Unless you live in the United States, the front-page cover of Time Magazine this week topically depicted a woman suffering from the impact of the recent flood in Pakistan. In America, however, we were fortunate enough to have our publishers save us from the anguish of learning about the outside world by instead advertising a story about “what makes school great.”
The Times Magazine example is not an isolated incident—news stories have increasingly diluted its material to accommodate American’s shrinking attention spans. Statistics documenting the daily circulation of various newspapers demonstrate a clear, negative correlation between the number of large or “complex” articles in a newspaper and the level of readership over a period of time. The same statistics govern the likelihood that an internet article will be read or the probability that a reader will subscribe to a news site.
Polling data paints a similar picture: we’re reading less than we used to, from a diminished variety of sources, and for reasons that are increasingly external. Twitter, Facebook, Yahoo Answers, and Wikipedia, with their condensed, regurgitated, and highly-processed versions of knowledge, have become our primary sources of information. Because of it, we have more and more people reading less and less, both in quantity and quality, and it’s making us dumber by the second.
America ranks near the bottom among developed countries in terms students graduating with Ph.D.’s in science and math; our political discourse is dominated by demagoguery and religious vacuity; we’re ridiculed by the developed world for the egregious state of our prison system, health care policies, and public schools; and we’re the only country in which evolution, global warming, vaccination, and Barack Obama’s religious affiliation are actual controversies.
There is no doubt that a virulent strain of anti-intellectualism currently plagues our culture, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore it in the midst of communication technology that has amplified the voices of those who have the least to say.
Richard Hofstadter in his book, “Anti-Intellectualism in America”, demonstrated that the distrust of intellect is a well-documented, American phenomenon that, when present, ordains a period of intellectual, social, and political stagnation. Hofstadter argues that anti-intellectualism begins as the result of three primary forces: religious anti-rationalism, populist anti-elitism, an unreflective instrumentalism, all of which have shaped contemporary public discourse.
Religious anti-rationalism—the contention that religion’s sanctification of ignorance under the auspices of ‘faith’, contributes to the devolution of society both by intellectual and social standards—is readily reflected by the fact that 21% of Americans still believe that the sun revolves around the earth, and only slightly more believe in evolution.
The recent breakthrough in the creation of artificial life, which was praised by the scientific community for its potential application in curing disease, solving environmental problems, and preventing food shortages, was immediately mired in controversy by the religious right who demanded that scientists stop “playing God.” Similar controversies arose when breakthroughs were achieved in birth control, vaccination, cloning, and stem cells.
Pope Benedict recently gave credence to anti-rationalism in a speech he delivered in the U.K. in which he condemned “atheist extremism” for society’s ills—he didn’t mention the pervasiveness of science-denialism, the inconsistent application of human rights for gays, women, and ethnic minorities, or the divisive ideological conflict over Israel/Palestine, the “ground-zero” mosque, or Quran book-burning, all of which are issues directly steeped in the anti-rationalism of religion. It’s not a coincidence that religiosity is inversely proportional to education, crime, and human rights in any given country.
As evangelical Protestantism slowly increases it foothold on public discourse, distracting our attention-deficit public from real problems to hackneyed issues like abortion and pre-marital sex, there can be no doubt that American society will slowly descend into an intellectual Dark Age.
Populist anti-elitism, the second force outlined by Hofstadter, is the modern-day version of the Illuminati and Jewish banker conspiracies. The equivocation of intellect and elitism has fomented such a robust antipathy to intellectualism that politicians have found it expedient to ‘disparage’ opponents by pointing out their advanced degrees from “elite” northeast schools.
We now live in a society where intelligence has become both a political liability and a social faux pas. This very fact is reflected in the success of the Tea Party movement and populist political campaigns that utilize anti-intellectual rhetoric to mobilize support.
It’s not a coincidence that Sarah Palin’s most impressive academic achievement is her complete lack thereof, and yet she is able to recruit hoards of voters who sympathize with her third-grade vocabulary and creative disregard for English grammatical rules.
In fact, for $9.95 a month, you can actually subscribe to the GOP’s political strategy through a series of online lectures sponsored by Beck University in which the evils of government, education, and reasoned argument are laid bare.
The media is also largely to blame for the prominence of anti-elitism— news content doesn’t even attempt to clarify an issue beyond superficial and hyperbolic headlines anymore. News articles are so abbreviated and simplified that people are forced to rely on predisposition and ideology to draw conclusions about stories; it’s much easier to criticize the Obama administration for being “out of touch with Americans” than read an introductory Economics textbook.
The Daily Show incisively made this point when it lampooned Gretchen Carlson last month who, on the show “Fox and Friends”, made it a point to look up the definition of words like “ignoramus” or “double-dip.” Jon Stewart wasn’t criticizing Gretchen for not knowing definitions, however, he was criticizing her for intentionally faking idiocy for the sake of connecting with Fox News’s viewership. (Gretchen Carlson is, by the way, a concert-level violinist who graduated from both Stanford and Oxford University).
If feigning stupidity is publically popular and news stations have an incentive to dumb down its content, what hope is there for the future of American students who are currently being nurtured by the virtues of ignorance? The best and brightest are increasingly recruited from abroad, where students read beyond Wikipedia abstracts and are actually interested in forming their own opinions.
Another integral component of anti-elitism is the increasingly popular idea that science is a democracy and that one man’s ignorance is equivalent to another man’s knowledge. The belief that anybody in society with access to a computer has the ‘democratic’ right to rebuke scientific theories, even in the absence of requisite scientific expertise, has created controversies that are so perceptually damning and embarrassingly infantile that our country has lost scientific and intellectual standing abroad.
There can be nothing more dangerous to the progress of scientific achievement then the unrelenting distractions brought up by politicians and soccer moms who believe science is a matter of opinion and that “the University of Google” is just as good as a college degree.
Unreflective instrumentalism, the idea that knowledge for knowledge’s sake is pointless, and that information is valuable only insofar as it’s potentially profitable, is the final tenet of anti-intellectualism and it will prove to be the bane of American leadership. Richard Florida, in his book “The Creative Class”, describes how art and music programs are being slashed to accommodate math and science courses in the United States.
As a result, American creativity, as measured by almost any metric, is seriously declining—the ability of our students to innovate, think critically about an issue, form novel opinions, or perceive stimuli in unique and interesting ways, has been severely handicapped by an overreliance on the pseudo-objectivity of test scores and teaching standards.
While science and math may be noble and important pursuits, an education devoid of creativity deprives future leaders of the skills necessary to resolve complex problems. If America wishes to retain cultural capital and its position as a leader in knowledge production, we must emphasize an inter-disciplinary education that equips students with the insight necessary to learn from the past and innovate for the future.
America is faced with the task of addressing an enormous number of existential crises—global warming, nuclear proliferation, natural disasters, disease outbreak, etc., but none of them are more severe than the crisis that paralyzes our very capacity to address any of them: anti-intellectualism. If life without knowledge is death in disguise, then America is slowly committing an intellectual suicide from which it will not return. As students, we cannot be let this happen—we must refuse the impulse to pursue only that which is profitable; we cannot be ashamed to convey intellect; and we must strive to cultivate an environment in which education is the highest virtue.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
quotetheraven 1 year, 8 months ago
There are trends of anti-intellectualism, and they usually are indicative of theocratic-fascists- case in point, the Church's case against Galileo, or perhaps more close to Oklahoma, the Scopes Monkey Trial (just north of here).
ethe0682 1 year, 8 months ago
Well said! Great article!
mustafa 1 year, 8 months ago
ethe0682- hey loser-you owe me some answers on Stanfield's "Don't Ask, Don't tell" Ruling Helpful.
You called me out then, when I ask you some questions, you run off. Come on, stand up for your friends, if you can.
evan 1 year, 8 months ago
I realize that these remarks are not in any particular order, but I was in a hurry. Please read.
"Stories are so abbreviated that people are forced to rely on ideology as a template for decision-making..." First of all, ideology in itself is not a bad thing. If a person's ideology is well-informed and influenced by years of experience, it can be a great tool for decision-making. Second, I think you should not accuse someone of something you do yourself: "21 percent of Americans still believe that the sun revolves around the earth." You state this quite blandly, as if it were a commonly known fact, yet you provide absolutely no supporting remarks or evidence to back up your claims. Where did that statistic come from? Wikipedia perhaps? The rest of the article is full of similarly unsubstantiated claims. If you are going to harp on "the media" for their "superficial headlines," "hyperbole," and "abbreviated" stories, you should not engage in such practices yourself.
Also, you start out your article with a paragraph on how, apparently, the use of Wikipedia, Twitter, etc. are making us stupider. Three paragraphs later, you completely change the subject, and target "religious anti-rationalism, populist anti-elitism, and unreflective instrumentalism." (I think the last one would be better referred to as "unreflective pragmatism," since that is the term the rest of us know it by.) If you want to write an article on how one or the other group is making us stupider, do it, but don't start out the article warning about the dangers of the technological information overload and then change course to write a summary of your own (seemingly unsupported) ideology. In addition, if you want to cite Richard Hofstadter, please spell his name right.
Lastly, please work on your imagery. the whole POINT of suicide, even intellectual suicide is that one does not return from it!
Thank you.
Johnny 1 year, 8 months ago
Well this started off in one direction, then quickly turned into yet another article supporting a political and social affiliation. I would agree and have stated before that this country in particular is way too reliant on the internet for its sole source of information. We also allow ourselves to be spoon fed ‘news’ and information by the media because it’s quick and to (someone’s) point. And I would take the wows of our “anti-intellectualism” one step further by pointing out that this trend is continued by parents who choose to buy their kids video games and phones instead of books, and plug their kids into our horrible public school system without a single thought otherwise. Our society has been dumbing down for some time now. We spend more than any other country on education yet rank at the bottom for literacy (not from Wikipedia). We could go on all day about this subject, but the author turns this into an article supporting his Left wing opinions and agnosticism, which seem to go hand in hand quite often.
Here we go again with the same old argument basically stating that anyone with faith cannot possible be intelligent or informed. And quote some statistic (probably for the internet) that only slightly more than 21% of Americans believe in evolution. So the inferred point is if you don’t believe in evolution you’re an idiot, even though as we know the theory of evolution is primarily based, and was made popular by the ‘findings’ of a scientist who live 150 years ago prior to the age of scientific enlightenment. Also of course, your ‘statistic’ doesn’t break down the various forms of evolution and treats it as a broad subject (did you use a popular quick and lazy method of research?). If readers didn’t recognize the intent of this article by this point, the author then drops the Sarah Palin card. (Like her or not, for someone who has no education she sure can stir up “intellectuals”). Good grief, write something original. This article typifies exactly what it started out criticizing.
-Anonymous
ethe0682 1 year, 8 months ago
I apologize to everyone for the differing subject matter. This is a continuation of a dialog that began with another article.
@ Mustafa
I don't owe you anything and I wasn’t avoiding you. I didn't realize you had even written a response. See unlike you “Loser,” I have more important things to do with my day.
I must say that you didn’t disappoint. Your responses continue to reflect my feelings of you—completely pointless and a waste of my time. I have already addressed everything you said, yet you continue repeat the same arguments over and over. It is obvious that we are on two different levels. A conversation with you is about as invigorating as repeatedly running head-first into a wall (which is probably one of your favorite past-time activities). Nevertheless, I will humor you with a short response. Just know that I will not be conversing with you in the future.
“Is suggesting someone is a latent homosexual an insult or not?”
--- I don’t think so, as I am secure with my own sexuality. I find no issue with the existence of several different sexual attitudes. The fact that you do find it insulting is something that you should reflect upon.
“Whenever I advise people on how to approach the gay-right issue…”
---Who on Earth would take advice from an ignoramus like you? You can barely think for yourself.
ethe0682 1 year, 8 months ago
More @ Mustafa
“Since most straights regard the status of homosexuality as a greasy perversion involving the ingestion of fecal matter, this tactic is very effective, especially with men.”
--- Once again, I have to repeat myself. Straight couples engage in the same sexual behavior as homosexual couples. Stop with the Paul Cameron BS already! Repeating something over and over again doesn’t make it true.
“But it only succeeds in driving the "homophobia" underground. In reality every straight who tells you they support you really thinks the most negative thoughts possible and always will. Homosexual advocates know this thus don't bother trying to win the hearts and minds of a unreachable straight majority, but opt for forcing change through the courts, which of course just increases the animosity toward them.”
---Yes. You are absolutely correct. It is a massive conspiracy being executed by radical homosexual leftists in effort to "force" everyone in the world to be gay. This is flawed again. The feelings of the majority (in this case, the minority of the majority) have nothing to do with what is right or wrong. As I have already stated, the majority used to think racial segregation was righteous as well. And in similar fashion, the minority group fought for/ gained protections through the court.
---On a side note, I find it interesting that you chose to devote an entire post to the mere suggestion that “you are confused about your own sexuality.” This was an extremely minor and sarcastically toned sentence in my previous post; yet, you decided to bring it to the forefront. Why? I can only think of two reasons. One, you missed the many other points I made in the post (seems a likely answer, as I am still having to repeat myself). And two, you found the suggestion to be that insulting (another likely answer). Hopefully you realize that by taking such a strong defensive stance in opposition to such a minor suggestion you have simply legitimized the suggestion.
“In 99% of the incidents where homosexuals are physically assaulted it is because they provoked it upon themselves by quick resorting to this slur as a response to "offenses' as trivial as looking away, shaking the head or giggling.”
---Hmmm. Did you know that 98% of statistics are made up on the spot? Mustafa your mind works in mysterious ways. So you are saying that a gay man (for example) is going to respond to an insult by calling the insultor gay? And, you are also saying that this “horrible insult” justifies the assault of the gay man? Like I said Mustafa, you’re a waste of time.
---The remainder of your post does not merit a response. I have addressed all of this before. The fact that you can’t come to terms with being straight and not homophobic is not my concern. Your argument is invalid (surprise, surprise!).
ethe0682 1 year, 8 months ago
@ Mustafa (a Jerry Springer "Final Thought")
---Take care of yourself Mustafa. I hope that one day you will let go of your hate and learn to live and let live. The only positive thing I got out of our joyous conversation is a reinforced passion for the Bill of Rights. You are a poster-child for free speech/ free expression. I absolutely despise everything you said, but I still support your right to say it. Perhaps one day you will recognize your own privileges and fight to extend them to others (whether you like them or not).
mustafa 1 year, 8 months ago
ethe0682- OK don't run away now.
"Straight couples engage in the same sexual behavior as homosexual couples."
I don't think there is any evidence to support this as including anal sodomy. The reason the fastest rising number of new infections is among hetero women is because they engage in anal sodomy with bisexual men, or so the explanation goes. A woman and a bisexual is not heterosexuality.
"Hopefully you realize that by taking such a strong defensive stance in opposition to such a minor suggestion you have simply legitimized the suggestion."
Again it really is the only thing you have. You say you don't see it as an insult, yet you say it sarcastically. Do you actually repeat this idea to homophobes face-to-face? I bet you don't. Do you advise others to?
"So you are saying that a gay man (for example) is going to respond to an insult by calling the insultor gay?"
No just those who get beat up.
"And, you are also saying that this “horrible insult” justifies the assault of the gay man?"
Do you not know that the world is full of unsophisticated louts, certainly by liberal standards? Just how else do you expect them to react? These are fighting words to someone who thinks homosexuality is a crazy perversion.
So I assume you have some homosexual friends of the same sex as yourself. Have you ever told them that you are 100% straight? If not why not?
mustafa 1 year, 8 months ago
ethe0682- now don't run away
So, if it isn't and insult, why did Kebold and Harris take it so badly, assuming that they weren't homosexuals?
You say it isn't an insult, yet you admit you say it sarcastically. Do you say it to homophobes you encounter in person? I bet you don't. Do you advise other to do so?
I assume you are male and that your gay friends are also male.
Have you ever told then that you are exclusively 100% heterosexual? If not why not?
Have you asked them if they believe the things I claim they believe? Ask them if they believe everyone is at least bisexual. Ask them if they believe any heterosexual can still enjoy homosexual sexual activity.
Ask them to come talk to me in this forum.
"I absolutely despise everything you said, but I still support your right to say it."
Well that puts you at odds with homosexual-rights advocacy. They want us to be like Canada where even any polite dispassionate discussion involving any form of criticism is illegal.
academon 1 year, 8 months ago
@mustafa, it baffles me that somebody as stupid as you could possibly know how to get on the internet, let alone how to construct sentences (though your last couple of posts have made me doubt the latter assumption).
How can you possibly be so arrogant to think that your bigoted sensibilities are important enough to codified through law, for no other reason then you don't like gays?
academon 1 year, 8 months ago
Amazing column, by the way. Well-written, as always.
evandefilippis 1 year, 8 months ago
@Evan- ideology is almost always a bad thing because it precludes evaluating the world through a different lens. Ideology presumes a myopic view of the world and refuses to acknowledge other perspectives. Being ideological is synonymous with the stubborn insistence that one's predisposition about certain subjects are always correct.
--Also, when I referenced 'ideology', I clearly wasn't referring to informed individuals' ideology, as someone who is informed would likely have rudimentary economic knowledge.
--By the way, I agree with you that I should have evidentiary substantiation, but the editors removed every reference that the original column had to shrink it down to 650 words. If you're interested in reading the full 2500-word version, it will be up soon.
--Unreflective instrumentalism is the exact phrase that Hofstadter uses; it's the language that every single scholar on the subject uses; it's categorically distinct from 'unreflective pragmatism' which isn't even a term-of-art; and I spelled Hofstadter name correctly a million times in the original draft, but it got incorrectly edited for whatever reason.
--In regards to the ostensible "change of subject", again, any discontinuity can be attributed to the fact that the editors had to trim down a huge column to 650 words. But perhaps you just didn't get the point of the article? In case you didn't know, the article is about anti-intellectualism. The aforementioned websites are both manifestations and sources of anti-intellectualism. Our information is being reduced and abbreviated to such a degree that our knowledge of nuance and complexity has been completely eliminated. Such abbreviation underpins our cultural anti-intellectualism; we're afraid of what we don't know.
--For whatever reason, you had some grievance about using the metaphor of a suicide-- (a) the original draft implied that that the intellectual dimension of our power is dying and it is going to take the rest of our country with it unless we do something; (b) the point was to indicate that we are on the brink of suicide, but that we can still recover; (c) Screw you.
@Johnny- I appreciated the first half of your post, the rest was incoherent rambling. Faith, by definition, is the self-imposed glorification of ignorance. The sanctification of faith as a pre-requisite to infinite bliss can only contribute to the dumbing down of society because it teaches people to be okay with credulity.
Also, are you honestly trying to disparage evolution? How did you get into college?
evandefilippis 1 year, 8 months ago
By the way, here's the link where I obtained the stats:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/10368n434r248403/ Fun excerpt (science rules!): "Half of US respondents to the 2006 General Social Surveys did not believe in the “Big Bang” origin of the universe; they were closely correlated with those who did not believe in human evolution. Religious fundamentalism is the major predictor of both disbeliefs." Religious fundamentalism predicts stupidity? Imagine that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?_r=1&ex=1183780800&en=e3760aa7d1b5022a&ei=5070
mustafa 1 year, 8 months ago
The beauty of our country is that any person or group seeking change has the right to come forward and present it's case. Others in society have the right to examine that case for validity of logi and truth, and thereby make a decision either to oppose or support the proposition.
When looking at the case presented for the narmalization of homosexuality we find vauge definitions, deceptive tactics and deliberate falsehoods.
All we ask is that the argument hold water. It doesn't or at least begs serious questions which you and you friends fresue to answer.
mustafa 1 year, 8 months ago
I've tried twice now to get some questions past the Daily staff. For some reason they are afraid to post them so I'll try again as briefly as possible.
Have you ever told you gay friends that you are 100% hetero? if not why not?
Have you ever ask them if they bvelieve everyone is at least bisexual?
Johnny 1 year, 8 months ago
@Evan.. Your opinions, which are obviously gleaned from atheistic forums and blogs, etc. are just that and nothing more, opinions.
If you would ever look at the actual evidence or lack thereof for macro evolution, instead of popular opinion (the NY Times? Are you kidding me?) or basing your ideas on your lack of religious upbringing, you would see how utterly impossible it is for complicated life forms to have developed from nothing, by mere chance, explained away by extreme passage of time. The odds against this are staggering to say the least. Form your own theories, weigh everything, use your common sense, not popular opinion or what liberal college profs present as fact. Use your brain. Have you ever looked at complicated cells under a microscope? Ever looked at the planets and stars through a telescope? Do you REALLY think to “get into college” really means anything? Hopefully you’ll grow out of this in time..
Johnny 1 year, 8 months ago
@Evan- by the way, read your own definiton of ideology, then read what you wrote to me...
academon 1 year, 7 months ago
@Johnny-- Science is not a democracy-- I thought the author made that point clear. Your lack of expertise on a subject does not qualify you to make scientific assessments about the validity of a theory. In fact, your attempt to criticize a theory without proper background knowledge or training can only damage the enterprise of progress by filling public discourse with vacuous, distracting content.
Your attempt to dismiss evolution belies JUST HOW LITTLE you actually know about the scientific theory:
Evolution is not cosmology--it doesn't attempt to explain how life came into existence; it only deals with how life changes and, get this, evolves over time. Your conflation creation and change clearly displays your ignorance on the subject.
Evolution does not happen "by mere chance." Answer me honestly, have you even taken an intro-level Biology course, let alone any science course in the past decade? Evolution is literally THE DIRECT OPPOSITE of chance. Evolution is a strategic process that preserves changes in an organism that are conducive to evolutionary fitness. Changes over time can happen via mutation, migration, genetic drift or natural selection.
Evolution doesn't explain itself "away" through the passage of time, it explains itself BECAUSE of the passage of time. Changes don't happen rapidly within complex organisms because it takes a long time for a beneficial adaptation to propagate throughout an ENTIRE species. For example, consider that some family "A" developed a mutation that immunized them from AIDS. Even though that mutation is clearly beneficial, the adaptation wouldn't necessarily propagate throughout the gene pool in a quick period of time, UNLESS AIDS killed off a large enough amount of the population for the Family "A" to survive and procreate in large proportions relative to the total population.
academon 1 year, 7 months ago
However, even if you don't buy this (by virtue of the fact that you don't read), you can just look at verifiable instances of micro-evolution that have occurred during our life span. Finches have speciated recently on the Galapagos Islands; there are special forms of fish that have developed legs; certain types of flowers have propagated immunities to drought; and bacteria have become anti-biotic resistant. If you believe in micro-evolution then you must believe in macro-evolution because the aggregation of adaptations over a long-period of time constitute an entirely different species.
Additionally, we have things like bone records showing gradual change over time; we have genetic marker analysis that is so precise that it details the exact continuities we have with our evolutionary forbears; and we can study viral RNA to see that the same DNA modifications that viruses made in apes are also present within us, demonstrating, incontrovertibly, that we evolved from a shared ancestor with apes.
3) The problem with using common sense is that it's common, and not scientific, warranted, or qualified. Complex theories demand complex scrutiny-- not just commonsensical "gut-checks." Such scrutiny demands a level of intellectual sophistication which you clearly don't possess. Also, why the hell do you think "liberal college profs" are the only ones that believe in Evolution? Evolution has more scientific support than ANY OTHER THEORY in scientific history. There is such an overwhelming consensus of scientists that believe in evolution, that I have no idea how you can even imagine that it isn't real.
4) Yes, I've looked under microscopes. I've taken every single science class necessary to qualify one under the "Pre-Med" track. My relatives, my brother, and my sister are all doctors and I've been steeped in scientific rigor my entire life. And yes, I do think "getting into college" means something-- do you not?
5) You can't criticize evolution without proposing an alternate theory. What's yours?
6) My argument wasn't ideological-- would it be ideological if I called you out for your belief that the world is flat and that the sun rotated around the earth? Truth isn't ideology; sorry, bud.
Johnny 1 year, 7 months ago
You completely missed the point. Apparently didn't read what I said about the variations of evolution, and yes, all arguments about the subject start with the beginning, remember your reference to the so called 'big bang' theory?
Nevermind, I wish you the best. You'll find after college, along the way that science is indeed theory, much of which cannot be proven.
Johnny 1 year, 7 months ago
Oh and wow..."expertise ?? I could have sworn I was talking to a snot nosed college kid....
Johnny 1 year, 7 months ago
You mentioned that I don't read, that's funny, apparently you don't know how to read. I never said liberal profs were the ONLY ONES THAT BELIEVED IN EVOLUTION. Show me where I said that, you also didn't read where I stated "VARIOUS FORMS OF EVOLUTION" and later made reference to only "MACRO" evolution. This got completely off track, you need to learn to read, not just glean and copy/paste from the internet. Your rant is not original. I've read these exact points before. Think for yourself.
The classes you've taken don't impress me. You have not yet learned to look at every subject from all sides, not just one. Once you're out in the real world, and actually get a job somewhere, you'll find that life and the world can't be completely explained by man's interpretation of science, and people can't be judged and critised by someone elses opinion of "intellectualism".
My family is full of medical people as well, not one of them believes we evolved from apes or MACRO evolution. Many scientists do not believe this either. Are they idiots because they don't agree with the other side of the argument? OPINION.
I'm done with this thread. Do something productive.
JPDemers 1 year, 7 months ago
"as we know the theory of evolution is primarily based, and was made popular by the ‘findings’ of a scientist who live 150 years ago..."
Yes, and backed up by every scientific study ever conducted over the past 150 years. A bit slow on the uptake, aren't you? You should put the 5% of your DNA that you don't share with monkeys to better use.
evan 1 year, 6 months ago
I realize that this is a little bit late, but I wanted to make sure you got this. I'm sorry that I ended up criticizing the problems in the essay that were not of your making. I hope you will forgive me.
However, I still disagree with your belief that ideology in general is a bad thing; if an ideology is in fact true, then it is good to hold to it, even if something seems to initially disprove it. If you want to argue that the negative issues and facts against a specific ideology outweigh its positive results and facts in its favor, that is another issue, but you cannot condemn all ideologies wholesale; by doing so, you condemn yourself. Everyone, including yourself, has an ideology. I assume yours is an atheistic evolutionism, which you hold to in the face of certain documented historical evidence, such as miracles. I do not object to your believing it, if you feel that the conglomerate of evidence supports it, but you need to realize that it is an ideology, just like Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism.
Again, keep in mind that I retract all of my objections caused by bad editing; I would like to see the full article, if I could find it, in order to decide whether I disagree or agree with the article as a whole. I actually concur with the stated intention of the article, to highlight America's anti-intellectualism and warn against it; I just object to some of the ways you go about it.