Posted by PZ Myers on December 28, 2007 From Cectic:
Quote of the week: “Either the theory is wrong, or I’m just incredibly stupid.” -Todd Friel on Evolution, from The Way of the Master Radio for 24 Dec. The first true utterance I’ve heard on that show since I started listening to the podcast.
I think I may just pass out. Was Mr. Friel drunk? On medication?
I can’t understand the sudden candor. It’s terrifying. I mean, I’ve gotten too used to dealing with their dishonesty that something like this just causes the cogs to slip.
Quick! Someone fetch a Dembski quote to set the universe right again.
As quoted, Todd’s statement is a false dichotomy. Todd Friel is stupid and evolutionary theory is correct.
I can’t disagree with a word you wrote there, Norm.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
“Do you believe that all creatures (past the very first life) were born from other creatures, or do 9at least some) new species or groups just get “created” whole, like for example birds just popping up from dirt due to divine intervention?”
coincidentally, didn’t we just have someone in the Coulter thread claiming that since cats and dogs mating don’t produce viable offspring, how could there ever be any new species?
yes, indeed, there is a dividing line between rejection of theory because of psychological conditioning and rampant ignorance and stupidity.
Behe represents rejection based on conditioning, and our illustrious poster in the Coulter thread represents rampant ignorance and stupidity.
not to say the two don’t often go hand in hand, mind you.
Aren’t these “Way of the Master” weirdos the same ones that Kirk Cameron is mixed up with? The same ones that basically said, “See, this banana fits my hand perfectly, therefore all my crazy religious beliefs must be true!”?
I wonder what the theological implications will be once those guys realize that the average human penis is roughly the same size as that banana and will also fit his hand perfectly…
I wonder what the theological implications will be once those guys realize that the average human penis is roughly the same size as that banana and will also fit his hand perfectly…
Maybe that jerking off proves the existence of God?
I wonder if they’ll then be consistent and change their name to “Way of the Masterbater”….
Yeah, I know, that was cheap but what the heck ;->
Actually, I must correct myself: The question of belief about time scales of biological history would have to be asked first, and then the question about birthing (in the broad sense) would be asked. Then the difference between YECs and “ancient earth periodic insertionists” could be discerned, FWIW. Maybe the latter could be called “divine punctuators.” BTW, it would help to see perspectives here about real PE.
For most people, science is peripheral to their daily lives in the same way mathematics is. Yes, they have to add and do some simple percentages; yes, there is technology. But on a day to day basis, it feels like an intellectual “extra” — sort of like knowing Shakespeare or who painted the Sistine Chapel. On the surface, you don’t see the structure beneath. It’s easy to think it’s all surface.
This I think is why creationists are not necessarily stupid, and why I wouldn’t assume it. They’re getting into areas they neither understand nor care about, because they think these “superficial” areas are somehow in conflict with — or trumped by — areas that they actually live with — morals, meaning, how you treat others, feeling humble and appreciative. Their focus is elsewhere, and it can be very sharp.
The problem isn’t basic intelligence. As Michael Shermer points out, smart people can believe weird (or dumb) things, and the smarter they are, the better they are at defending them.
This I think is why creationists are not necessarily stupid,
faulty logic given the premise of their protestations.
if they were not so vehemently vocal on the matter, and profess themselves to be well versed on the subjects involved, I’d tend to agree with you.
but they do, so I don’t.
they may not be stupid “IQ” wise, but they certainly are deliberately so.
and in the end, does it make a difference?
if it looks like a duck…
The problem isn’t basic intelligence. As Michael Shermer points out, smart people can believe weird (or dumb) things, and the smarter they are, the better they are at defending them.
Posted by: Sastra, OM | December 28, 2007 5:50 PM
OK, time for some snark: if that’s true, then why are you so confident that what *you* believe about any given thing really makes sense? I mean, maybe that same process has affected your own (insert any blogger/commenter/reader here) judgment about whatever? (Maybe even evolution … 
)
The problem isn’t basic intelligence. As Michael Shermer points out, smart people can believe weird (or dumb) things, and the smarter they are, the better they are at defending them.
Neil B. #24 wrote:
OK, time for some snark: if that’s true, then why are you so confident that what *you* believe about any given thing really makes sense? I mean, maybe that same process has affected your own (insert any blogger/commenter/reader here) judgment about whatever? (Maybe even evolution …
I can’t be confident that I’m not doing that. I might be — especially if I’m emotionally involved. That’s why I try, as best I can, to use methods which force me to test myself, and consider other possibilities, and be as objective as possible.
I think that’s all anyone can do, and it’s not fool-proof. Or, I suppose, stupid-proof )
The problem isn’t basic intelligence. As Michael Shermer points out, smart people can believe weird (or dumb) things, and the smarter they are, the better they are at defending them.
Fallacy of affirmation of the consequent. Just because smart people can believe weird things, that doesn’t mean that any particular person believing a weird thing is smart.
That’s why I try, as best I can, to use methods which force me to test myself, and consider other possibilities, and be as objective as possible.
Would you consider the notion that that’s an element of “basic intelligence”, and that its absence is functional stupidity?
Oh yeah? Well, why–why?–Why are there still hagfish???
I’d say for most creationists it’s not that they are inherently ignorant. I’d say the bulk of them are willfully ignorant. That is much worse then simply being ignorant. Someone who is just ignorant can be educated. Someone who is willfully ignorant can not. They will refuse. It’s the classic case of leading a horse to water but not being able to make it drink.
The exclusive OR he used entails that if he’s stupid, then evolution is true.
It doesn’t strike me as an exclusive OR; I think evolution being false AND him being stupid is consistent with his statement. (P or Q) == (not P -> Q) == (not Q -> P). If evolution is true, then he’s incredibly stupid. If he’s not incredibly stupid, then evolution is false. I don’t think he meant to say more than that.
As quoted, Todd’s statement is a false dichotomy. Todd Friel is stupid and evolutionary theory is correct.
As others have pointed out, Friel’s statement does allow for this condition. However, what the original post might have been taking about is the fact that Friel is stupid regardless of the truth of evolution.
Creationists are stupid. “characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless”
What more need be said. Creationism is the very definition of the word stupid.
“Do you believe that all creatures (past the very first life) were born from other creatures,”
But why the exception (past the very first life)? Consider the speculations ofP.C.W. DAVIES, Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; in his paper “Does Life’s Rapid Appearance Imply a Martian Origin?” or even “Lithopanspermia in Star Forming Clusters”: Fred C. Adams1,2 and David N. Spergel3: (arXiv:astro-ph/0504648 v1).
The regression could continue almost to the BB.
Sastra wrote:
I was trying to say that, because smart people can believe dumb things, that means smart people can believe dumb things.
Unless smart people don’t actually believe anything.
Unless smart people don’t actually believe anything.
Confusing belief with baseless belief isn’t very smart. Smart people do in fact believe many things, and when their beliefs are not only justified but also true, those beliefs constitute knowledge.
Either Todd Friel is stupid or evolution is wrong.
Either one man is stupid or more than a century of carefully checked, peer reviewed science is wrong. I think I’ll select “one man is stupid”. Or at least deeply deluded.
Panspermia is a legitimate scientific theory. It involves no magic whatsoever.
We really know little about biology 3.6 billion years ago. Molecules don’t fossilize well and most of the earth’s surface from that era is just flat out gone in erosion and subduction.
For all we know, there is a DNA/RNA clade in this spiral arm of the galaxy. Or the whole galaxy is a DNA/RNA clade. With little information, tossing legitimate theories is too early.
That being said, at present panspermia is intractable to investigation. We really need to get off planet and look at Mars, Europa and maybe a few dozen extrasolar planets. This may happen but it isn’t going to happen soon.
It’s a pity that the formatting of a submitted comment does not match that purported by Preview.
The claim was “The problem isn’t basic intelligence.” That isn’t the same as “If you think it has to be basic intelligence, it doesn’t” — which is what the Shermer observation supports.
To make the point more explicit: Sastra never supported his claim that the problem isn’t basic intelligence, he only supported the possibility that it isn’t basic intelligence — as he said earlier, “This I think is why creationists are not necessarily stupid, and why I wouldn’t assume it”. But they still might be, as Ichthyic argued in #24.
I think it was Philip Jose Farmer who said , “Religion has nothing to do with intelligence.’
A somewhat droll sophistry there, Doug. Sometimes the elements of of a syllogism are implicit.
Doug Rozell #58:
Yes, and well put. Thanks. I wasn’t trying to make the argument truth machine seemed to think I was trying to make. If I had been, he would have been right, of course.
I was simply using Shermer’s quote to point out that weird or stupid beliefs are held by all sorts of people, and when intelligent people are creationists, say, they simply use their intellectual skills to become very good at rationalizing and defending a belief they often originally arrived at for non-rational reasons. Intelligence alone doesn’t make them immune. I think it also requires some training in how to think — and an ability to put aside emotions.
Of course, some creationists are pretty stupid across the board. But, from what I’ve seen, being consistent across the board isn’t that common, either way.
A somewhat droll sophistry there, Doug. Sometimes the elements of of a syllogism are implicit.
So you undertook to “fill in the blanks” and then complained that the result did not make sense. #52 refers.
The real quote was actually:
“Either evolution is wrong or I’ll have to code more stupid flash games.”
See: http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinalia/panda-monium.swf
Re: #58
Bravo, Doug Rozell. Adroitly deflated pomposity.
— CV
Here’s a little ditty I put together last fall, while I was going through detox after listening to Way of the Master for two years:
http://www.youshare.com/view.php?file=youarenotamonkey.mp3
Oh yeah, and Todd is pretty much the polar opposite of honest.
- Henri
December 28, 2007
December 28, 2007
December 28, 2007
December 28, 2007
December 28, 2007
December 28, 2007
December 28, 2007
December 28, 2007
December 28, 2007
December 28, 2007
December 28, 2007
December 28, 2007
December 28, 2007
December 28, 2007
December 28, 2007
December 29, 2007
December 29, 2007
December 29, 2007
December 29, 2007
December 29, 2007
December 30, 2007
December 30, 2007
December 31, 2007