. The point is that NOT that you can't find any articles of conservatives bashing liberals, I don't deny the vs. aspect of the game, its that whatever agenda the liberals carry out its the "right in your face" (far more mainstream) type, with no room for conservative views. Look at the ID movement as a current example, do you see any articles on Intelligent Design in the New York Times, however you will find Dawkins bashing Behe's new book "The edge of evolution", you won't find a counter-claim for that if you didn't look hard enough. So I see you have only re-enforced my point: That you have to look and search far more drastically for any other view to break through the Darwinian barrier which is more obvious (in your face) and re-inforced then any other view.

Well, first of all - to make the claim that the media leans more to the left than to the right is vastly debatable (to say the least). Just pick your topic - abortion, women's rights, gay marriage, stem cell research, immigration and do your homework, and you'll find both sides providing articles, news stories, criticisms and attempts to sell their viewpoints. But thats even beside the point - as soon as you find a newspaper or station giving their opinion on the matter (like Fox News DOES do so very well - but not to say that other stations don't do it - MSNBC, CNN, they all do it (aside perhaps, from BBC)), than it isn't news anymore - its someone else's opinion.

The reason Fox News is worth mentioning, is that they hold a large sum of the fault of what we see today in terms of news media skewing events to favor a political agenda. This goes back to when Reagan sat in office, and Ruport Murdoch took the helm of Fox - the trouble is that this kind of influence and opinionated news provided for great numbers in ratings - forcing other news networks, like CNN and NBC, to play the same game to maintain their numbrers - and what you see today is what we have - whats objective anymore? Is anyone actually doing journalism anymore? The documentary Outfoxed does a good job at making this point - call it liberal bias or left wing, or what have you - it only encourages the game...

You bring up ID. I assume your point of how it isn't heard in the NYTimes or some other 'left' media source is a comment on how specific issues 'intentionally' don't get any time. Well, ID (or rather, creationism, as ID is merely a new form of it) has actually had its time - for thousands of years in fact, depending on how you look at history and peoples' understanding of things. Unfortunately for creationism, science has made vast improvements by leaps and bounds to our understanding of reality and the way the universe works (and in a relatively short period of time) so much so that it has been able to explain much about things like how we might have gotten here (without the expression of a deity, or a creator, or intelligent designer).

As we keep on learning and developing a better understanding of things, we often leave behind ideas or concepts or beliefs which no longer hold any relevance or meaning as we have been able to (with the help of things like the scientific method, facts and evidence) determine better, more accurate solutions or alternatives to those ideas, concepts and beliefs. Would anyone maintain, today, that the earth is flat? Some people actually do - but certainly the majority of us now know better and find no need to push the idea of a flat earth anymore.

I see ID in the exact same way - it's had its opportunities to sell itself again and again - both in the scientific community AND in courts of law. It has been clearly unsuccessful. It has failed in providing the kind of evidence necessary to support itself in both of those forums. It hasn't even been able to rid itself of its original premise - it is religious in origin.

"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child" (page 24)

"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26)

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31)

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43)

"Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46)

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64)

"[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case." (pages 86—87)

"ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (page 89)

"Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause." (page 132)

From the Dover vs Kitzmiller decision which you can find here.

Behe himself conceded in the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."

You can read more of his peer-review controversy through his last book here.

So, why won't you see any articles in the NYTimes on ID? Probably the same reason you don't see any articles on a flat earth.

You bring up ID. I assume your point of how it isn't heard in the NYTimes or some other 'left' media source is a comment on how specific issues 'intentionally' don't get any time. Well, ID (or rather, creationism, as ID is merely a new form of it)

I would love to jump in here and point out that ID and Creationism are NOT the same thing (just look back at many of the threads that have the two sides arguing against each other). However, i will leave that to those who have a better grasp on the subject since i am not well equipped.

However, the fact that you do call them the same things only reinforces Godlanguage's point:

That you have to look and search far more drastically for any other view to break through the Darwinian barrier which is more obvious (in your face) and re-inforced then any other view.

Read about ID in depth before making the claim that it is creationism, because it is not.

Well, ID (or rather, creationism, as ID is merely a new form of it) has actually had its time - for thousands of years in fact, depending on how you look at history and peoples' understanding of things. Unfortunately for creationism, science has made vast improvements by leaps and bounds to our understanding of reality and the way the universe works (and in a relatively short period of time) so much so that it has been able to explain much about things like how we might have gotten here (without the expression of a deity, or a creator, or intelligent designer).

ID does not fit in to what you describe. ID is formed because of an INCREASED knowledge in science, not a lack of. Read. You are making accusations about something you don't completely understand. Have you even read Behe (or any other ID Proponents)? Or have you merely read Dawkins (or any other Evolution proponents) version of it?
All i am saying is check the source.

Enigma7457 wrote:However, i will leave that to those who have a better grasp on the subject since i am not well equipped.

then...

Enigma7457 wrote:Read about ID in depth before making the claim that it is creationism, because it is not.

very interesting.

from wikipedia:

"Intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving constitutional separation of church and state.[14] Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[15] The following year a small group of proponents formed the Discovery Institute and began advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula.[16] The "intelligent design movement" grew increasingly visible in the 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the 2005 "Dover trial" challenging the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a group of parents of high-school students challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[17]"

....

"The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s.[4] The movement is headquartered in the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), established in 1996 as the creationist wing of the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda[81] calling for broad social, academic and political changes. The Discovery Institute's intelligent design campaigns are primarily in the United States, although efforts have been made in other countries to promote intelligent design. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism. Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to naturalism and should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismisses out-of-hand any explanation which contains a supernatural cause. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[82]"


i always thought creationism was the only belief then was smoked in a court of law (see above) so the term 'intelligent design' came out of that. Sort of a "we'll admit defeat on this by just changing the name of what it is". most evidently don't know the difference either, yet most on here will argue for it, kinda strange.

I have educated myself and continue to do so on the aforementioned topics thank you. I stand ready to support anything I've said if anyone chooses to engage me on them.

Even if I was completely ignorant of ID or had just enough knowledge feel confident to make a claim - seeing as how a court of law decided: "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" - with each side detailing their viewpoint to convince a jury and trial, how would I stand to be wrong on the point that ID is nothing more than an attempt to improve creationism with the law on my side recognizing such?

Must be those darn liberals!