Support NeoGAF

[OpinionatedCyborg]

The absurdity of a science class not teaching evolution annoys the hell out of me. Ask your teacher about super bacteria strains that are resistant to antibiotics and how antibiotics aren't used as much anymore because of it. This is evolution by natural selection reproduced in recent history.

it's one thing for a bacteria to gain antibiotic resistance through transduction, transformation, or conjugation.

it is another thing altogether for monkeys to turn into humans.

where is my tail? i don't have one. my point is, micro-evolution is okey dokey. macro evolution clearly is hokey. changes in the fossil record? uhm, it's called catastrophes. baron georges cuvier proposed catastrophism back in the 18th century, and it wholly suports a 6000-year-old earth. there is no reason to believe he was wrong (unless you've fallen for the left wing atheist propaganda... ).

 

[MisterNugNug]

Scientist are more than willing to let go of Evolutionary Theory as a framework for biological progress as long as those who object to Evolutionary Theory discover a more reasoned, logical and experimental model for their arguments. Get published. Write a piece and have your work peer-reviewed. The reason why people like Dawkins are so strident and intolerant is because those who oppose Evolution, haven't done this.

 

[Atramental]

Well I decided to be a Poe:

If Dawkins ever wants to convince people that what he believes is true he'll never do it by calling people "stupid, insane, or ignorant"... What this review shows me is Richard Dawkins' arrogance and pride. The man just cannot accept that people have differing views and come to different conclusions whenever they see the world around them. And the reason why I would assume that Richard Dawkins' tone is so strident and intolerant is because he believes, without a doubt, that biological evolution is absolutely true and that anyone who disputes him and the theory of evolution is delusional and unscientific.

And someone responded to it:

I agree with Atramental's comment. No one appreciates being called "stupid, insane, or ignorant" and that kind of language might scare someone into being an evolutionist (if I don't believe it, everyone will say I'm stupid) or, hopefully, make him question the reliability of arrogant men with such extreme opinions.

I believe the tone of the review is so strident and intolerant because Dawkins realizes the problem if evolution is not true. He has heard all the evidence for creation and opposed it so strongly that he has become insecure about the truth of evolution. If he thinks about the implications of atheism and evolution being false, then he has reason to be insecure. His harsh tone demonstratese the thinking that if enough people agree with him, and are not considered "stupid, insane, or ignorant," then his ideas must be right. When Christians question and refute him, he resorts to strident and intolerant abuse of their opinions to justify his own beliefs.

and I responded back with:

". . .and that kind of language might scare someone into being an evolutionist (if I don't believe it, everyone will say I'm stupid)"

I agree. That's probably how a lot of people end up believing in evolution. It is likely that some people are scared into believing evolution when they go to public/secular schools because their teachers coerce them by labeling anyone who doesn't believe in evolution as "stupid".

And excuse me while I go wash my hands for typing this filth.

 

[TheKaeptain]

it's one thing for a bacteria to gain antibiotic resistance through transduction, transformation, or conjugation.

it is another thing altogether for monkeys to turn into humans.

Monkeys didn't turn into Humans.

where is my tail? i don't have one.

It's been awhile since I have studied evolution but didn't it use to be...
http://i.imgur.com/PtuAr.jpg

my point is, micro-evolution is okey dokey. macro evolution clearly is hokey. changes in the fossil record? uhm, it's called catastrophes. baron georges cuvier proposed catastrophism back in the 18th century, and it wholly suports a 6000-year-old earth. there is no reason to believe he was wrong (unless you've fallen for the left wing atheist propaganda... ).

oh wait...you're a troll. I get it now. Just read your tag.

Well I decided to be a Poe:


And someone responded to it:

and I responded back with:


And excuse while I go wash my hands for typing this filth.

You should play devil's advocate. Would your teacher get mad?

 

[Alucrid]

The Bible also says that the fool i set in his ways and he will get angry or upset if any one tries to tell him other wise.

I found this sentence particularly full of delicious irony.

 

[Devolution]

OP you're still living your parents and going to a useless school?

 

[BocoDragon]

Huh?

I think this is a very reasonable assignment, and I'm pro-evolution and even a partial Dawkins fan.

Dawkins quote is clearly Ad hominem style.. isn't that plainly obvious?

Anyone who doesn't agree with my post is either stupid, insane or ignorant.

 

[methos75]

Well I decided to be a Poe:


And someone responded to it:

and I responded back with:


And excuse while I go wash my hands for typing this filth.

Its not filth really, in some ways its true but I think you have it backwards, IMO many get angry at his tone and that pushes them away from being logical or open to the fact that Evolution could be feasible. Basically IMO while very intelligent on the matter he knows which is biology, he is totally illogical and unintelligent in how he attacks creationism because his route will never allow those who believe in creation a road on which they could see pass his attacks on them and look at the logical scientific merits of what he says. Never in history has being intolerant and hateful towards a group and their ideology been successful in changing it, no logical way to see how Dawkins would think this situation different.

 

[Acerac]

My favorite part is how Atra went with the intellectually dishonest answer instead of going with the many suggestions of how to skirt around the issue while still giving a satisfying answer.

I can't wait for your next thread, person with an avatar of Satan.

 

[TheKaeptain]

Huh?

I think this is a very reasonable assignment, and I'm pro-evolution and even a partial Dawkins fan.

Dawkins quote is clearly Ad hominem style.. isn't that plainly obvious?

Anyone who doesn't agree with my post is either stupid, insane or ignorant.

.


Even though Dawkins probably believes it.

 

[Zenith]

A school that tries to force religious propaganda down your throat in a science class isn't a school. You are literally wasting your time there. Hell, worse than wasting it, you're making your life worse day by day.

You're also a spineless milksop so I expect you to get a PhD there and then move back into your parents' home. If you ever want to know what a vagina looks like, just look in the mirror.

 

[Atramental]

You should play devil's advocate. Would your teacher get mad?

I would probably get marked off for doing so because that's not the purpose of the assignment.

 

[Plywood]

Oh great the comments you quoted, nothing but opinion masturbation(confirmation bias).

 

[Devolution]

I would probably get marked off for doing so because that's not the purpose of the assignment.

You're going to a useless school anyway, why not just troll people?

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Well I decided to be a Poe:


And someone responded to it:

and I responded back with:


And excuse while I go wash my hands for typing this filth.

 

[methos75]

Anyway I have question about this school. Is it accredited in anyway? If not whats the point of going to it?

 

[Acerac]

Anyway I have question about this school. Is it accredited in anyway? If not whats the point of going to it?

Because his parents are paying for it.

I don't understand it either.

 

[BocoDragon]

School is doing PRECICELY its job if its gets you to question the rhetorical methods of a divisive pundit - even if it's one who you agree with. (especially if it's one who you agree with)

 

[TacticalFox88]

Anyway I have question about this school. Is it accredited in anyway? If not whats the point of going to it?

Don't worry man, God will take care of him!

 

[Kinitari]

Anyway I have question about this school. Is it accredited in anyway? If not whats the point of going to it?

It is accredited, it's part of a religious accreditation alliance, which is recognized by your national education board, I am pretty sure.

I should double check, it's been a while since I've looked into it.

Edit: Wikipedia

Since 2005 BJU has been accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, an accrediting organization recognized by the Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.[3]

 

[Munin]

Every time I see OP with a new thread about his "university" I feel a little better about taking a year off from uni and generally not knowing what to do with my life.

 

[Atramental]

Anyway I have question about this school. Is it accredited in anyway? If not whats the point of going to it?

The school is accredited.

But a couple of years ago it wasn't.

 

[2San]

School is doing PRECICELY its job if its gets you to question the rhetorical methods of a divisive pundit - even if it's one who you agree with. (especially if it's one who you agree with)

Honestly it's a pretty legitimate question. I think the comments that the fellow classmates gave made it seem like it is expected of the TC to react the same way.

 

[REV 09]

BJU huh? I'm from Greenville. Know the school well. Best of luck to you.

 

[Feep]

Here, OP. I did your work for you. I expect donations at PayPal.

"Tone is a perceived construction of words, an attempt to take a written statement and turn it, logically, into a spoken sentence, by which we may imagine more detail and meaning than in a mere denotative analysis.

You note that Dawkins' tone is "strident" and "intolerant", and your question was loaded as such, but I would respectfully disagree. Your analysis is based off of the preconceived notion that the theory of evolution is untrue, that Dawkins was putting more vitriol into his words than necessary, but one may comfortably say the same of any ardent supporter of a position that runs counter to one's own.

The theory of evolution is supported by virtually all known scientific evidence, and disproven by none. Though no one can say, with absolute certainty, as to the correctness of this explanatory set, he defends what is known, to the best of our knowledge and science, to be the truth. As you or I would defend (with passion!) that 2 + 4 = 6, and not tolerate an opposing "opinion", so does Dawkins defend the ToE while also supporting a dear colleague and friend.

I disagree, fundamentally, with the question as asked. If you would like to speak more on this topic, I look forward to a civilized debate."

 

[TheKyle07]

Is it possible that Richard Dawkins is possessed by a demon?

 

[Feep]

Is it possible that Richard Dawkins is possessed by a demon?

Yes, or you could troll the fuck out of the teacher by claiming he is literally possessed by Satan. A+!

 

[BocoDragon]

You note that Dawkins' tone is "strident" and "intolerant", and your question was loaded as such, but I would respectfully disagree. Your analysis is based off of the preconceived notion that the theory of evolution is untrue, that Dawkins was putting more vitriol into his words than necessary, but one may comfortably say the same of any ardent supporter of a position that runs counter to one's own.

The truth or non-truth of a statement doesn't dismiss criticism of the rhetorical style used at all.

"1+1=2, and anyone who doesn't believe in me is a mouth-breathing cock-goblin!"

Why isn't the above statement very helpful for many audiences? People who are new to the subject of 1+1=2 would not be aided in their understanding of it, by the presumptuous, insulting tone. And people who have been, through social means, raised to think that 1+1 is not 2 will actually be turned off by the tone, hardened in their position, and actually hindered in their understanding.

It's not helpful rhetoric in the aim of promoting understanding of 1+1=2... that's the point! It only serves to make people who already think that 1+1=2 feel good about themselves and have a couple guffaws.

You are right that the question is loaded, and not open ended, but school assignments can be like that sometimes. You have to be able to put yourself in the shoes of other positions in order to grow your ultimate understanding of the world.

 

[TacticalFox88]

BJU huh? I'm from Greenville. Know the school well. Best of luck to you.

*HighFive* Represent!

 

[PetriP-TNT]

Judging from the other student comments, we clearly have evolved from apes.

Write that down and get at least half a credit.

 

[Feep]

The truth or non-truth of a statement doesn't dismiss criticism of the rhetorical style used at all.

"1+1=2, and anyone who doesn't believe in me is a mouth-breathing cock-goblin!"

Why isn't the above statement very helpful for many audiences? People who are new to the subject of 1+1=2 would not be aided in their understanding of it, by the presumptuous, insulting tone. And people who have been, through social means, raised to think that 1+1 is not 2 will actually be turned off by the tone, hardened in their position, and actually hindered in their understanding.

It's not helpful rhetoric in the aim of promoting understanding of 1+1=2... that's the point! It only serves to make people who already think that 1+1=2 feel good about themselves and have a couple guffaws.

You are right that the question is loaded, and not open ended, but school assignments can be like that sometimes. You have to be able to put yourself in the shoes of other positions in order to grow your ultimate understanding of the world.

1) I am now using the insult "mouth-breathing cock-goblin". So awesome.

2) Dawkins wasn't nearly anywhere close to that level. He said "stupid, crazy, or ignorant, and being ignorant is not a crime". Therefore, the only people he is insulting are those who have "learned", but are willfully ignoring the truth, or the literally crazy, by which he is merely pointing out they are crazy. I would never insult a person for never having learned 1+1=2, but I think that calling out people who willfully say "NO THAT IS NOT TRUE THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY IT" is hardly excessive.

3) Other positions of value are good for increasing understanding, but not those without value. I don't need to put myself in the shoes of a racist, or Kim Jong Il, or a bunch of assholes.

 

[Pandaman]

Dawkins quote is clearly Ad hominem style.. isn't that plainly obvious?

No.

an ad hom would be:
creationism is wrong because he is stupid.

dawkins has lots of very legitimate reasons for believing creationism is stupid and uses that as a basis to then form opinions on the holder of the belief. its possible dawkins is wrong about creationism being stupid, but that doesn't make his argument an insult, it just makes him wrong.

 

[BocoDragon]

No.

an ad hom would be:
creationism is wrong because he is stupid.

"Anybody who doesn't believe in evolution is stupid, insane, or hasn't read Jerry Coyne."

That is not debating the issue of evolution. It is debating the man, any man, who would dare to disagree with evolution.

It's a social argument, not a scientific one. It is ad hominem. (well... kind of a pre-ad hominem... "if you dare to disagree, then I'll call you stupid!")

 

[EmCeeGramr]

lol, this was on their website's main page:

http://www.bju.edu/academics/arts-and-science/natural-science/spotlight-ranieri.php?utm_source=bju.edu&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=spotlight

Her favorite Scripture passage to meditate on is Exodus 33:11a: “And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face as a man speaketh unto his friend.”

“I like this verse because God considered Moses a friend and actually spoke to him face to face,” she said. “We have this same privilege with His Son Jesus Christ who has said, ‘I have called you friends.’ This is wonderful to meditate upon!”

20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

21 Then the LORD said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”

Heh.

 

[Aurora]

it's one thing for a bacteria to gain antibiotic resistance through transduction, transformation, or conjugation.

it is another thing altogether for monkeys to turn into humans.

where is my tail? i don't have one. my point is, micro-evolution is okey dokey. macro evolution clearly is hokey. changes in the fossil record? uhm, it's called catastrophes. baron georges cuvier proposed catastrophism back in the 18th century, and it wholly suports a 6000-year-old earth. there is no reason to believe he was wrong (unless you've fallen for the left wing atheist propaganda... ).

I'm really really really really hoping you're joking.

 

[Feep]

I'm really really really really hoping you're joking.

Psttt...check his tag

 

[Mama Robotnik]

lol, this was on their website's main page:

http://www.bju.edu/academics/arts-and-science/natural-science/spotlight-ranieri.php?utm_source=bju.edu&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=spotlight



Also, looking over their English department...

All the staff were educated at the insular religious university they teach at, almost all of them.

Jesus Christ, its like academic inbreeding.

 

[Lkr]

Haven't you said before that your school is aware of your GAF handle and that they sometimes check on it? Is it really the smartest thing to go criticizing your class, that being the case?

On-topic: You really have no way to reconcile this. You are intelligent enough to know that evolution is clearly true, but the assignment doesn't really allow you to express that; you either have to conform to what the teacher wants (a.k.a. bullshit it, what millions of college kids do every week) or respond truthfully, knowing that there will likely be disciplinary consequences to such a response.

Edit: And yeah, stop going to a religious university if you have no intention of working in the Christian community; you're basically just wasting time and fucking yourself over by continuing in a place that won't help your career.

Are there like 5 students at this school? How the hell does a school become aware that a student posts on GAF, who they are irl, and then keep tabs on them? :lol

 

[TacticalFox88]

All the staff were educated at the insular religious university they teach at, almost all of them.

Jesus Christ, its like academic inbreeding.

And to make matters worse he says he wants them to think like a scientist....yet he's teaching these ass backwards view points. Holy shit

 

[BocoDragon]

2) Dawkins wasn't nearly anywhere close to that level. He said "stupid, crazy, or ignorant, and being ignorant is not a crime". Therefore, the only people he is insulting are those who have "learned", but are willfully ignoring the truth, or the literally crazy, by which he is merely pointing out they are crazy. I would never insult a person for never having learned 1+1=2, but I think that calling out people who willfully say "NO THAT IS NOT TRUE THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY IT" is hardly excessive.

IMO you probably shouldn't be insulting anyone in the promotion of science.

It'd be one thing if you said "evolution is true" and someone was insulted. That's their problem.

But if you say "X must be crazy, insane, stupid"... well, some X out there might rightly be insulted. Or possibly, someone else might find the very presumption of anyone being insulted off-putting. It's a good way for people not already on board to tune out and brand you as a biased pundit.

It's just not good rhetoric, in the truest sense of the word rhetoric. It doesn't ingratiate yourself to new audiences... it just preaches to the converted and tells the unconverted to "fuck off".

3) Other positions of value are good for increasing understanding, but not those without value. I don't need to put myself in the shoes of a racist, or Kim Jong Il, or a bunch of assholes.

Maybe. But this one has value.

It's not a wild stretch to consider the possibility that Dawkins' rhetortic is unhelpful. Many fellow scientists have said just that. I've seen kindly Neil DeGrasse-Tyson say just that.

 

[threenote]

I think Atramental is a joke character for some reason. I bet he doesn't even go to BJU.

 

[Mgoblue201]

"Anybody who doesn't believe in evolution is stupid, insane, or hasn't read Jerry Coyne."

That is not debating the issue of evolution. It is debating the man, any man, who would dare to disagree with evolution.

It's a social argument, not a scientific one. It is ad hominem. (well... kind of a pre-ad hominem... "if you dare to disagree, then I'll call you stupid!")

That's because the quote is from a 300 page book. And even if it was an isolated statement, he would still be correct in saying it. An ad hominem should only apply if Dawkins had no other arguments.

Edit: I guess it's not from a book; I thought that it was from The Greatest Show on Earth, because he has said very similar things within its pages. My point, however, is that he is perfectly capable of packaging all of his insults with ample arguments. Calling people stupid is simply a summation of something that he has demonstrated.

 

[Nekofrog]

At this point, you should stop being such a pushover to your parents. Join the military if you're so damned worried about being homeless. Use your GI bill to go to a REAL school on the gubbiments dime, and you can choose where YOU want to go.

You have so many options that you're ignoring and instead, just whining about how bad you have it here when honestly you have so many other options that you're not even considering.

 

[Lkr]

In place of a spring break, students and faculty are required to attend a six-day Bible Conference in late March.[51] The Conference attracts fundamentalist preachers and laymen from around the country, and BJU class reunions are held at the end of the week.[52]

NICE!

btw, facial hair is apparently banned. I guess Jesus couldn't go to BJU

 

[Pandaman]

"Anybody who doesn't believe in evolution is stupid, insane, or hasn't read Jerry Coyne."

That is not debating the issue of evolution. It is debating the man, any man, who would dare to disagree with evolution.

It's a social argument, not a scientific one. It is ad hominem. (well... kind of a pre-ad hominem... "if you dare to disagree, then I'll call you stupid!")

the validity of evolution is not the topic of the quote, dawkins is saying that from a basis inwhich evolution is the accepted intelligent conclusion [hence the ignorant part], you can disagree with that axiom if you want or you can disagree with his conclusion, but its not an ad hom.

lets assume we live in a world where IQ tests work, if i say:
'anyone who scores 70 on an IQ test is stupid or ignorant'
is that an ad hom?

its possible i'm wrong and the person with that score skipped a scantron bubble on his answer sheet and murdered his own score by a grading error, but is it an ad hom to say that a person who legitimately scores 70 on an IQ test is stupid? is something that is descriptively true still an insult?

its only an ad hom if it is not possibly true.
'argument is wrong' because 'arguer is stupid' can never be true, arguments are not contingent on the standings of its arguers, it doesn't follow so its seen as a fallacy.

 

[Xater]

In place of a spring break, students and faculty are required to attend a six-day Bible Conference in late March.[51] The Conference attracts fundamentalist preachers and laymen from around the country, and BJU class reunions are held at the end of the week.[52]

NICE!

btw, facial hair is apparently banned. I guess Jesus couldn't go to BJU

That sounds like a fun time!

 

[methos75]

At this point, you should stop being such a pushover to your parents. Join the military if you're so damned worried about being homeless. Use your GI bill to go to a REAL school on the gubbiments dime, and you can choose where YOU want to go.

You have so many options that you're ignoring and instead, just whining about how bad you have it here when honestly you have so many other options that you're not even considering.

And with the Post 9/11 bill they pay you to go

 

[Wazzim]

I think Atramental is a joke character for some reason. I bet he doesn't even go to BJU.

Maybe because he started tons of threads about this kind of thing..

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Are there like 5 students at this school? How the hell does a school become aware that a student posts on GAF, who they are irl, and then keep tabs on them? :lol

Well you have to use a non-free e-mail to post on GAF, so if he used his school e-mail, it's quite likely that some administrator keeping tabs on students (I would imagine a place like BJU, with its strict rules, is especially into this) put some e-mails into Google and found atramental's in and found his GAF account. He confirmed in this very thread the veracity of that, by the by.

 

[BocoDragon]

Personally, I'm not insulted by Dawkins' tone. I believe in Evolution, so I often guffaw along with his statements.

But if I were in a university classroom and someone asked me "what's are the issues with Dawkin's rhetorical style?" you better believe I could tell you exactly what those problems are. He's one of the most divisive figures in the world, which means that his actions directly promote repulsion in many people. It's not because he believes in evolution. It's not even because he calls a spade a spade... It's because he clearly takes pleasure in sneering at those who don't think like him.

It's what sells books and gets diehard atheist fans. It's also what turns many people away from evolution/atheism if they were not already so inclined.

There are different forms of rhetoric that would better be used to convince non-evolutionists.

Perhaps you might think a strident tone IS the best way to convince people. But in that case I'd say you must recognize it's a dual edged sword... it comes bundled with a whole bunch of problems that should be easy to list if you were asked such a question in a university setting.

the validity of evolution is not the topic of the quote, dawkins is saying that from a basis inwhich evolution is the accepted intelligent conclusion [hence the ignorant part], you can disagree with that axiom if you want or you can disagree with his conclusion, but its not an ad hom.

lets assume we live in a world where IQ tests work, if i say:
'anyone who scores 70 on an IQ test is stupid or ignorant'
is that an ad hom?

its possible i'm wrong and the person with that score skipped a scantron bubble on his answer sheet and murdered his own score by a grading error, but is it an ad hom to say that a person who legitimately scores 70 on an IQ test is stupid? is something that is descriptively true still an insult?

its only an ad hom if it is not possibly true.
'argument is wrong' because 'arguer is stupid' can never be true, arguments are not contingent on the standings of its arguers, it doesn't follow so its seen as a fallacy.

That's quite a false equivalency, there.

By invoking an "IQ test", you're basically arguing against Ad hominem being considered a fallacy at all. "If you fail on an IQ test then calling you stupid isn't a fallacy". Then that wouldn't be ad hominem... that would be directly debating the issue (in this case, the matter of someone's intelligence).

If I say "anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is stupid", then I'm basically trying to prop up evolution by arguing against the person who believes in it, I am not debating the issue itself. That's Ad Hominem no doubt.