Why the Enlightenment is part of our species and Creationism is a retardation of it

ColorStorm told me that some atheists I praise on WordPress are rude. I defined rude in a earlier post as “when you lay unwarranted negativity on the person”. ColorStorm then told me an atheist I praise described Creationism as a retardation of our species. I think that is warranted. I think that can be defended as true. But to follow my post you are going to have to permit yourself to view the word “retard” clinically, and without the social baggage.

A species can be defined in many ways. It’s not as easy as looking at them and seeing if two individuals look similar enough: there are very different species that look very similar and other species that look very different from individual to individual. It’s not really as easy as “if two individuals can have fertile offspring”, either; that says nothing of hybridisation among plants or asexual reproduction among bacteria, or whether a Liger or Tigon are a distinct species. So, enter the competitive exclusion principle: if two individuals consume the same resource in the same niche, they are the same species.

Thus, we can assume that being Homo sapiens is defined, in some way at least, by our resources and our ecological niche. It may seem weird to think of us as having an ecological niche, after all we don’t seem to fit properly into the ecosystem. But that is precisely what our ecological niche is: we change the ecosystem to fit us. We built our environment with technology, communications, infrastructure etc. The niche our species has built helps define it and that was done by Enlightenment principles.

The Enlightenment was the start of the open exchange and criticism of ideas, and what we would now think of as sciences. Thus it is the Enlightenment that fosters the environment we build. Earthquake-proof buildings, skyscrapers, cars, telephones, the internet and even our entertainment are all built from the Enlightenment and the progress it has allowed us to build (both technologically and socially). It is, literally, a defining principle of our species.

Creationism is not compatible with Enlightenment values. Creationism must alter methods of intellectual enquiry into forms that they would never work (i.e. retard intellectual enquiry) to support its conclusions. If a detail cannot be explained with current knowledge, it argues from ignorance; if something looks a bit complicated, it argues from ignorance; some individuals argue from authority; the concept of ‘reasonable explanations’ is ignored, demanding absolute physical evidence of their opponents and special pleading for noticeably light evidence for their own conclusions; it assumes conspiracy among individuals across the globe without connection; it denies the human curiosity and the efficacy of scientific institutions and principles. These methods, assumptions and fallacies are a retardation of the principles of the Enlightenment, a defining pinnacle of our progress, or culture and our species.

UPDATE: In the comments section, Steve Ruis has pointed out that to retard means to slow progress. However, a Creationist subvert the principles of the Enlightenment and actually regresses their own progress. A Creationist is regressive, for this reason. Creationism is a retardation of our species in that it slows the rest of us down.

Advertisements

46 thoughts on “Why the Enlightenment is part of our species and Creationism is a retardation of it”

  1. I’m not technically a Creationist in the strict sense, so I definitely don’t care whether anbyody considers that retardation or not.

    But the problem is “our species” has not actually progressed one iota. In fact, I’d wager the average college freshmen probably thinks that the Enlightenment is something like a brand of laundry detergent. I can see the ensuing questions: “Is there an app for that?” etc.

    It would be interesting, in fact, to poll freshmen with two questions: a) What was the Enlightenment? b) When was the Enlightenment? and see how many of them absolutely nosedive. You could even insert c) Where was the Enlightenment? I’m sure for additional hilarity.

    But, to be fair, “progress” is a myth that I don’t ascribe to, for no other reason than every time I want to believe in it, there is always another human being to let me down and hard.

    Progress? More like slowly going nowhere.

    I cannot believe in “progress” when COLLEGIATE UNIVERSITY students need to be educated in some version of “Rape Awareness” as though this were just too damned tricky for an individual to figure out on their own. I cannot believe in “progress” when people actually NEED TO BE EDUCATED in the horrors of “online bullying.” I cannot believe in “progress” when people ACTUALLY NEED TO BE TOLD: “hey, guess what, jerkoff, if you Text & Drive, you risk committing homicide.”

    In short, we all look rather retarded to me.

    1. I don’t think knowing about the enlightenment is relevant. The fact is that moral conversations about rape have come a long way since the Victorians. The fact is we have institutions dedicated to the health of others, for free (in many countries). The conversion on equality and personal liberty has progressed. Progress is real.
      Do you think a black man would want to travel back to 18th century Britain, or a woman to 17th century France? Is this not progress?

  2. Retardation is a slowing of something still advancing. A better word would be regression as accepting Creationism is going backward, not just going forward but slowly. Accepting Creationism is believing something other than what your lying eyes show you, as it were.

  3. Hey AllT–

    You do get credit for your attempted explanation, and you are doing a fine job of damage control for your kin, trouble is, in the words of Paul Harvey, there is ‘the rest of the story.’

    In your own reply to the comment mentioned, you admitted to the ‘harshness’ and unnecessary inflammatory tone of such language. You error when you say that was not the intended meaning, (ask around from your kin as to the brain damage of believers) for what followed ‘STAY AWAY FROM CHILDREN’ was the very context in which it was used.( a very enlightened statement) I said before, this was not isolated, and you could find a hundred places where this phrase is used, spanning many many atheists.

    They who have had dealings with the apostles of atheism recognize the condescension by the miles of cement footprints of arrogance, insults, and insolence. The pettiness is in proportion to the weakness of the arguments.

    I laugh however at the attempts of man to dismiss a Creator from His own handiwork,
    The good book explains it all, even these petty mockeries.

    Oh by the way, Allt, in your new and improved Enlightened age, do tell how one goes about making a spoonful of dirt……………..using nothing.

    1. (1) those on glass houses, ColorStorm. Don’t complain about the condescension and arrogance, when you are taking to me in terms of my “kin” and the “apostles of atheism”, at whom you apparently “laugh”. Your hypocrisy is starting to wear on my patience, then I’ll say something cruel and you’ll pretend like it’s about my atheism instead of exactly the response someone should expect after they’ve made efforts to annoy someone. I’m not pointing this out to distract, I’m doing it to (a) warn you and other people that it’s coming and (b) highlighting who and where the instigator is.
      (2) pay attention: people who spread socially and intellectually regressive dogmas are dangerous to civilisation. John thinks the answer is to keep those views (and related indoctrinations) away from children and the idea isn’t without merit.
      (3) still not taking you seriously. By refusing to give links you are weakening your own case. You assert that you don’t want to malign individuals, but that means you are maligning an entire community baselessly. Interesting priorities you have.
      (4) if you want to talk about cosmogony, find a post by me where i talk about it and start a discussion there.

    2. CS,
      In consideration of your comment, I believe there are a few things which you are taking out of context. I don’t think this is particularly intentional as I don’t think you actually understand the context at all.

      First, let’s be clear, the definition of apostle cannot include atheists. Your vocabulary blurs your message and belittles what communication skills you possess. Next let’s be clear that atheists are, in general, united by a single thought: lack of belief in gods or the supernatural. After that single point they have little if anything in common that has to do with atheism. Kin is a word, on the other hand, that is not applicable to atheism except when use in a vulgar and condescending manner, something which you appear to be adverse to, or so you say. Your use of the word appears to all and sundry to be insulting and insolent.

      Pot, meet kettle. Now that we’re acquainted, what exactly is your problem?

      You yourself cannot make dirt. Your taunt for someone to make dirt from nothing discloses a complete lack of how dirt is formed. Science tells us how. That you seem ignorant of the basic facts of the sciences seems common with those that believe in religion. It is no shock then that you proclaim belief in a creator while there is yet no credible evidence to even begin believing one exists.

      You demand the impossible of your detractors yet when asked to show credible and compelling evidence for your beliefs you show nothing. If you did in fact have credible and compelling evidence the world would certainly be beating a path to your door, as the saying goes. I’ve not heard any news flashes relating to such activity as mass conversions to your religion. Why is that? Why is it that so many who truly want to believe still think you are full of it?

      1. Well myLife-

        Your misunderstanding of a simple word is impeding your vision, and it clouds your understanding of other things.

        My vocabulary is fine enough; perhaps your friends will be fair and say I am correct in the usage of the word ‘apostle’ in this manner.

        Not to bring up old news, maybe they can also state the important distinction between conscience and consciousness.

        1. Did you really just do that? If Chuck Morse is one of your heros you might as well go shoot yourself now. He has had aspirations in life, there are reasons that he didn’t get very far. This book cover is one of them. Are you one of those that winge and whine that to believe in evolution requires faith? Most people find willful ignorance rather distasteful. Every conversation with you in it seems to end that way. I think there is enough evidence to show this pattern to be more than coincidence.

        2. Actually mylife,I was looking for the reference to the apostles of finance, ( i didn’t book mark it) plainly showing that the word has also a generic meaning. Surely u know this.

          The book cover is obvious, It was simply to make a point which it did. Looks like a decent idea, and the writer would be correct the way he chose to use the word.

          As to the content………..well you decide. I’m just interested in the word apostle as used OTHER than the twelve. You should easily concur, regardless of the conclusions he makes.

    3. Hi Colourstorm

      I meant every word of my comment. You have to practice willful ignorance to hold a creationist view, and children should be protected from that type of behaviour. Period.

      1. How is it john that you recognize this thing called the sun and moon? Who had the naming rights?

        By what rule or thought do you recognize the human ‘species’ as ‘man’ and ‘woman?’ Did a commitee sit down and vote?

        How is it that you recognize ‘night’ and ‘day?’ Who ‘named’ ‘these?’ The same commitee?

        Who ‘named’ the whale?
        Who named ‘water?’

        Who ‘named’ ‘heaven’ and who ‘named ‘earth?’

        Need I go on?

        And how is that you see fit to alter the spelling of my name to suit you?

        Enlightenment? I would think that such myopic views of denial are an example of retardation of our species, and as such, that you hopefully have no contact with children…………..

        Enlightenment? Yea ok, so enlightened that a $65,000 car needs to have its bumper removed to change a 15 cent light bulb.

        jZ response: ‘You are helpless, hopeless, and have no right to sit at the adult table

        1. On the grounds of physical, psychological, and intellectual abuse cited in the U.S.’s 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act(CAPTA), Australia’s Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act, and the UK’s 1989Children Act, to name just three, creationism must be considered abuse. Indeed, the central articles of the U.N.’s 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (the right to survival, the right to develop to the fullest, and protection from harmful influences) clearly identify those views held by you as abuse. How can a child develop to their fullest if their very notion of reality (of how things work) has been deliberately retarded by an adult? How can a child be asked to interact with the real world, the world of their peers, if they do not have even a functioning understanding of the natural processes which drive all modern science? Is it fair for a child to made to look like a fool by stating the earth is 5,000 years old?

          But let’s look at this in another way. Would you, Colorstorm, like your child to be taught that 75 million years ago the dictatorial ruler of the Galactic Confederacy, Xenu, freeze-dried billions of his subjects, stole their thetans, and then placed this bodies at the base of volcanoes on the planet Teegeeack (Earth), which were then detonated with hydrogen bombs. Using ‘electronic ribbons’ the aerosolled thetans were then scooped up by Xenu’s minions and bundled into two enormous Imax theatres located in Hawaii and the Canary Islands where they were forced to watch a 36 day-long 3D film which implanted into the thetans memories misleading data concerning God, the Devil, and organised religion. After their release the thetans were left without a sense of their true identity and wandered aimlessly until eventually coalescing inside the few alien bodies that had miraculously survived the nuclear blasts. Without name or self these directionless forms grazed the earth and eventually transmuted into the human species with the clustered thetans passing from body to body accumulating more and more false data with every new generation. Meanwhile though, back at Galactic headquarters a rebel group inside the Confederacy – the Loyal Officers – mount a coup which after a bloody six year struggle overthrows Xenu who is then imprisoned in a mountain and Teegeeack is abandoned leaving the human species to walk the face of the planet without knowledge of their true self’s.

          If a neighbour of yours taught their child this, and only this, would you classify it as abuse?

        2. jZ

          I will not even address your second paragraph.

          Wonderful thoughts of accord in all your sources eh?If the UN is involved, the opinion must be ex cathedra.

          ‘Creationism must be considered abuse.’ And yet, you failed to address the most basic of learning tools: NAMES of things.

          I repeat:

          ‘Day’ and ‘night’

          From whence came these designations? What does your years and years of history and learning teach you? Surely you have proof regarding something so important and germane to your cause. Theories are no good. State your proof.

          Be careful how you answer. I rest my case.

        3. Seriously: what are you talking about? My dog understands the words biscuits, cheese, dinner and dentastix; is that relevant?
          During meditation one of my aims is non linguistic cognition. Here, you can see that distinctions are simply functional. Is that relevant?
          I think your comment is about language, but it doesn’t make any sense. I suspect that is relevant.

        4. And why, precisely, won’t you address it, Colorstorm? You are aware, aren’t you, that that all comes from an actual real-world religion: Scientology. They teach that about Xenu and how humans came to be after the planet Teegeeack (earth) was abandoned. The giant Imax theatres and the 36-day long 3D movie… That’s all real. It’s the core of their belief system.

          So, shall we try again?

          Colorstorm: If a neighbour of yours taught their child this, and only this, would you classify it as abuse?

        5. jZ:

          Shall we try again?

          How is it that you recognize ‘NIGHT’ and ‘DAY?’ Who ‘named’ ‘these?’ What committee? What tribe? What race? What man of learning? What proof do you have?

          What universal understanding is responsible for such genius?

        6. Colorstorm, please don’t evade the question once again. The subject here is child abuse, correct? The subject here is my attestation that I hope you have no contact with children because your creationist beliefs represent intellectual and psychological abuse.

          I gave you a real-world example of another religions belief system and asked you to comment on it, like an adult.

          So, shall we try a third time?

          Colorstrom: If a neighbour of yours taught their child about Xenu and the planet Teegeeack (Earth), and only this, would you classify it as abuse?

          Yes, or No, Colorstorm?

        7. You’re not endearing yourself to anyone reading this thread, Colorstorm. Evasion never looks good, does it?

          So, shall we try for a fourth time?

          Colorstrom: If a neighbour of yours taught their child about Xenu, the Galactic Confederacy, thetans, the planet Teegeeack (Earth), Imax theatres in Hawaii and the Canary Islands, 36-day long 3D films and the rise of the human species, and only this, would you classify it as abuse?

          Yes, or No, Colorstorm?

        8. And when Pontius Pilate asked He who stood before him: ‘What is truth?’ he marvelled that the Lord answered him not a word.

          Interesting, that He whose understanding is infinite, was mute.

          Evasion? Ah, no. You never accept an answer that is not convenient to your purpose.

          ‘NIGHT’ or ‘DAY’ From whence comes this designation? What is your proof? What is the source?

          Evasive? Yea, you got that.

        9. Shall we try for a fifth time?

          Colorstrom: If a neighbour of yours taught their child about Xenu, the Galactic Confederacy, thetans, the planet Teegeeack (Earth), Imax theatres in Hawaii and the Canary Islands, 36-day long 3D films and the rise of the human species, and only this, would you classify it as abuse?

          Yes, or No, Colorstorm?

        10. I repeat: (see the context above)

          —————-I will not even address your second paragraph.——————–

          It is inattention to the smallest of details where men make their largest mistakes. My word was good then, it is equally good now.

          Some men try to lay snares, others see the folly.

        11. JZ asked you first to address whether you consider the teachings of Scientology to be child abuse (if taught to young children). You can’t fire questions at him while deliberately ignoring his questions. That’s not a discussion.
          As for your weird questions about language, I have tried giving answers and you haven’t responded. Is the death of Ancient Greek and Latin and hieroglyphs relevant to the discussion of how language was developed?
          I don’t understand what you’re getting at and so I can’t help you with an answer.

  4. Allt-

    ‘Laugh at the ATTEMPTS of man…………to dismiss a Creator………..’

    You are honestly comparing this to ‘Stay AWAY from children?’

    Hmmm. I thought you were a bit more fairer. The two observations are light years
    apart.

    –Atheism is a religion,, and is proof of the retardation of our species, and any who promotes such, should have no contact with children, yea, stay away from children, I hope you have no contact with children.–. More clear now?

    1. CS,

      In all honesty, you’re not doing a great job of supporting your points. Laughing at man’s “attempts” to dismiss the idea of a creator is exactly what one would expect from a person actively engaging in regression. Your laugh sounds a lot like fear.

      First, atheism is not a religion. Atheism is nothing more than disbelief in a god or gods. There is no inherent system or ideology attached to the term. Second, if anything, atheism would represent a progression of the species, not retardation or regression.

      I am guessing you know very little about human history, because if you did, you’d see that religion came about as a means for mankind to explain phenomena we did not understand. The fact that we can now explain such phenomena without relying on an a priori assumption that some god is responsible is practically the definition of progress.

      Your attempts to adhere to a fallacious and supremely inefficacious ideology is simply an indication of your fear; fear of critically examining your beliefs and fear of having been wrong about the existence of a creator. Believe me, CS, I used to feel the same way.

      1. Yep Mortem-

        I must be delusional.

        Let’s see, atheism or creation, creation or atheism? Hmm having a hard time here, er, ah, mm, ah, er, aw heck let’s see.

        -a bee makes honey
        -a spider makes a web
        -a bird makes a nest
        -a carpenter makes a table

        Yea, I’ll stick with God making the moon. It appears from nature, common sense, and a conscience, all things point to things made having design and a Creator.

        Fear though Mort?

        Perhaps the fear (divine reverence) of the Lord as the beginning of wisdom is a good thing. I used to feel the say way as you.

        Enlightenment without God is simple darkness.

        1. ColorStorm, Mortem Fide did not even come close to calling you delusional, and your time is not mocking than theirs. Normally i wouldn’t referee such a discussion, but as we were introduced over the accusation against atheists of being anti social, how about you behave nicely?
          Mortem Fide also didn’t mention cosmogony, so how about you stick to the topic. If you find a post of mine on cosmogony we can all go have that discussion there.

        2. ALLt-

          Maybe its simply a continental difference, tomato tomatoe kind of thing.

          I was ribbing myself, twice

          -calling my self delusional was sarcastic, and NOT somebody else

          -calling myself a fool is a fact.
          We are all somebody’s fool, just asked who got your worth.

          You take offense where none was given.

          My comments are all harmless. Anti social? Really?

  5. Very simple Allt-

    It is denying the opportunity to present an opposing view. THAT is the divine travesty. Countless souls and scientists have believed in a Creator and have been monumental in the ‘advancement of our species,’ To deny this is simply foolish.

    To borrow your word, ‘retardation,’ it would therefore be impossible for their contributions to even be possible. Their achievements silence the argument of atheism.

    Take at look at the impact believing men have had in science alone.

    http://thenakedtruth2.wordpress.com/the-anvil-of-time/scientists-who-believe/

    1. There is no evidence that religion played an important role in the scientific enquiry of scientists. A priori claims of a God retarded Newton’s discovery; after discovering how gravity works between two celestial bodies, he tried to work on multiple simultaneous ones, said it was God and stopped.
      I’m also not seeing how atheism denies presenting theism; it is simply that a lack of utility, pragmatism or even Yankee useable methodologies makes it worthless.
      Besides, what does you thinking something a travesty relate to the idea of a retardation of our species?
      You’re clutching at straws, making unsubstantiated claims and making a fool of yourself.

        1. I haven’t admitted to being a fool. In my whole comment, is that the bit you’re replying to? I see my hope for a conversation with you was ill-founded.

      1. Well AllT-

        I did see your link on the language and animals, and no, that’s not what I had in mind. Watching the dialogue here with others, it would seem any further discussion on language would be fruitless. Not because you are deficient in any manner, or because I am not willing, it is simply due to the chasm in understanding that would only make for an eternal ping pong match.

        The WHY of a need for different languages to me, stems from Babel (the confounding of tongues) but the seminal point goes back to creation on WHO named things, (the source for naming rights) and how things were identified, and how language was utilized first in the history of man..

        If you do not believe the scriptures are the word of God (which u do not) then there can be no good arguments. You do not recognize my authority, and I do not recognize your lack of authority, or in your case, vice versa.

        I see the Genesis account as perfect in every way, and naturally, everything that follows. The truly repressive of thought denies a Sovereign as responsible for everything that is. This is the starting place for wisdom and all knowledge.

        Tkx for the time, and we’ll meet again.

        1. I hope not. You’ve not engaged in a conversation here; you’ve ducked the responsibility of explaining your assertions and dodged questions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s