Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Paleoanthropologist predicts that evolution deniers will become extinct within 30 years   (nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Unlikely, paleoanthropologist, evolution, Stony Brook University, Canadian Wildlife Service, Stony Brook, good citizen, Richard Leakey, artificial limb  
•       •       •

2595 clicks; posted to Geek » on 26 May 2012 at 5:41 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



126 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-26 03:00:08 PM  
Maybe we just need some assisted natural selection to nudge it along.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-05-26 03:02:14 PM  
Should have read "Paleoanthropologist who doesn't know many fundamentalists..."
 
2012-05-26 03:07:13 PM  
Meh, it's become too political. When someone decides that they are a Republican, they assume the tasks of whatever mental gymnastics it takes to convince themselves and others that global warming is false, evolution isn't real, etc. It's a bit of an intellectual challenge, actually, because they come at you with science, for crying out loud!
 
2012-05-26 03:16:10 PM  
I'd like to believe that, I really would.

But I don't...not for a second.
 
2012-05-26 03:30:25 PM  
I hope that he's right.
 
2012-05-26 03:50:17 PM  
Call me when flat-earthers are extinct, then I'll start considering the possibility that other retards are on their way out, too.
 
2012-05-26 03:53:11 PM  
I'm not sure the GOP will survive that long.
 
2012-05-26 03:57:12 PM  
I wonder why a party would require you to believe in a god, disavow science and evolution, and only take it in the pooper in secrecy?

Sounds more like a cult.
 
2012-05-26 03:58:53 PM  
"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence..."

I think I found a major flaw in his hypothesis.
 
2012-05-26 04:01:05 PM  
Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even the skeptics can accept it."

It took 500 years for the Catholic Church to apologize to Galileo. We'll be dealing with religious idiocy for quite a bit longer than 30 years.
 
2012-05-26 04:09:23 PM  

GAT_00:

It took 500 years for the Catholic Church to apologize to Galileo. We'll be dealing with religious idiocy for quite a bit longer than 30 years.


The only alternative to creationism going extinct is speciation of humans into Eloi and Morlocks.


(But be fair, the Catholics are not opposed to evolution, that's almost exclusively an American Protestant psychosis. There are lots of things to criticize the Catholics for, but at least they aren't creationists.)
 
2012-05-26 04:12:22 PM  

FloydA: GAT_00:

It took 500 years for the Catholic Church to apologize to Galileo. We'll be dealing with religious idiocy for quite a bit longer than 30 years.

The only alternative to creationism going extinct is speciation of humans into Eloi and Morlocks.


(But be fair, the Catholics are not opposed to evolution, that's almost exclusively an American Protestant psychosis. There are lots of things to criticize the Catholics for, but at least they aren't creationists.)


Which is strange since the Catholics are universally more conservative in attitude than Protestants outside of the US.
 
2012-05-26 04:24:03 PM  

FloydA: GAT_00:

It took 500 years for the Catholic Church to apologize to Galileo. We'll be dealing with religious idiocy for quite a bit longer than 30 years.

The only alternative to creationism going extinct is speciation of humans into Eloi and Morlocks.


(But be fair, the Catholics are not opposed to evolution, that's almost exclusively an American Protestant psychosis. There are lots of things to criticize the Catholics for, but at least they aren't creationists.)


More saying that if it took 500 years to acknowledge that, how long is the denial of evolution going to stick around?
 
2012-05-26 04:31:28 PM  
Came here to say that it will take longer than 30 years to evolve our ideologies...I see that it has been covered.

Faith: belief that is not based on proof
 
2012-05-26 04:37:12 PM  

GAT_00:

More saying that if it took 500 years to acknowledge that, how long is the denial of evolution going to stick around?


Yeah, I understood, and I agree with your general point- ignorance will probably always be with us, to some degree.

But I suspect that the percentage of creationists will shrink as time goes by. People only become creationists if they were raised by creationists and had it forced on them at an early age. Nobody actually looks objectively at the evidence and concludes that "Jesus did it all by magic exactly 6000 years ago" is the better answer. If you grew up in a pro-science family, and you take an honest, objective look at the evidence, your opinion will stay the same. If you grew up in an anti-science family and take an honest, objective look at the evidence, your opinion will have to change. The only way that people are able to remain creationists is to avoid looking at the evidence and/or avoid being honest with themselves. It is simply not possible to hold onto creationist beliefs if you are both knowledgeable about the subject and honest with yourself.

So creationists will have children who abandon pseudo-science more often than rational people have kids who abandon reason and adopt creationism. The practical result will be the gradual disappearance of creationism.

I don't know if it will be as fast as 30 years, but I suspect (with the ease of information sharing today) that it will be a lot faster than 500 years.
 
2012-05-26 04:54:38 PM  
Oh Bevits...

It's for you!
 
2012-05-26 04:56:32 PM  

GAT_00: Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even the skeptics can accept it."

It took 500 years for the Catholic Church to apologize to Galileo. We'll be dealing with religious idiocy for quite a bit longer than 30 years.


Bullshiat,
he was born in Hawaii
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2012-05-26 05:06:53 PM  
In reinforcement of the fact that Lucy is not a creature 'in between' ape and man, Dr Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):

'The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been'.2

Oxnard's firm conclusion? 'The australopithecines are unique.'3

Neither Lucy nor any other australopithecine is therefore intermediate between humans and African apes. Nor are they similar enough to humans to be any sort of ancestor of ours.

Lucy and the australopithecines show nothing about human evolution, and should not be promoted as having any sort of 'missing link' status. The creationist alternative, that humans, apes and other creatures were created that way in the beginning, remains the only explanation consistent with all the evidence.

Link

i132.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-26 05:47:31 PM  
Humans are probably the worst example of evolution you can find. Our genetics have been tinkered with a few times.

If we just stuck to animals in the debate the creationists would have less ammo.
 
2012-05-26 05:47:41 PM  
Would like to think so but it isn't going to happen in the excited states. So far as amuricans are concerned the world began in 1620, civilisation began in 1776, and the american constitution is perfect. If you have ever met uneducated american evangelicals you KNOW evolution never happened.
 
2012-05-26 05:47:51 PM  
I'm sorry by this argument will never die. The battle of science vs. "science" is only starting and once "science" starts to realize it's losing a new angle will be found and we start again.
 
2012-05-26 05:50:01 PM  

FloydA: Nobody actually looks objectively at the evidence and concludes that "Jesus did it all by magic exactly 6000 years ago" is the better answer.


I'm still waiting for someone to provide the start point for that 6000 or whatever years ago statement, I've looked all through Genesis and can't find it. In fact, that whole part in the creation story from the beginning until the sun and earth were created never covered it.
I never hear Creationists or other believers claiming that or any number, it's enough to make one think that all the controversy and criticism is just pulled out of prejudicial asses..
 
2012-05-26 05:56:58 PM  
Religion doesn't appear to evolve on any time-scale humans have been able to measure.

FloydA: So creationists will have children who abandon pseudo-science more often than rational people have kids who abandon reason and adopt creationism. The practical result will be the gradual disappearance of creationism.


At least it's marginalization, barring forces that foster it (e.g. the political stranglehold that religious nuttery has on the US and other nations). But (provided the journalist is giving the paleoanthropologist a fair shake here), the article has pretty explicit claims:

TFA: Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even the skeptics can accept it."

That, to me, is ridiculous. I agree with you on this point - people naturally gravitate toward a correct scientific understanding. But there's also the tendency of people to reflexively maintain their belief despite the best scientific proof and explanations. They believe what the believe precisely because they see these long-held beliefs as being under attack and wish to "defend" them. Robert Pirsig has a great quote in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance about how nobody is fanatical about what is patently obvious. Nobody, for example, is a "fanatic" about the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow - people are just aware of it and it goes no further than that. Doubt, argues Pirsig, is what fuels fanaticism, the doubt the world at large has about your beliefs as well as the doubt inside yourself.

And as a result, the acceleration of scientific discoveries can only breed fanaticism about outdated belief systems, not destroy it.
 
2012-05-26 05:58:23 PM  

Kurmudgeon: FloydA: Nobody actually looks objectively at the evidence and concludes that "Jesus did it all by magic exactly 6000 years ago" is the better answer.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide the start point for that 6000 or whatever years ago statement, I've looked all through Genesis and can't find it. In fact, that whole part in the creation story from the beginning until the sun and earth were created never covered it.
I never hear Creationists or other believers claiming that or any number, it's enough to make one think that all the controversy and criticism is just pulled out of prejudicial asses..


Ussher chronology
 
2012-05-26 06:00:36 PM  

Kurmudgeon: I'm still waiting for someone to provide the start point for that 6000 or whatever years ago statement, I've looked all through Genesis and can't find it. In fact, that whole part in the creation story from the beginning until the sun and earth were created never covered it.
I never hear Creationists or other believers claiming that or any number, it's enough to make one think that all the controversy and criticism is just pulled out of prejudicial asses..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
 
2012-05-26 06:03:09 PM  
t0.gstatic.com
My distant cousin thinks this is unlikely
 
2012-05-26 06:09:24 PM  
Maybe he just means outside the US.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2012-05-26 06:16:06 PM  

Kurmudgeon: I'm still waiting for someone to provide the start point for that 6000 or whatever years ago statement, I've looked all through Genesis and can't find it. In fact, that whole part in the creation story from the beginning until the sun and earth were created never covered it.
I never hear Creationists or other believers claiming that or any number, it's enough to make one think that all the controversy and criticism is just pulled out of prejudicial asses..


While researching the early nineteenth century developments in geology, I often wanted to pound the table in protest as I read the writings of the old-earth geologists and saw how they ignored the biblical text (especially on the Flood) but declared authoritatively that their theories did not conflict with the Bible. At other times, I almost wept with tears of joy as I read the biblically sound, geologically informed, and compelling arguments of a handful of Christians, known as the "Scriptural geologists," who back then were refuting these old-earth myths. Sadly, most of the church followed the secular thinking of old-earth geologists and ignored or superficially dismissed the arguments of the Scriptural geologists.1

The debate about the age of the earth is ultimately a question of whose word we are going to trust: the all-knowing truthful Creator who has given us His inerrant book (the Bible) or finite, sinful creatures who give us their books that contain errors and therefore are frequently revised. If you firmly trust and carefully read the Bible and become informed on creationist interpretations of the geological record, you can easily see how the rocks of the earth powerfully confirm the Bible's teaching, both about Noah's Flood and a young earth.

Link
i132.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-26 06:21:40 PM  
I too wd love to believe Leakey is correct, but several things getting in the way.

Confirmation Bias - people don't even register evidence that conflicts with a deeply held belief. It's not that they deliberately ignore evidence; it simply never gets to their thinking brain.

Evo isn't 'common sense' - common sense gives us Paley's watch and watchmaker. Evo requires knowledge:learning and thinking.

Personal non-csb. My stepson goes to a private school. The science teacher tells them that the Bible is scientific. The headmaster regularly stands up before assembly and tells kids that Evo is wrong. They don't teach evo, even in Year 13.

Yes I have faith that the rapidly increasing knowledge coming from study of human and animal genomes will become overwhelming, but it just seems a question of degree. Creationists have been ignoring overwhelming evidence for 150 years.
 
2012-05-26 06:23:46 PM  
I would think that would be that the majority of the deniers had died already
 
2012-05-26 06:27:33 PM  

Kurmudgeon: I'm still waiting for someone to provide the start point for that 6000 or whatever years ago statement, I've looked all through Genesis and can't find it. In fact, that whole part in the creation story from the beginning until the sun and earth were created never covered it.I never hear Creationists or other believers claiming that or any number, it's enough to make one think that all the controversy and criticism is just pulled out of prejudicial asses..


The only number I can think of is from people using the lineages from Jesus down to Adam mentioned in the bible to speculate an age of creation

I don't recall if it's 6k or 40k or 100k and i'm too lazy to look it up
 
2012-05-26 06:34:37 PM  
Yeah, I have a hard time believing that stupid will ever go away when you have people currently believing the earth is flat just because the Bible says it's so and that NASA is part of a Satanic conspiracy to make us believe otherwise.

Let's face it, religions will always be with us with their irrational mythologies that contradict science. Give it another couple thousand of years and there will be people believing that Darth Vader is our saviour who died for our sins when he was beheaded by his apprentice Bat Man. Fragments of comic books will be proof that Darth Vader actually existed.
 
2012-05-26 06:53:59 PM  
I just want it to be known that as an Australopithecus I demand to be recognized as an early ancestor of the homo habilis. I also demand that the secret of fire be taught in our schools.
 
2012-05-26 06:55:04 PM  
FTFA: "If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive," Leakey says, "then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges."

This is exactly why the "controversy" will never die.

// see also: cognitive dissonance
 
2012-05-26 06:57:20 PM  
Creationism = pig
Scientific Creationism = pig in a tuxedo
Intelligent Design = pig-shaped tuxedo with no pig
Teach the Controversy = Make fun of the other guy's pig
 
2012-05-26 06:57:34 PM  

Krymson Tyde: I'm not sure the GOP will survive that long.


Islam also believes in creation. You're not suggesting that the camel rapists in Iran are Republitards are you?
 
2012-05-26 06:58:05 PM  
This article brings to mind that science text from bob jones university which declared that electricity was not understood and treated it as though it was a magical phenomenon almost. I sometimes get the feeling that people who are creationists feel that science is like a competing religion or some form of magic.
 
2012-05-26 07:02:02 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: Humans are probably the worst example of evolution you can find. Our genetics have been tinkered with a few times.

If we just stuck to animals in the debate the creationists would have less ammo.


Please continue...
 
2012-05-26 07:07:24 PM  
"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive," Leakey says, "then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges."


That's
evolution? I thought it was fishies crawling up on land and becoming cavemen. Sounds like this guy has an agenda beyond searching for fossils.
 
2012-05-26 07:20:18 PM  

Gergesa: I sometimes get the feeling that people who are creationists feel that science is like a competing religion or some form of magic.


IMO, the motivation is suspicion that something like this is happening:

i224.photobucket.com

I believe that as soon as these fears are allayed, the resistance will simply fade away.

Also IMO, having atheists championing the acceptance of evolution raises HUGE red flags in this community. Far from easing suspicions, it deepens them. Atheists claim they only wish to be pro-science, but the only science they shout from the rooftops is evolution; this makes doubters wonder whether atheists have an ulterior motive or a hidden agenda for making such a huge deal about this one specific field. In my opinion, it only makes things worse.
 
2012-05-26 07:27:24 PM  

Repo Man: Please continue...


Don't encourage him, because I have him farkied as a likely candidate to say stupid things.

But our genes have been "tampered" with, in a manner of speaking. There are a subset of viruses that have actually become part of the human germ line. There are some theories that suggest that certain mental disorders, including schizophrenia, are caused by these viruses becoming active due to epigenetic causes. It's very tentative at this point, but it's still important to note that we can see evidence of horizontal gene transfer in the human genome.

There's also the idea of self-selection- humans find certain traits desirable for cultural reasons and unintentionally select for them. It's far more difficult to track this sort of phenomenon in humans than it would be in, say, japanese samurai crabs (Heikegani) because human generations change over far more slowly. We also have a cultural blindness- we always assume our own culture is a product of natural forces, not human action- we have the "right" culture.

On a related note, when you look at the religious regressives through that lens, their strange behavior makes a great deal more sense.
 
2012-05-26 07:30:55 PM  

GilRuiz1: the motivation is suspicion that something like this is happening:


Well, let's be frank, if you assume that gods exist in the gaps, then evolution is a threat to religions, because it closes a gap. It shows that gods are not required to explain biodiversity. Not only are gods optional, but the actual rules required to explain biodiversity and the origins of life are exceedingly simple.

It's like finding out that the game you've been playing for years and thought was Warhammer 40K was actually Go.
 
2012-05-26 07:31:21 PM  
How old is Bevets?
 
2012-05-26 07:32:27 PM  

Bruce Campbell Said So: How old is Bevets?


In human years, or software revision numbers?
 
2012-05-26 07:42:02 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Krymson Tyde: I'm not sure the GOP will survive that long.

Islam also believes in creation. You're not suggesting that the camel rapists in Iran are Republitards are you?


Nope, I'm just making fun of the local idiots.
 
2012-05-26 07:49:30 PM  

GilRuiz1: Atheists claim they only wish to be pro-science, but the only science they shout from the rooftops is evolution


lolwut?
 
2012-05-26 07:57:46 PM  

CDP: The debate about the age of the earth is ultimately a question of whose word we are going to trust: the all-knowing truthful Creator who has given us His inerrant book (the Bible) or finite, sinful creatures who give us their books that contain errors and therefore are frequently revised. If you firmly trust and carefully read the Bible and become informed on creationist interpretations of the geological record, you can easily see how the rocks of the earth powerfully confirm the Bible's teaching, both about Noah's Flood and a young earth.


Saying this is all false because the Bible says it is requires believing in a universe intentionally designed to deceive anyone who attempts to understand it by observation.
 
2012-05-26 08:03:00 PM  
GilRuiz1: Also IMO, having atheists championing the acceptance of evolution raises HUGE red flags in this community. Far from easing suspicions, it deepens them. Atheists claim they only wish to be pro-science, but the only science they shout from the rooftops is evolution; this makes doubters wonder whether atheists have an ulterior motive or a hidden agenda for making such a huge deal about this one specific field. In my opinion, it only makes things worse.

What?

Gil, are you trying to troll the Atheists here?
 
2012-05-26 08:08:45 PM  

GilRuiz1: Also IMO, having atheists championing the acceptance of evolution raises HUGE red flags in this community.


You sound concerned.

BronyMedic: Gil, are you trying to troll the Atheists here?


That's kind of his schtick, really.
 
2012-05-26 08:09:02 PM  

Gergesa: I just want it to be known that as an Australopithecus I demand to be recognized as an early ancestor of the homo habilis. I also demand that the secret of fire be taught in our schools.


The secret of fire is blasphemous. If we allow our children to learn about fire they will become amoral sinners.
 
Displayed 50 of 126 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report