Poll: Republicans reject evolution... [Archive]

BPSCG

11th June 2007, 10:36 AM

Of course, it's interesting to note that those presumably less intelligent Republicans are also wealthier, happier, are more likely to possess a college degree and live longer than their more evolutionarily-correct Democratic counterparts.”

So, apparently, facts are irrelevent so long as you are happy and economically out-perform those who accept the facts....Well, as the old saying goes, "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?"

Let's stipulate that Repubs are more likely not to believe in evolution. All other things being equal, Dems, as a group, should therefore be more successful in life than Repubs, as a group - happier, wealthier, more successful, better health, all those things.

Now, if that's not the case, then it stands to reason that the Repubs do better in other areas tied to success than Dems do. Perhaps Repubs understand basic economics better than Dems? Perhaps they understand the value of education better than Dems? Perhaps they understand better than Dems that your personal self-esteem is of no particular interest to your employer? Perhaps they understand better than Dems that having two parents raise a kid is generally better than one?

I don't pretend to know the answer to those questions. But saying, "Oh, look, Repubs don't believe in evolution, ergo they're stupider than Dems" is logically fallacious. If the Dems are so much smarter, how come they aren't better off?

ponderingturtle

11th June 2007, 10:41 AM

Well, as the old saying goes, "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?"

Let's stipulate that Repubs are more likely not to believe in evolution. All other things being equal, Dems, as a group, should therefore be more successful in life than Repubs, as a group - happier, wealthier, more successful, better health, all those things.

Now, if that's not the case, then it stands to reason that the Repubs do better in other areas tied to success than Dems do. Perhaps Repubs understand basic economics better than Dems? Perhaps they understand the value of education better than Dems? Perhaps they understand better than Dems that your personal self-esteem is of no particular interest to your employer? Perhaps they understand better than Dems that having two parents raise a kid is generally better than one?

I don't pretend to know the answer to those questions. But saying, "Oh, look, Repubs don't believe in evolution, ergo they're stupider than Dems" is logically fallacious. If the Dems are so much smarter, how come they aren't better off?

Well you are showing faulty reasoning here, as you seem to think that bank account is the perfect indicator of inteligence. I don't buy that, as you could just as much argue that it is a showing of how selfcentered someone is or any other trait one wants.

Charlie Monoxide

11th June 2007, 10:42 AM

I'm about 3/4's the way through Shermer's book "Why Darwin Matters" (a short read at about 190 pages). It still amazes me how intellectually bankrupt creationists and ID'ers are.

It seems more of a cultural fight than common sense. "If we can get the unwashed masses to believe in creationism, we're well on our way to a good old Christian theocracy"

Charlie (who needs science?) Monoxide

Upchurch

11th June 2007, 10:42 AM

If the Dems are so much smarter, how come they aren't better off?
...assuming they aren't better off.

Vorticity

11th June 2007, 11:01 AM

Well, as the old saying goes, "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?"

Let's stipulate that Repubs are more likely not to believe in evolution. All other things being equal, Dems, as a group, should therefore be more successful in life than Repubs, as a group - happier, wealthier, more successful, better health, all those things.
... Although perhaps you have the causation and correlation the wrong way 'round. Perhaps having money makes a person more likely to become a republican.

An amusing and related anecdote:

I'm a flaming ACLU liberal who graduated from college a couple of years ago. For the first time in my life I'm making good money, and I just recently had occasion to invest (for the first time) in a mutual fund that contains stocks. Though I have always been a supporter of a higher federal minimum wage, when Congress voted last week to increase the minimum wage, my first, unbidden thought - before I could stop myself - was: "Hmmmm. I wonder if this'll bring my stocks down?" Immediatelly, my core liberal brain recoiled in horror: "OH NOES!!! TEH PEPUBLICAN!!!111! SWEET JESUS, THIS IS HOW IT STARTS!!!!!!!" ;)

BPSCG

11th June 2007, 11:08 AM

Well you are showing faulty reasoning here, as you seem to think that bank account is the perfect indicator of inteligence. Please indicate where I said I thought that. Paris Hilton's bank account dwarfs mine, but I'd be willing to bet my IQ is at least a little higher than hers (hey, she's claiming she's had a come to Jesus experience in prison, so I think we'd probably agree on that).

However, there is some correlation between education/intelligence and earning power. You aren't going to deny that, are you?

BPSCG

11th June 2007, 11:11 AM

... Although perhaps you have the causation and correlation the wrong way 'round. Perhaps having money makes a person more likely to become a republican.Could be. Does believing in evolution make one more likely to become a Republican? Or is it the other way around?
An amusing and related anecdote:

I'm a flaming ACLU liberal who graduated from college a couple of years ago. For the first time in my life I'm making good money, and I just recently had occasion to invest (for the first time) in a mutual fund that contains stocks. Though I have always been a supporter of a higher federal minimum wage, when Congress voted last week to increase the minimum wage, my first, unbidden thought - before I could stop myself - was: "Hmmmm. I wonder if this'll bring my stocks down?" Immediatelly, my core liberal brain recoiled in horror: "OH NOES!!! TEH PEPUBLICAN!!!111! SWEET JESUS, THIS IS HOW IT STARTS!!!!!!!" ;)Welcome to the dark side. :)

aggle-rithm

11th June 2007, 11:12 AM

Well, as the old saying goes, "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?"

"If we're so smart, why do we work here?"

"Intelligence doesn't have as much practical application as you'd think."

--Dilbert

corplinx

11th June 2007, 12:46 PM

Didn't we have a poll that showed that Democrats believed 911 woo a week or two ago?

The big question here is, is anyone surprised by these poll results?

The GOP is the party of the neo-puritans. The Dems are the party of the neo-socialists. Nothing to see here.

Tony

11th June 2007, 12:56 PM

This confirms it, republicans are stupid.

Tricky

11th June 2007, 01:28 PM

Democrats have, for some years now, been the party of preference for the majority of the lower income levels. Lower income levels tend not to have as much education and are, (duh) less successful by most economic standards. Oddly, colleges tend to be hotbeds of Democrats too, but there just aren't enough pointy-headed intellectual Democrats to counterbalance the poor and working-class Democrats.

As has been pointed out, each of the major parties has made its own particular "deal with the Devil", the Democrats in catering to new-age woo, the Republicans in catering to fundies. The ends are fixed. The middle is in constant flux.

ConspiRaider

11th June 2007, 02:53 PM

This confirms it, republicans are stupid.
You got that right. These are the same mental giants who voted for Lush - I mean Bush. Twice.

A bit ago I posted a video of man-on-the-street interviews here in the USA, where people could not think of a country beginning with "U", where they thought some joker in a suit who walks up to them claiming to be Aussie PM John Howard really was, and all sorts of stuff like that thar.

The right-wingers (Republicans) immediately got defensive about it, with me.

Well - we really ARE that stupid here in the United States of America. Not all of us - but an embarrassingly huge group of us.

You know where the numbers should be on believing in creationism, here now in the 21st century? Especially in the country with the best method of communications? Right exactly where the Flat Earthers are.

Yeah. We're gonna solve global warming. Sure. As long as God takes care of everything, we will.

Steven Howard

11th June 2007, 02:58 PM

shemp

11th June 2007, 03:01 PM

Paris Hilton's bank account dwarfs mine, but I'd be willing to bet my IQ is at least a little higher than hers

I'm willing to believe the first part, but regarding the second part, please provide some evidence.

BPSCG

11th June 2007, 03:12 PM

Let's stipulate that Repubs are more likely not to believe in evolution. All other things being equal, Dems, as a group, should therefore be more successful in life than Repubs, as a group - happier, wealthier, more successful, better health, all those things.

Why "therefore?" Because of that phrase, "all other things being equal." Standard scientific method when running an experiment:
Get two groups to study;
Make sure that they are identical in every significant respect except one;
Run your study/experiment and examine your results. The differences are due to the one trait in which the two groups differed. That's called a control.If two groups of people are identical in every significant respect but one, that one significant respect accounts for their differences.

If a group of Dems and a group of Repubs are identical except in that the Repubs don't believe in evolution and the Dems do, and the Repubs are as a group wealthier, then it follows that there is a correlation between belief in evolution and wealth (without getting into which is the cause and which the effect).

Since belief in creationism is a sign of ignorance and/or stupidity, it doesn't make sense that of two otherwise identical groups, the stupider one should be the wealthier one.

So my conclusion is that Dems must be stupid in other ways, a conclusion apparently shared here.

Of course, this being social science and not physical science, there's a much greater element of uncertainty to these conclusions than in, say, biology or physics or chemistry.

Steven Howard

11th June 2007, 03:13 PM

However, there is some correlation between education/intelligence and earning power. You aren't going to deny that, are you?

Education and "earning power", maybe.

Education and intelligence, maybe, but I'd have to see some numbers.

Intelligence and wealth, maybe not: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070424204519.htm

bigred

11th June 2007, 03:13 PM

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847

Some blog: analysis:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/06/rejecting-evolution.html

“No doubt evolutionists will argue that this is significant proof that Independents and Democrats are smarter than Republicans. Of course, it's interesting to note that those presumably less intelligent Republicans are also wealthier, happier, are more likely to possess a college degree and live longer than their more evolutionarily-correct Democratic counterparts.”

So, apparently, facts are irrelevent so long as you are happy and economically out-perform those who accept the facts....
Wow I'm glad there's no mindless stereotyping going on here. :boggled:

Can someone tell me if the links have anything more than similarly silly gibberish as quoted above? I'd like to think I can get at least a LITTLE something out of clicking on this thread.

BPSCG

11th June 2007, 03:17 PM

I'm willing to believe the first part, but regarding the second part, please provide some evidence."I have become much more spiritual. God has given me this new chance."

(...snip...)

She has had a person whom she described as a spiritual adviser who said, "My spirit or soul did not like the way I was being seen and that is why I was sent to jail."

"God," she said, "has released me." QED (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3264588&page=1)

No word on who this spiritual adviser is. I'm guessing it's not $ylvia Browne, since she only talks with dead spirits.

marksman

11th June 2007, 03:22 PM

Maybe $ylvia is expanding her repertoire to include brain-dead spirits.

Art Vandelay

11th June 2007, 06:10 PM

Well - we really ARE that stupid here in the United States of America. Not all of us - but an embarrassingly huge group of us.
You seem to be confusing ignorance with stupidity.

fishbob

11th June 2007, 06:22 PM

Stupidity is pretty much deliberate ignorance. We have a halfway decent public education system in this country. Anybody that doesn't want to be ignorant doesn't have to be.

bigred

11th June 2007, 06:29 PM

Stupidity is pretty much deliberate ignorance. We have a halfway decent public education system in this country. Anybody that doesn't want to be ignorant doesn't have to be.
Sorry, wrong. We HAD a half-way decent public education system in this country.

fishbob

11th June 2007, 06:44 PM

Sorry, wrong. We HAD a half-way decent public education system in this country.

Sorry, wrong. We used to have a decent public education system. Now it is only halfway decent. In either case, you don't have to be ignorant if you don't really want to be.

Kerberos

12th June 2007, 01:29 AM

“No doubt evolutionists will argue that this is significant proof that Independents and Democrats are smarter than Republicans. Of course, it's interesting to note that those presumably less intelligent Republicans are also wealthier, happier, are more likely to possess a college degree and live longer than their more evolutionarily-correct Democratic counterparts.”
Translation: I'm going to totally ignore the fact that it's the poorer republicans (or democrats) without colledge degrees that are most likely to believe in creationism in favour of a number of articifial correlations that favour creationism,

Mashuna

12th June 2007, 03:09 AM

If a group of Dems and a group of Repubs are identical except in that the Repubs don't believe in evolution and the Dems do, and the Repubs are as a group wealthier, then it follows that there is a correlation between belief in evolution and wealth (without getting into which is the cause and which the effect).

Since belief in creationism is a sign of ignorance and/or stupidity, it doesn't make sense that of two otherwise identical groups, the stupider one should be the wealthier one.

So my conclusion is that Dems must be stupid in other ways, a conclusion apparently shared here.

A reasonable conclusion. Now all you need is the experiment part to support it.

BPSCG

12th June 2007, 03:22 AM

If a group of Dems and a group of Repubs are identical except in that the Repubs don't believe in evolution and the Dems do, and the Repubs are as a group wealthier, then it follows that there is a correlation between belief in evolution and wealth (without getting into which is the cause and which the effect).

Since belief in creationism is a sign of ignorance and/or stupidity, it doesn't make sense that of two otherwise identical groups, the stupider one should be the wealthier one.

So my conclusion is that Dems must be stupid in other ways, a conclusion apparently shared here.
A reasonable conclusion. Now all you need is the experiment part to support it.Or I can accept the unreasonable alternative conclusion - that of two otherwise identical groups, the stupider one should be the wealthier one.

Just thinking

12th June 2007, 06:15 AM

BPSCG

12th June 2007, 06:19 AM

Or, allow me to throw this fish in the pond ... that religious beliefs regarding creationism/evolution have little bearing on one's financial success in life. Yes, either may give one emotional support and/or "inner" strength, but what counts most in being successful comes from the person's accumulated knowledge, behavior, experience and intelligence in the field they are in -- and their ability to use it accordingly.That's probably a lot closer to the truth than anything else that's been posted here. Thanks.

ImaginalDisc

12th June 2007, 06:30 AM

Or, allow me to throw this fish in the pond ... that religious beliefs regarding creationism/evolution have little bearing on one's financial success in life. Yes, either may give one emotional support and/or "inner" strength, but what counts most in being successful comes from the person's accumulated knowledge, behavior, experience and intelligence in the field they are in -- and their ability to use it accordingly.

Wow, you've kind of omited other keys to success, such as the socio-economic status of one's parents - the only consistently correlated factor to academic success, because people from wealthier backgrounds tend to do better than people from poorer backgrounds.

shemp

12th June 2007, 06:47 AM

QED (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3264588&page=1)

No word on who this spiritual adviser is. I'm guessing it's not $ylvia Browne, since she only talks with dead spirits.

That's not enough evidence. I'm already convinced she's an idiot. I want to see some standardized test scores.

Just thinking

12th June 2007, 07:42 AM

Wow, you've kind of omitted other keys to success, such as the socio-economic status of one's parents - the only consistently correlated factor to academic success, because people from wealthier backgrounds tend to do better than people from poorer backgrounds.

Wow ... and you seemed to have left out as to how their parents got wealthy! I have no problem with families passing down wealth to future generations -- but it had to start somewhere, and I'll wager that in most cases it started with hard work, thoughtful investing and keen business methodology. Plus, it's very easy for some to foolishly take said wealth from their parents (uncles, grandparents, state lotteries) and be broke within a decade or less. Translation => It still takes work and all the other qualities I mentioned earlier to maintain and/or increase this passed-on wealth.

Steven Howard

12th June 2007, 08:18 AM

Because of that phrase, "all other things being equal." Standard scientific method when running an experiment:
Get two groups to study;
Make sure that they are identical in every significant respect except one;
Run your study/experiment and examine your results. The differences are due to the one trait in which the two groups differed. That's called a control.If two groups of people are identical in every significant respect but one, that one significant respect accounts for their differences.

Okay, yeah, I understood how you reached that conclusion. That's why the second sentence of my post was:

Is there an established correlation between knowledge of the basic facts of biology and happiness, wealth, success, health, and "all those things?"

Which correlation you still seem to be taking as axiomatic.

Also you seem to be taking for granted the "all other things being equal" part. I doubt you'll find any studies or polls showing that the only two statistically significant differences between Democrats and Republicans are wealth and creationism. I could be wrong.

If a group of Dems and a group of Repubs are identical except in that the Repubs don't believe in evolution and the Dems do, and the Repubs are as a group wealthier, then it follows that there is a correlation between belief in evolution and wealth (without getting into which is the cause and which the effect).

As you know, correlation does not imply causation.

ImaginalDisc

12th June 2007, 08:19 AM

Wow ... and you seemed to have left out as to how their parents got wealthy! I have no problem with families passing down wealth to future generations -- but it had to start somewhere, and I'll wager that in most cases it started with hard work, thoughtful investing and keen business methodology. Plus, it's very easy for some to foolishly take said wealth from their parents (uncles, grandparents, state lotteries) and be broke within a decade or less. Translation => It still takes work and all the other qualities I mentioned earlier to maintain and/or increase this passed-on wealth.

You must invite me to the dreamworld you inhabit some day. The United States became rich from stealing resource rich land from Indians and kidnapping and enslaving Afrcians. I'm sure that there are some rich families who owe their wealth to faultless and industrious inventors and shrewd business accumen. There's far more whose money derives from monstrous insitutous that are a shameful part of our past, no matter how nice the people in those institutions were.

fishbob

12th June 2007, 08:43 AM

The United States became rich from stealing resource rich land from Indians and kidnapping and enslaving Afrcians. I'm sure that there are some rich families who owe their wealth to faultless and industrious inventors and shrewd business accumen. There's far more whose money derives from monstrous insitutous that are a shameful part of our past, no matter how nice the people in those institutions were.

So your hypothesis is that wealth correlates less with intelligence or education than with fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency? * (http://people.csail.mit.edu/paulfitz/spanish/script.html)

This might make sense given that ruthless efficiency seems to be a common fundamentalist trait.

Dr Adequate

12th June 2007, 08:46 AM

Is that mean or median wealth? Could we have some actual statistics?

BPSCG

12th June 2007, 08:54 AM

You must invite me to the dreamworld you inhabit some day. The United States became rich from stealing resource rich land from Indians and kidnapping and enslaving Afrcians. We finished stealing land from Indians and enslaving Africans almost 150 years ago. This raises a series of questions:

Are you suggesting that the US hasn't gotten wealthier since then?
Do you believe that the total wealth in the US is a fixed amount, that it is the same today as it was in 1907 and 1807 and 1707 and 1492 and 1492 BC and 149,200 BC?
Do you believe that land and property should be redistibuted so that everyone has exactly the same amount of land and property?
If so, can I have the south of France (after the French have all been moved to the Gobi Desert)?

MelBrooksfan

12th June 2007, 09:28 AM

Schneibster

12th June 2007, 10:48 AM

Thesis: Stupid people are more likely to be greedy. Wealth therefore is no indicator of intelligence. Which leaves you pretty much high and dry, Beeps.

Kerberos

12th June 2007, 10:55 AM

Schneibster

12th June 2007, 11:00 AM

I like his dreamworld better than yours.Despite ideological preferences, I have to agree, in all honesty.

Stereotyping rich people is no better than stereotyping poor people.

(And before you say it, no, I wasn't stereotyping in my last post- that's a logical exercise, to wit, raising doubt about a logical construct by demonstrating that its conclusion can follow from other premises than those proposed. Along with a little humor, which if you can't take it I guess you need some assistance from a qualified professional.)

corplinx

12th June 2007, 11:01 AM

So whats the percent of democrats who don't believe in evolution for comparison?

But let me digress, before you throw stones about americans not believing in evolution.... I was raised in a very puritanical southern evangelical home. We went to church every Sunday morning. Many americans were indoctrinated by their communities of faith in believing that even if evolution does occur that God is the source.

Now, I don't believe that anymore. But expecting the other millions who grew up in similar environments to just throw off all that indoctrination is silly. For one thing, evolution doesn't affect most of their jobs, income, and doesn't have anything to do with balancing their checkbooks. You can imagine if as few as 30 years ago that God was the source of all healing and that medicine was hokum, how that attitude would have changed by now. Opinions from ignorance based on faith are more likely to change when they affect someone's livelihood.

So yeah, lets flame those millions of americans who comfortably believe in superstitions and feel good about slamming their benign ignorance because of the vocal handful who make a distasteful spectacle with the Creation Museums and School activism.

When you make fun of them, your making fun of my mother who doesn't understand science and never will but practices her christian generosity in ways that drive me nuts. I'd take her ignorant backwards country mind over some pompous ass on the internet any day. At least she can make a good buttermilk pie.

PixyMisa

12th June 2007, 11:17 AM

So whats the percent of democrats who don't believe in evolution for comparison?
Party / Believe / Don't Believe

Republicans / 30 / 68
Democrats / 57 / 40
Independents / 61 / 37

Also, 3% of those responding believe that both evolution and creationism are "definitely true".

Dr Adequate

12th June 2007, 11:19 AM

I wonder how smart and rich independents are, anyone got any figures?

Just thinking

12th June 2007, 12:00 PM

... When you make fun of them, your making fun of my mother who doesn't understand science and never will but practices her christian generosity in ways that drive me nuts. I'd take her ignorant backwards country mind over some pompous ass on the internet any day. At least she can make a good buttermilk pie.

Let's not too throw out all those babies with that dirty bathwater ... many Christian people are very good people -- very helpful/helping people -- and very generous people. Not all want to convert everyone they meet. There are bad apples in every bunch, so let's simply put them aside for the moment. My mom too is religious (as were her parents) and will likely never understand even the basic principles of Newtonian mechanics or modern astronomy or how a simple triode tube works. But I wouldn't trade her (or her mother) for any other mom/grandma in the world.

PS: My atheism drives her nuts -- but we still love each other.

Just thinking

12th June 2007, 12:06 PM

I like his dreamworld better than yours.

:D

ImaginalDisc

13th June 2007, 06:19 AM

Despite ideological preferences, I have to agree, in all honesty.

Stereotyping rich people is no better than stereotyping poor people.

(And before you say it, no, I wasn't stereotyping in my last post- that's a logical exercise, to wit, raising doubt about a logical construct by demonstrating that its conclusion can follow from other premises than those proposed. Along with a little humor, which if you can't take it I guess you need some assistance from a qualified professional.)

I did not sterotype rich people, I characterised institutions. There's a difference.

In our history more people have become rich because of questionable institutions than became rich making an honest buck. Heck, it's hard enough to make an honest living now.

BPSCG

13th June 2007, 07:04 AM

I did not sterotype rich people, I characterised institutions. There's a difference.

In our history more people have become rich because of questionable institutions than became rich making an honest buck. Oh, right, you were saying that before - we all got rich by killing Indians and stealing their land and enslaving black people and living off the fruit of their labor. Except that we haven't done either of those for going on 150 years (and even before slavery was outlawed throughout the US, most people lived in states where it was illegal, and the vast majority of Americans owned no slaves at all, even people living in slave states). So what were the "questionable institutions" that have made America rich since then?

BTW, you never answered my earlier question regarding whether or not you thought the total amount of wealth in the US is the same today as it was in 149,200 BC.

ImaginalDisc

13th June 2007, 07:18 AM

Oh, right, you were saying that before - we all got rich by killing Indians and stealing their land and enslaving black people and living off the fruit of their labor. Except that we haven't done either of those for going on 150 years (and even before slavery was outlawed throughout the US, most people lived in states where it was illegal, and the vast majority of Americans owned no slaves at all, even people living in slave states). So what were the "questionable institutions" that have made America rich since then?

You don't even try to read, do you? We killed the indians and pushed them off their land, and spent centuries clear cutting forests (which we've since done an excellent job of managing and bringing back up to previous acreage), mining out coal, and minerals, trading slaves and using slave labor, (which helped build such cities as Boston and Charleston) supressed unions, (You do remember that, right?), polluted wantonly as a matter of course and then disposed of waste through shady means after it has become illegal. We're mining our aquifers (that means withdrawing water at a rate faster than recharge), letting unlined landfills drp lechate into the very same aquifers. . .

Need I go on? There's no shortage of problems with the institutions in our society. We're a whole lot better then we used to be, but wanton disregard for the lives of future generation and the lives of people who don't directly benefit from our abundant wealth seems to be par for the course.

BTW, you never answered my earlier question regarding whether or not you thought the total amount of wealth in the US is the same today as it was in 149,200 BC.

I can't answer that question until you define "wealth."

Is wealth Gross National Product? GNP is a perverse measurement of "wealth" because it measures money spent on goods and services, so a costly oil spill that costs billions to clean up raises GNP. A flu epeidemic that prompts billions of dollars in emergency spending raised GNP. Saving money frugally and paying down our national debt would lower GNP.

Is wealth property? Do nicer clothes and flashier cars mean we're better off? Is health a measure of wealth? Is knowledge and education? I'd happly answer your question if you could explain what you mean. I'm pleased to have the benefit of intitutions which provide me a good education, good health, a home, and food on my table, all of which are better than we had hundreds of years ago. But, we have problems now that we didn't have then. We're all beneficiaries of the crimes of the past. History is a litany of awful behavior. I'm glad for the benefits we have, but the problems we've caused really need to be addresed.

BPSCG

13th June 2007, 07:49 AM

I can't answer that question until you define "wealth."

Is wealth Gross National Product? GNP is a perverse measurement of "wealth" because it measures money spent on goods and services, so a costly oil spill that costs billions to clean up raises GNP. A flu epeidemic that prompts billions of dollars in emergency spending raised GNP. Saving money frugally and paying down our national debt would lower GNP.

Is wealth property? Do nicer clothes and flashier cars mean we're better off? Is health a measure of wealth? Is knowledge and education? I'd happly answer your question if you could explain what you mean. I'm pleased to have the benefit of intitutions which provide me a good education, good health, a home, and food on my table, all of which are better than we had hundreds of years ago. But, we have problems now that we didn't have then. We're all beneficiaries of the crimes of the past. History is a litany of awful behavior. I'm glad for the benefits we have, but the problems we've caused really need to be addresed.Nice way to weasel out. You know you can't seriously argue that there is no more wealth today than there was 100,000 years ago without completely destroying your own argument that we got most of it by killing and stealing.

So you try to weasel out by saying, "Oh, yeah, but we still have problems." And then you try to put lipstick on your pig of an argument by saying "We're all beneficiaries of the crimes of the past. History is a litany of awful behavior," which is just another way of repeating your silly claim that wealth is created mostly by killing and stealing.

No, wealth is created by using human ingenuity to shape the earth's resources to fulfill our needs. Killing and stealing only transfers wealth that already existed; it does not create it.

ImaginalDisc

13th June 2007, 07:51 AM

Nice way to weasel out. You know you can't seriously argue that there is no more wealth today than there was 100,000 years ago without completely destroying your own argument that we got most of it by killing and stealing.

So you try to weasel out by saying, "Oh, yeah, but we still have problems." And then you try to put lipstick on your pig of an argument by saying "We're all beneficiaries of the crimes of the past. History is a litany of awful behavior," which is just another way of repeating your silly claim that wealth is created mostly by killing and stealing.

No, wealth is created by using human ingenuity to shape the earth's resources to fulfill our needs. Killing and stealing only transfers wealth that already existed; it does not create it.

Are you done ranting? You're asking if we have more wealth. It's up to you to define what wealth is. I can say I'd rather be alive today as who I am (no one of consequence) than a king, emperor, or chieftan or any earlier age. I like having dental care, cable TV, exotic foods from around the world, and the knowledge of the ages avialable through the internet. Is that what wealth is?

BPSCG

13th June 2007, 08:07 AM

Are you done ranting? You're asking if we have more wealth. It's up to you to define what wealth is. I can say I'd rather be alive today as who I am (no one of consequence) than a king, emperor, or chieftan or any earlier age. I like having dental care, cable TV, exotic foods from around the world, and the knowledge of the ages avialable through the internet. Is that what wealth is?Keep weaseling. Why don't we go with "anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged." Though any common understanding of the term would probably serve just as well.

Now, for about the fourth time, do you believe that there is no more wealth today than there was 100,000 years ago? Do you seriously believe that most of today's wealth was produced by by killing and stealing?

Upchurch

13th June 2007, 08:12 AM

http://xkcd.com/c154.html

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

ImaginalDisc

13th June 2007, 08:17 AM

Let me ask you the following:

Now, for about the fourth time, do you believe that there is no more blearg today than there was 100,000 years ago? Do you seriously believe that most of today's blearg was produced by by killing and stealing?

Can you answer that question without knowing what I mean by "blearg?"

BPSCG

13th June 2007, 08:46 AM

Kerberos

13th June 2007, 08:54 AM

I did not sterotype rich people, I characterised institutions. There's a difference.

In our history more people have become rich because of questionable institutions than became rich making an honest buck. Heck, it's hard enough to make an honest living now.

I don't supose you'd like to share how you arive at that conclusion? Including perhaps some explanation of how you determine whether a person has become rich by "questionable institutions" as pposed to making an "honest buck"? Let alone excactly what these rather vague terms mean?

FarmallMTA

13th June 2007, 09:04 AM

One look at the Democrat presidential primary and you can see there's no such thing as evolution physically, mentally, or philosophically. Marx is still among us in the flesh with that crowd.

FarmallMTA

13th June 2007, 09:05 AM

Thesis: Stupid people are more likely to be greedy. Wealth therefore is no indicator of intelligence. Which leaves you pretty much high and dry, Beeps.

And John Edwards high and dry, too.

RecoveringYuppy

13th June 2007, 09:13 AM

FarmallMTA

13th June 2007, 09:16 AM

Which ones are advocating nationalizing industry?

Any and all who are advocating Nationalized Health Schemes. That would be ALL OF THEM.

Ranillon

13th June 2007, 09:31 AM

RecoveringYuppy

13th June 2007, 09:36 AM

Any and all who are advocating Nationalized Health Schemes. That would be ALL OF THEM.
Post a link to their position paper on this and quote the part where they are going to nationalize a company or industry.

BPSCG

13th June 2007, 09:57 AM

You're just offering us a strawman -- It's not as if the effects of those "questionable institutions" just disappear into a haze of justice for all the moment they disappear. If I swindle you out of all your money, use it to build a fortune, but then institute an economic system that is equally fair to the two of us does that mean everything is okay? Does that mean I don't continue to enjoy an advantage because of my previous actions even if I've since learned the error of my ways?

This is a complicated subject. One cannot fairly suggest that all effects of possible past misdeeds are magicaly null and void just because (theoretically) the institutions that promoted them have changed anymore than we can just write off the modern US state as an immoral imperial empire.But that wasn't my point. Read again what ImaginalDisc was saying:
The United States became rich from stealing resource rich land from Indians and kidnapping and enslaving Afrcians. I'm sure that there are some rich families who owe their wealth to faultless and industrious inventors and shrewd business accumen. There's far more whose money derives from monstrous insitutous that are a shameful part of our past, no matter how nice the people in those institutions were.The vast majority of Americans never owned a single slave, period. In 1860, on the eve of the Civil War, slavery had always been illegal in the north, and yet the north was by far more prosperous than the south. How does that square with the claim that the US grew rich on the back of slave labor?

Economically, what slavery stole was the value of the slave's labor (it stole other, non-economic things, such as the slave's freedom and dignity). But that labor was not what made the US rich. If it were, the south would have been the rich part of the country, and the north the poor.

When ID claims that the US grew rich on the backs of slaves, he ignores the fact that theft does not create wealth - it only moves it around. If I steal your car, I am wealthier and you are poorer, but I have not created any wealth. Wealth is created by using human ingenuity to shape the earth's resources to fulfill our needs.

I am not trying to justify theft or slavery here - quite the opposite. But their effects become vitiated with time. Otherwise I would be demanding reparations from you because your Egyptian ancestors enslaved my Jewish ones thousands of years ago.

Just thinking

13th June 2007, 10:52 AM

You must invite me to the dreamworld you inhabit some day. The United States became rich from stealing resource rich land from Indians and kidnapping and enslaving Afrcians. I'm sure that there are some rich families who owe their wealth to faultless and industrious inventors and shrewd business accumen. There's far more whose money derives from monstrous insitutous that are a shameful part of our past, no matter how nice the people in those institutions were.

This dreamworld is populated by real people -- her, for instance (http://rptsweb.tamu.edu/pugsley/CastroB.htm). As for claiming the land was resource rich ... well, that depends on who you ask. Manhattan Island was rather valueless to the American Indians, and they had control over it far longer than European settlers did, even to this day. But look at it now ... just what is an acre going for downtown these days? Did the Indians in the now plain states ever develop agriculture to prosperous levels? Why? For the most part, many tribes were nomadic ... and even wared against other tribes ... in turn taking their land. So who's any different here? Would someone as mentioned above have faired better in a land populated by Native Americans living like they did 300 years ago? -- which is a fair guess as to how they would have stayed to even now given their past.

Tony

13th June 2007, 11:03 AM

Thesis: Stupid people are more likely to be greedy. Wealth therefore is no indicator of intelligence. Which leaves you pretty much high and dry, Beeps.

I'd also add that stupid people are more likely to unquestioningly fall in line with a pre-establish system and greedily work hard and waste their life chasing wealth in that system.

Tony

13th June 2007, 11:08 AM

The Painter

13th June 2007, 11:18 AM

Is that what wealth is?

No

Ranillon

13th June 2007, 11:26 AM

But that wasn't my point. Read again what ImaginalDisc was saying:
The vast majority of Americans never owned a single slave, period. In 1860, on the eve of the Civil War, slavery had always been illegal in the north, and yet the north was by far more prosperous than the south. How does that square with the claim that the US grew rich on the back of slave labor?

The South didn't exist in an economic vaccuum. You can profit off slave labor without ever actually owning a slave. Likewise, grabbing the West from the Indians hardly only enriched the people who actually settled there.

More to the point, however, is that -- again -- there is not some magical effect where the moment institutions/people becomes more morally acceptable all benefits of their old habits are washed away and are no longer of any moral or economic meaning.

Economically, what slavery stole was the value of the slave's labor (it stole other, non-economic things, such as the slave's freedom and dignity). But that labor was not what made the US rich. If it were, the south would have been the rich part of the country, and the north the poor.

As I am sure that you know (though I wonder why you aren't saying it) it's not that simple. Stealing labor is certainly worth something -- you say so yourself. "Rich" is also something of a subjective term. People certainly made money off slave labor. The possibility that other means might have been even better at generating wealth doesn't somehow negate that.

When ID claims that the US grew rich on the backs of slaves, he ignores the fact that theft does not create wealth - it only moves it around. If I steal your car, I am wealthier and you are poorer, but I have not created any wealth. Wealth is created by using human ingenuity to shape the earth's resources to fulfill our needs.

And it's cheaper to put that "ingenuity" into practice if you don't have to pay your laborers anything. Your argument is sophistry -- no one made money or got "rich" off slavery because in the end the slave is, in effect, just a tool and tools don't create wealth, smarts and risk-taking do? You are relying on what is, at best, a technicality and at worst semantic trickery.

With your logic labor in general really doesn't "create wealth" and does not, by implication, deserve any of the credit for economic success. Problem is that we can reduce pretty much any effort down to "labor" -- whether we are talking about a scientist who comes up with a new discovery or an manager who improves efficiency or just an assembly line worker who puts in that extra effort they aren't really "creating wealth", but just doing what they are paid to do. Of course, that would seem to only leave owners left as the "real" creators of wealth. Is that what you are arguing?

Otherwise I would be demanding reparations from you because your Egyptian ancestors enslaved by Jewish one thousands of years ago.

You are getting ahead of yourself -- we aren't talking about something specific like reparations, but rather general economic cause and effect.

Just thinking

13th June 2007, 11:40 AM

I don't get it, Ranillion, what BPSCG pointed out is crystal clear and makes perfect sense.

To address your question (or criticism) .... "Your argument is sophistry -- no one made money or got "rich" off slavery because in the end the slave is, in effect, just a tool and tools don't create wealth, smarts and risk-taking do?" That's absolutely correct -- tools by themselves don't create wealth. It's the smarts 100%. No tool will automatically do the right thing to create wealth -- even a slave has to be told what to do and how to do it properly, even at least for the first time. Plus it's smarts that make tools, and keep making them better (the non-human ones, that is). I can have all the best tools in the world, but none will do anything without proper operation -- in fact, they can cause much more harm and damage in inexperienced or untrained hands.

And your second comment ... "With your logic labor in general really doesn't "create wealth" and does not, by implication, deserve any of the credit for economic success." is one of the most obvious strawmen I have ever seen -- it's textbook. How do you ever conclude he is implying this? His assertion (to me) is that proeperly controlled and directed, both inanimate tools and/or labor are what's needed to create wealth.

UserGoogol

13th June 2007, 11:46 AM

Wealth is created by combining ingenuity with a smaller quantity of wealth. You need stuff to make new stuff. Thus, given any amount of wealth a person has, you can trace that wealth back to some "initial wealth" which was used to bankroll the investment. If that initial wealth was acquired illegitimately, then that casts a pall on the later wealth. Theft does not produce wealth, but it can be used to bankroll future wealth-productions.

Personally, I think such "historical matters" are not really worth getting worked up about (I'm very much a consequentialist; ultimately it doesn't matter how you get to a certain state, it just matters how good that end result is) but it does mean that people who have wealth aren't necessarily all that great.

BPSCG

13th June 2007, 11:57 AM

...but it does mean that people who have wealth aren't necessarily all that great.I don't think anyone here has suggested otherwise. I believe I was the first one here to trot out Paris Hilton as exhibit A ins support of your claim.

UserGoogol

13th June 2007, 12:02 PM

Well yes, I originally finished that post by saying something like "but it does present an area for concern," but then I tried to figure out how the hell this tied into the original topic and tried to pull together something at the last minute.

Ranillon

13th June 2007, 12:17 PM

To address your question (or criticism) .... "Your argument is sophistry -- no one made money or got "rich" off slavery because in the end the slave is, in effect, just a tool and tools don't create wealth, smarts and risk-taking do?" That's absolutely correct -- tools by themselves don't create wealth. It's the smarts 100%.

First, a minor point -- you are contradicting yourself. Your phrase "tools by themselves don't create wealth" only makes sense if they do have some part of creating wealth. But, then you immediately say that is not the case.

As far as "smarts" being "100%" I just need to point this out -- can you make money just being "smart"? That is, just by sitting there coming up with great ideas without putting them into practice in a practical way? This sounds like a sound-bite from the Jeffery Skilling School of Management -- all that matters is the "idea". Anything else is just worthless details. :D

Problem is that such distinctions are completely arbitrary and suspiciously convenient. Smarts and labor go hand-in-hand -- you won't succeed without both. Cars and skyscrapers don't assemble themselves, after all.

Also, "smarts" is a pretty vague idea. It's the sort of thing that is bandied without much care and with a lot of implied assumptions -- the most obvious of which being that the person supporting the idea of "smarts" being the cause of wealth naturally considers himself a member of the group producing "smarts". However, the definition is so imprecise and vulnerable to reinterpretation as needed I don't see how it is at all useful.

More to the point, this line of reason -- being so open to abuse -- looks suspiciously like just a rationalization for a particular ideology. It allows us to wax poetic about the marvelous "ingenuity" of the modern economic man and just generally feel good about ourselves. At the same time it serves as a sort of smoke-screen against looking at the deeper issues involved. Why argue over confusing shades of grey when you can just offer a sound-bite that leaves your ideology intact and unexamined?

Worse, this line of reasoning has implications that I bet most miss. As I've already said, it only works if one reduces labor to at best a necessary evil, a means to an end that really has no meaningful part in actually success. Even if we assume -- bizarrely -- that is the case that would imply that all wealth creation is the result of those who own. After all, take out "labor" and what is really left? But, in that case you are basically setting up owners as a new nobility, one where ownership is its own justification.

furrod

13th June 2007, 12:41 PM

I wonder if this is mostly true.

smart Democrats = smart Republicans

9/11 woo Democrats = creationist woo Republicans

...Then people just do a little cherry-picking until their political affiliation is shown to be smarter so they can feel superior and cast derision upon the other guys.

Just thinking

13th June 2007, 12:49 PM

First, a minor point -- you are contradicting yourself. Your phrase "tools by themselves don't create wealth" only makes sense if they do have some part of creating wealth. But, then you immediately say that is not the case.

As far as "smarts" being "100%" I just need to point this out -- can you make money just being "smart"? That is, just by sitting there coming up with great ideas without putting them into practice in a practical way? This sounds like a sound-bite from the Jeffery Skilling School of Management -- all that matters is the "idea". Anything else is just worthless details. :D

I thought it became obvious that emphasizing the "smarts" was the critical issue, as I later claimed by themselves the tools are quite worthless unless properly managed.

Problem is that such distinctions are completely arbitrary and suspiciously convenient. Smarts and labor go hand-in-hand -- you won't succeed without both. Cars and skyscrapers don't assemble themselves, after all.

On this we agree.

Also, "smarts" is a pretty vague idea. It's the sort of thing that is bandied without much care and with a lot of implied assumptions -- the most obvious of which being that the person supporting the idea of "smarts" being the cause of wealth naturally considers himself a member of the group producing "smarts". However, the definition is so imprecise and vulnerable to reinterpretation as needed I don't see how it is at all useful.

Then let's use it to mean that which directs tools/effort to create wealth.

More to the point, this line of reason -- being so open to abuse -- looks suspiciously like just a rationalization for a particular ideology. It allows us to wax poetic about the marvelous "ingenuity" of the modern economic man and just generally feel good about ourselves. At the same time it serves as a sort of smoke-screen against looking at the deeper issues involved. Why argue over confusing shades of grey when you can just offer a sound-bite that leaves your ideology intact and unexamined?

Worse, this line of reasoning has implications that I bet most miss. As I've already said, it only works if one reduces labor to at best a necessary evil, a means to an end that really has no meaningful part in actually success. Even if we assume -- bizarrely -- that is the case that would imply that all wealth creation is the result of those who own. After all, take out "labor" and what is really left? But, in that case you are basically setting up owners as a new nobility, one where ownership is its own justification.

Too much assuming on your point -- both on me and industry. Labor may be necessary, but in no way an evil. However, labor is not to be placed up on some pedestal as the be-all and end-all to human achievement. Yes, Edison is quoted as saying success is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration -- and in many cases it feels so true ... but through that perspiration is a continuation of thought, observation and perseverance that takes one to the desired end. Looking at pure labor as wealth without any regard to thought however will net no benefit -- just as a waterfall does little even though it's power output is tremendous. The "smarts" needed to direct said power will be what truly makes the difference.

And those who own are the ones in the best position to create more wealth, not because they are owners per se, -- but because it takes something to make something.

Ranillon

13th June 2007, 01:11 PM

I thought it became obvious that emphasizing the "smarts" was the critical issue, as I later claimed by themselves the tools are quite worthless unless properly managed.

Just as "smarts" are worthless without the proper "tools" (that term being used pretty broadly here).

Too much assuming on your point -- both on me and industry. Labor may be necessary, but in no way an evil.

I wasn't calling it evil, just pointing out the clear conclusion if one assumes that it is not part of the equation for creating "wealth".

However, labor is not to be placed up on some pedestal as the be-all and end-all to human achievement.

No one here said that as far as I can tell. Remember, you are arguing (by agreeing with BPSCG) that labor isn't part of creating "wealth" at all. That is, 100% to 0%. The alternative viewpoint is not only to reverse those percentages to where labor is 100% and ingenuity 0%. I'm the one arguing the truth is somewhere in-between.

Looking at pure labor as wealth without any regard to thought however will net no benefit

Quite so. Good thing I never made that argument.

-- just as a waterfall does little even though it's power output is tremendous. The "smarts" needed to direct said power will be what truly makes the difference.

You seem to be making my argument for me -- demonstrating how labor and ingenuity go hand-in-hand toward success -- only to right at the end as an arbitrary coda insist that in the end "smarts" is what really matters after all. You seem to be wanting it both ways.

And those who own are the ones in the best position to create more wealth, not because they are owners per se, -- but because it takes something to make something.

It also takes labor -- unless someone has come up with a way to just think things into existence and failed to tell me.

Dr Adequate

13th June 2007, 03:05 PM

One look at the Democrat presidential primary and you can see there's no such thing as evolution physically, mentally, or philosophically. Marx is still among us in the flesh with that crowd. And there was me thinking we won the Cold War. But no! Congress is controlled by TEH COMMUNISTS OMG!!! I guess that's why they pulled down the Statue of Liberty and replaced it with that enormous bust of Lenin.

By the way, what's the weather like on your planet?

Darth Rotor

13th June 2007, 03:13 PM

One look at the Democrat presidential primary and you can see there's no such thing as evolution physically, mentally, or philosophically. Marx is still among us in the flesh with that crowd.
WTF? Is it your position that Barrak Obama is a Liberation Theologist? Perhaps the terseness of your post robbed it of meaning.

DR

Darth Rotor

13th June 2007, 03:16 PM

Darth Rotor

13th June 2007, 03:18 PM

I guess that's why they pulled down the Statue of Liberty and replaced it with that enormous bust of Lenin.

What, Lenin was transexual?

Oh, wait, never mind, bust meaning statue.

Sorry, when "enormous bust" crosses my radar, I default to Samantha Fox visuals.

DR

ksbluesfan

13th June 2007, 03:27 PM

Darth Rotor

13th June 2007, 03:33 PM

It's embarassing that so many people in this country don't believe in evolution, and that goes for all parties. It's not like 100% of the Democrats believed in evolution.

Would you vote for a candidate that didn't believe in evolution?
I have heard it said, on this very board, by Skeptics, that evolution isn't subject to belief, like a religion or a creed.

Why do I see Skeptics using this construction?

I understand that the poll question seemed to ask "do you believe" regarding evolution, as though it was a matter of belief. Loaded question, anyone?

DR

Upchurch

13th June 2007, 08:44 PM

I have heard it said, on this very board, by Skeptics, that evolution isn't subject to belief, like a religion or a creed.
"Understand evolution"?

Dr Adequate

13th June 2007, 08:54 PM

I have heard it said, on this very board, by Skeptics, that evolution isn't subject to belief, like a religion or a creed.

Why do I see Skeptics using this construction?

I understand that the poll question seemed to ask "do you believe" regarding evolution, as though it was a matter of belief. Loaded question, anyone?

DR Do you "believe" that 2 + 2 = 4, or is that a "loaded question"?

Kerberos

13th June 2007, 09:12 PM

I have heard it said, on this very board, by Skeptics, that evolution isn't subject to belief, like a religion or a creed.

Why do I see Skeptics using this construction?

I understand that the poll question seemed to ask "do you believe" regarding evolution, as though it was a matter of belief. Loaded question, anyone?

DR

Beliefs that are backed by huge amounts of evidence doesn't cease to be beliefs. Belief=/faith.

Darth Rotor

13th June 2007, 09:41 PM

Do you "believe" that 2 + 2 = 4, or is that a "loaded question"?
I don't use "belief" to answer that question. I use simple arithmetic. I'd go closer to "certainty" on that simple additon, though I can see some people understanding where the uncertainties are in evolutionary theory, where the solid grounds and supporting evidence are, and the difference between them.

What is going on here is a bit of dishonest wordplay, IMO.

"Do you believe in Thor?"

"Do you believe in Santa Claus?"

"Do you believe in evolution?"

Not comparing apples to apples. Your silly barb about 2+2 appears to be you playing obtuse again. Raise the bar, you just leaped over a toadstool.

DR

blobru

13th June 2007, 09:41 PM

Any stats on fundy vs evo bank accounts outside the USA?

And inside:
What's up with rich republican (or democrat) fundies anyway? :confused:

Wouldn't they sleep easier believing in Darwinism?
(Way shorter round trip via "survival of the fittest" to guilt-free millions than via the Sermon on the Mount.)

Schneibster

13th June 2007, 10:06 PM

gtc

13th June 2007, 10:42 PM

Thesis: Stupid people are more likely to be greedy. Wealth therefore is no indicator of intelligence.

Never had a response to this. Makes me wonder if there is one.

I am not convinced that stupid people are more greedy than the intelligent.
I am also not convinced that the stupid wouldn't cancel out the greed when it comes to the ability to accrue wealth.

Could anyone explain why so many Democrats don't believe in evolution?

UserGoogol

13th June 2007, 10:55 PM

I don't use "belief" to answer that question. I use simple arithmetic. I'd go closer to "certainty" on that simple additon, though I can see some people understanding where the uncertainties are in evolutionary theory, where the solid grounds and supporting evidence are, and the difference between them

That's really not how people usually use the word "belief" out of certain religious contexts. The dictionary (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?gwp=13&s=believe) defines believing as "to accept as true or real." You certainly accept that "2 + 2 = 4" is true. It is true that belief can also refer specifically to "faith," but I see nothing in the way they phrased that question which implies that they were using the word in that way.

I suppose they could have gone a step further and simply asked "Is Evolution true?" thus cutting the concept of belief out of the question altogether, (which they did do (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847) in some of their other questions) but I don't think that's really necessary.

blobru

13th June 2007, 11:14 PM

Could anyone explain why so many Democrats don't believe in evolution?

That I sort of get. On the over-simple assumption that Democrat means more social welfare, and Republican more free enterprise, a Democrat might worry evolution leads to social darwinism, and not believe out of fear. It's the Republicans I don't get. I mean, a belief that the marketplace through competition will always adapt to changes in the consumer environment, isn't that "evolution"? Why so much faith in economic evolution, but none in biological evolution? Maybe they've confused capitalism's invisible hand with the hand of God or something... :boggled:

Darth Rotor

14th June 2007, 06:43 AM

That's really not how people usually use the word "belief" out of certain religious contexts. The dictionary (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?gwp=13&s=believe) defines believing as "to accept as true or real." You certainly accept that "2 + 2 = 4" is true. It is true that belief can also refer specifically to "faith," but I see nothing in the way they phrased that question which implies that they were using the word in that way.

I suppose they could have gone a step further and simply asked "Is Evolution true?" thus cutting the concept of belief out of the question altogether, (which they did do (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847) in some of their other questions) but I don't think that's really necessary.
I'll set aside the semantic wrangle, I concede that "believe" and belief" can be taken with slightly different connotations, though it seems to me that this very fact makes for a loaded question. No matter.

"Is evolution correct?" seems to me a better approach, but then, it wasn't my poll. :cool:

DR

BPSCG

14th June 2007, 09:35 AM

Thesis: Stupid people are more likely to be greedy. Wealth therefore is no indicator of intelligence. Which leaves you pretty much high and dry, Beeps. Never had a response to this. Makes me wonder if there is one.Sorry, I thought you were joking. Because it's certainly not a serious question.

Thesis: Stupid people are more likely to be greedy. Has this been established? I bet it hasn't. If it has, please supply the proof.

Wealth therefore is no indicator of intelligence. Since the thesis hasn't been shown to be true, the conclusion that depends on the truth of the thesis also remains unproven.

Further, you appear to be claiming that there is a correlation between wealth and greed; at least you appear to use the terms interchangeably. Was this on purpose, or was it just sloppy writing on your part?

Frankly, I found the post incoherent, which is why I initially dismissed it as a joke.

FWIW, I don't believe I ever claimed there was a perfect correlation between intelligence and wealth - see Paris Hilton, again - but are you going to seriously argue that there is no correlation? Do you believe also that there is no correlation between education and wealth?

Tricky

14th June 2007, 09:55 AM

It's embarassing that so many people in this country don't believe in evolution, and that goes for all parties. It's not like 100% of the Democrats believed in evolution.

Would you vote for a candidate that didn't believe in evolution?
I try not to play one-issue politics. I would vote for a candidate who didn't believe in evolution if his stances matched mine more closely than other candidates on most issues.

The thing is, that's very unlikely. Not believing in evolution is not a deal-killer by itself, but it sure as heck sends up a red flag.

Steven Howard

14th June 2007, 10:34 AM

FWIW, I don't believe I ever claimed there was a perfect correlation between intelligence and wealth - see Paris Hilton, again - but are you going to seriously argue that there is no correlation?

I don't know about Schneibster, but I'm willing to seriously argue that there is no correlation between intelligence and wealth.

For the second time in this thread: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070424204519.htm

mijopaalmc

14th June 2007, 11:03 AM

Do you "believe" that 2 + 2 = 4, or is that a "loaded question"?

"Do you believe in evolution?" is a loaded question when the answers include option to explicitly reference "God". It equates "belief" in a supernatural power in absence or contravention of evidence to credence of a scientific theory because of the preponderance of evidence. Obviously, this is a case of apples and oranges.

ImaginalDisc

14th June 2007, 11:12 AM

"Do you believe in evolution?" is a loaded question when the answers include option to explicitly reference "God". It equates "belief" in a supernatural power in absence or contravention of evidence to credence of a scientific theory because of the preponderance of evidence. Obviously, this is a case of apples and oranges.

What? Whether or not a person believes in evolution has nothing to do with wehther or not they're a theist. They are completely unrelated issues. The answer to that question is only relevant if you are intested in knowing whether the person you are speaking to believes in a god who defies reason and science.

mijopaalmc

14th June 2007, 11:30 AM

What? Whether or not a person believes in evolution has nothing to do with wehther or not they're a theist. They are completely unrelated issues. The answer to that question is only relevant if you are intested in knowing whether the person you are speaking to believes in a god who defies reason and science.

Perhaps it was the brevity of my post, but I think you missed my point. I was saying that these polls are usually worded in such way so as to equate belief in evolution with belief in "God", and this is done by asking "do you believe...?" or "which do you believe...?". There is no effort made to distinguish the source of such beliefs from one another, which in turn leads to the perception that evolution and creationism are intellectually identical because they are based in "belief" implicitly irrespective of empirical evidence.

Here are some of the question in the article about the poll:

Now thinking about how human beings came to exist on Earth, do you, personally, believe in evolution, or not?

Next, we'd like to ask about your views on two different explanations for the origin and development of life on earth. Do you think -- [ITEMS ROTATED] -- is -- [ROTATED: definitely true, probably true, probably false, (or) definitely false]?

Notice how the first question uses the phrase "believe in", which is identical to the way theist talk about "God" Christians talk about "Jesus", while the second question uses the the "think", which implies that evolution and creationism are in some way a matter of personal opinion rather than objective evidence.

Schneibster

14th June 2007, 12:47 PM

Sorry, I thought you were joking. Because it's certainly not a serious question.It's as serious as your thesis was.

Thesis: Stupid people are more likely to be greedy. Has this been established? I bet it hasn't. If it has, please supply the proof.You supply proof for yours first. Then we'll chat.

Wealth therefore is no indicator of intelligence. Since the thesis hasn't been shown to be true, the conclusion that depends on the truth of the thesis also remains unproven.True enough.

Further, you appear to be claiming that there is a correlation between wealth and greed; at least you appear to use the terms interchangeably. Was this on purpose, or was it just sloppy writing on your part?I'd be willing to bet that the correlation between wealth and greed is higher than the correlation between wealth and intelligence, particularly considering the number of wealthy people who don't "believe in evilution." This is neither the statement that all wealthy people are greedy, or that they are stupid, nor that they don't believe in obvious scientifically determined facts or reject evidence without proper grounds. It's a correlation, pretty much what you asserted, and will, if you care to continue the conversation, provide some sort of proof of. I will then set about providing proof of my own. Which, by the way, resides precisely in the poll- and another little piece of data I'm keeping in my back pocket. You made the first assertion; let's see you prove yours first, and then we'll see if I can prove mine.

Frankly, I found the post incoherent, which is why I initially dismissed it as a joke.Frankly, I found yours unfounded and badly thought through, and posted something that seemed to me to be about as well founded and spent no more time on it than you seemed to have on yours.

FWIW, I don't believe I ever claimed there was a perfect correlation between intelligence and wealth - see Paris Hilton, again - but are you going to seriously argue that there is no correlation? Do you believe also that there is no correlation between education and wealth?Are you seriously going to maintain that presenting a thesis that asserts a correlation is an assertion of an absolute? Or do you actually know better? Guess we'll find out.

Schneibster

14th June 2007, 12:49 PM

Oh, and by the way, it's not a question- it's an assertion.

BPSCG

14th June 2007, 01:45 PM

It's as serious as your thesis was. Would you mind stating what you believe my "thesis" was? You were evidently objecting to something I wrote earlier but evidently didn't feel it was particularly important to actually quote it. Why don't you link to that post of mine which you take objection to, and state your actual objection?

Just thinking

14th June 2007, 01:46 PM

No one here said that as far as I can tell. Remember, you are arguing (by agreeing with BPSCG) that labor isn't part of creating "wealth" at all. That is, 100% to 0%.

OK ... let's get this clear and out in the open for the last time. I am in agreement with BPSCG's statement defining wealth, which goes as follows:

Wealth is created by using human ingenuity to shape the earth's resources to fulfill our needs.

I will now dissect it word-for-word ...

Wealth is created = this means that it must be made. Wealth is not just sitting out there for someone to go and get as is. Something must be applied in some way that is useful or usable.

by using human ingenuity = well, there's the "smarts".

to shape = This clearly is an action (verb); something requiring either labor or the use of tools (or both).

the earth's resources = this implies it was here on earth and not from some outside source. In other words, whatever is now considered wealth was/is always here.

to fulfill our needs. = This is what gives all the above its value. If one has no need for something it has little to no net wealth. That doesn't mean it never did or never will ... but for now it's zero.

The alternative viewpoint is not only to reverse those percentages to where labor is 100% and ingenuity 0%. I'm the one arguing the truth is somewhere in-between.

I hope you can now see that the above is in 100% agreement with you.

Quite so. Good thing I never made that argument.

And that BPSCG's point is not what you believed to be the case either.

You seem to be making my argument for me -- demonstrating how labor and ingenuity go hand-in-hand toward success -- only to right at the end as an arbitrary coda insist that in the end "smarts" is what really matters after all. You seem to be wanting it both ways.

Yes and no -- what I am saying is the the smarts are what matter more, as we agree that what can become wealth (be it power or materials) has in most cases always been present. The ability to utilize them properly counts more -- way more. Anyone can be a slave -- how many can understand the mechanisms to design a nuclear reaction?

It also takes labor -- unless someone has come up with a way to just think things into existence and failed to tell me.

Yes ... but labor (as such) is cheap and plentiful, even today.

So in a sense it is true that labor (energy) and thought (smarts) are needed to make wealth ... but in a technical sense, the thought process is where the creation aspect of wealth occurs. After all, when does a Mozart Symphony exist -- when he creates it in his mind, writes it down on paper or has it performed by an orchestra?

Schneibster

14th June 2007, 02:09 PM

If you don't care enough to figure it out for yourself or defend your reasoning, far be it from me to disturb your equilibrium with unwanted criticism. Go back to sleep.

The Atheist

14th June 2007, 02:24 PM

Just thinking

14th June 2007, 02:42 PM

Appears to me that the real point has been lost here - not which "side" has more idiots than the other, but the fact that two thirds of responses indicated a belief in creationism.

Who cares whether they're rich, poor, Rep or Dem? They're all farkin' crazy.

I don't think that's true at all (the crazy part) ... it all depends on how one is raised and what they feel are relevant matters in their life. Let's face it -- for many (perhaps most) people it's a moot point and has little effect on their daily livelihood. They go on their business with it having no net effect on their balance sheet (to them).

Upchurch

14th June 2007, 02:43 PM

"Do you accept the conclusions of the Theory of Evolution?"

?

Just thinking

14th June 2007, 02:47 PM

"Do you accept the conclusions of the Theory of Evolution?"

?

Me, personally? I'm not sure of (a) which conclusions you are referring and (b) your point?

The Atheist

14th June 2007, 03:15 PM

I don't think that's true at all (the crazy part) ... it all depends on how one is raised and what they feel are relevant matters in their life. Let's face it -- for many (perhaps most) people it's a moot point and has little effect on their daily livelihood. They go on their business with it having no net effect on their balance sheet (to them).

What a namby-pamby, nothing way of looking at it. If we were talking about monkeys, I'd accept your premise, but belief in a creationist agenda where humans are only 10,000 years old flies in the face of virtually every known fact about the earth.

If people are going to display that level of wilful ignorance - it would only take half an hour to find out for real, if they slept all through school - then I'm happy to class them as stupid or crazy.

It doesn't have any effect on anyone's daily life, it's about whether people are drones or not. Lots of them are.

Dr Adequate

14th June 2007, 04:33 PM

I don't use "belief" to answer that question. I use simple arithmetic. I'd go closer to "certainty" on that simple additon, though I can see some people understanding where the uncertainties are in evolutionary theory, where the solid grounds and supporting evidence are, and the difference between them.

What is going on here is a bit of dishonest wordplay, IMO.

"Do you believe in Thor?"

"Do you believe in Santa Claus?"

"Do you believe in evolution?"

Not comparing apples to apples. Your silly barb about 2+2 appears to be you playing obtuse again. Raise the bar, you just leaped over a toadstool. Does any of this mean anything? Only I'm pretty sure that I didn't just "leap over a toadstool".

One of the differences between science and pseudoscience is that science doesn't involve making up crazy stuff about people you disagree with as a substitute for debating their actual opinions.

mijopaalmc

14th June 2007, 07:33 PM

Does any of this mean anything? Only I'm pretty sure that I didn't just "leap over a toadstool".

One of the differences between science and pseudoscience is that science doesn't involve making up crazy stuff about people you disagree with as a substitute for debating their actual opinions.

You do understand that 2+2 doesn't equal 4 because we believe it equals 4 and evolution isn't true because we believe it's true?

Just thinking

14th June 2007, 08:18 PM

What a namby-pamby, nothing way of looking at it. If we were talking about monkeys, I'd accept your premise, but belief in a creationist agenda where humans are only 10,000 years old flies in the face of virtually every known fact about the earth.

Because folks like you and me think these stories through -- many do not. A good many people don't even know the celestial mechanisms that cause the seasons. Does that make them idiots? I'll bet a good number of qualified doctors, lawyers, musicians, fire-fighters, non-science teachers, business owners, CEO's and the like can't explain it properly as well. And that's something that affects them throughout their life -- and you expect them to sit down and think through evolution? I'd say that's hardly a namby-pamby, nothing observation. Trust me on this -- the folks on this forum (and those who peek in now and then) do not represent the majority of the human population. The same is true for those of us that work in the science and mathematics disciplines.

If people are going to display that level of wilful ignorance - it would only take half an hour to find out for real, if they slept all through school - then I'm happy to class them as stupid or crazy.

It might surprise you as to how many students today give a rat's tail-end about math and science -- as a former science/math instructor I can tell you it's not many.

It doesn't have any effect on anyone's daily life, it's about whether people are drones or not. Lots of them are.

Just because one doesn't care to fully understand A doesn't mean they're an idiot regarding B.

Ranillon

14th June 2007, 08:22 PM

I hope you can now see that the above is in 100% agreement with you.

I wouldn't say 100% as I clearly value labor (among other factors not mentioned) more than you or BPSCG. Again, your language and especially his has a tendency to be suspiciously vague on this point -- explicitly suggesting more of a balancing act between factors even while implicitly championing ingenuity greatly over other factors.

Yes and no -- what I am saying is the the smarts are what matter more, as we agree that what can become wealth (be it power or materials) has in most cases always been present. The ability to utilize them properly counts more -- way more. Anyone can be a slave -- how many can understand the mechanisms to design a nuclear reaction?

The problem is that in practice this tends to work the other way around. That is, those with success and power (and the culture that celebrates them) tend to assume that they must have succeeded almost exclusively -- at least in terms of what allowed them to win when others lost -- through "ingenuity" or "smarts". It's a glorification that tends to simplify the means of generating wealth by, IMHO, arbitrarily separating wealth production from any factors we tend to find morally questionable.

For example, a lot of power and wealth throughout history has been obtained at the end of a sword. Not just through outright theft, but from the clear use of strength to gain advantage over the rest of the group (say, when a warlord captures his enemies and puts them to work as slaves). Now, by using the definition you and BPSCG champion we would conclude that all such morally reprehensible (at least by common modern standards) behaviors did not themselves create wealth, but rather the clever and skillful direction of slave labor. See how that removes any possible moral/ethical taint from wealth creation by neatly -- and quite conveniently -- spliting offf the ideas behind its production from the means of doing so?

The fact that one can do this for every possible case -- that is, no matter the circumstance "wealth creation" remains unblemished -- is highly suspicious. This sort of "Heads I win, Tails you lose" reasoning is a common trait of ideologies. But, you and BPSCG aren't offering this point as a matter of ideology, but economic truth. That where it becomes suspicious -- it's too good to be true. Add in the arbitrary nature of your distinction and I just don't see how it works. It looks a lot like ideology trying to disguise itself as fact.

So in a sense it is true that labor (energy) and thought (smarts) are needed to make wealth ... but in a technical sense, the thought process is where the creation aspect of wealth occurs. After all, when does a Mozart Symphony exist -- when he creates it in his mind, writes it down on paper or has it performed by an orchestra?

How do Mozart's efforts mean anything if you take out any of those three? All of them are necessary to make his music real in an everyday sense. Take away any single one and it ceases to effectively exist (at least as a piece of music we enjoy and value).

Just thinking

14th June 2007, 09:29 PM

I wouldn't say 100% as I clearly value labor (among other factors not mentioned) more than you or BPSCG. Again, your language and especially his has a tendency to be suspiciously vague on this point -- explicitly suggesting more of a balancing act between factors even while implicitly championing ingenuity greatly over other factors.

Then let me offer this hypothetical ... suppose you own a great deal of property containing a buried resource no one has yet any use for. I know of this material and have developed a way to extract vast amounts of useful energy from it -- the only cost to me (once in possession of it) is refining it to some purity level after which it becomes useful. Now ... it's been there in the ground for millennia, and you know nothing of it or its potential -- as does no one else. I somehow find out you are in possession of it and offer you well over a lifetime's income for your property -- you have now become wealthy, yet absolutely no work or effort has been done by you. By what means did you acquire this wealth if not by someone's "smarts"?

The problem is that in practice this tends to work the other way around. That is, those with success and power (and the culture that celebrates them) tend to assume that they must have succeeded almost exclusively -- at least in terms of what allowed them to win when others lost -- through "ingenuity" or "smarts". It's a glorification that tends to simplify the means of generating wealth by, IMHO, arbitrarily separating wealth production from any factors we tend to find morally questionable.

Not at all true in my example above -- and I've got news for you, it's very real world.

For example, a lot of power and wealth throughout history has been obtained at the end of a sword. Not just through outright theft, but from the clear use of strength to gain advantage over the rest of the group (say, when a warlord captures his enemies and puts them to work as slaves).

These conquests are not just done on some lazy summer afternoon. They require much thought and strategy -- and must have an ends to them that are worth the risk taken by the conquerors. I'm sure there are more smarts than raw power in these events than you are giving them. Ever hear of Archimedes?

Now, by using the definition you and BPSCG champion we would conclude that all such morally reprehensible (at least by common modern standards) behaviors did not themselves create wealth, but rather the clever and skillful direction of slave labor. See how that removes any possible moral/ethical taint from wealth creation by neatly -- and quite conveniently -- spliting offf the ideas behind its production from the means of doing so?

No, I make no such claim -- good plans can be despicable and diabolical as well as strategically clever and successful. Just look at 9-11.

The fact that one can do this for every possible case -- that is, no matter the circumstance "wealth creation" remains unblemished -- is highly suspicious. This sort of "Heads I win, Tails you lose" reasoning is a common trait of ideologies. But, you and BPSCG aren't offering this point as a matter of ideology, but economic truth. That where it becomes suspicious -- it's too good to be true. Add in the arbitrary nature of your distinction and I just don't see how it works. It looks a lot like ideology trying to disguise itself as fact.

I've already now given you a classic example of how wealth can be generated for some using 100% smarts. There are many people that sell ideas and become successful doing little else -- some even work their lives in Think-Tanks.

How do Mozart's efforts mean anything if you take out any of those three? All of them are necessary to make his music real in an everyday sense. Take away any single one and it ceases to effectively exist (at least as a piece of music we enjoy and value).

Some can appreciate Mozart's beauty just by looking at the score -- some by hearing it and others by exploring its musicality through discussion. So no, it doesn't take all three to make his music any more real, because it still exists even when no one is playing it. And it first came to exist when Mozart created it in his mind.

The Atheist

14th June 2007, 09:39 PM

Because folks like you and me think these stories through -- many do not.

Correct. Those are the people I class as "drones". Too stupid and lacking initiative to even ask the most basic questions. There is no excuse, beyond wilful ignorance, to not have a grasp of these basic facts.

A good many people don't even know the celestial mechanisms that cause the seasons. Does that make them idiots? I'll bet a good number of qualified doctors, lawyers, musicians, fire-fighters, non-science teachers, business owners, CEO's and the like can't explain it properly as well.

Well, I'm basing my opinion by what I see around me. I reckon that without exception, the first 50 people I could think of to phone up would give me fairly accurate answers on both the age of the earth and reasons for seasons.

And that's something that affects them throughout their life -- and you expect them to sit down and think through evolution?

Ah, but I'm not even asking them to think through evolution, I don't think a grasp of it is as important as understanding the weather, myself, but I was talking about the 66% of people who believe that god created humans <10,000 years ago. There's a big difference between understanding a process which has taken us 10,000 years to begin to understand and one which can be dismissed in seconds by actual evidence. Wilful ignorance again.

I'd say that's hardly a namby-pamby, nothing observation. Trust me on this -- the folks on this forum (and those who peek in now and then) do not represent the majority of the human population. The same is true for those of us that work in the science and mathematics disciplines.

No, they certainly don't, but I post at forums where there is far more cross-section of society involved and I constantly find that YECs are totally aware of evolution's claims and methods of dating the earth and its fossils, yet they choose to ignore it. An excellent example is at the Literature Network Forum. You'd expect "bookish" types to be a little more up to date than the general proletariat? A poll which ran there for several months and attracted a wide vote showed 60-40 acceptance of evolution over creation. That would gel quite nicely with the wider public being the other way around - the bookworms are a little smarter and little less likely to believe creationism.

I conversed with many of the YEC/ID propnents and each and every one knows all about the Theory of Evolution, yet they discount it as scientific fraud - leaving out the minor detail that two million scientists are involved in the fraud while two scientists are telling the truth.

There's no lack of knowledge here, it's lack of brains.

I think you're being far kinder to them than they deserve.

It might surprise you as to how many students today give a rat's tail-end about math and science -- as a former science/math instructor I can tell you it's not many.

I have two sixteen-year old dependents. No news to me! :bgrin:

Just because one doesn't care to fully understand A doesn't mean they're an idiot regarding B.

Not as an axiom, no, but frequently enough that I don't get too excited about any other opinions these people have. If people can just blithely ignore 200 years of scientific fact because it doesn't fit their agenda of creationism, they aren't worth my time.

Darth Rotor

14th June 2007, 11:22 PM

Does any of this mean anything? Only I'm pretty sure that I didn't just "leap over a toadstool".

One of the differences between science and pseudoscience is that science doesn't involve making up crazy stuff about people you disagree with as a substitute for debating their actual opinions.
Dr A: Please bring back your "A" game.

I miss it.

DR

articulett

16th June 2007, 09:52 PM

"Understand evolution"?

Accept evolution?

I accept evolution just like I accept gravity. Of course both are factual whether I accept them or understand them or "believe" in them.

Scientists accept evolution. I "believe" that is the correct terminology and the question should have been presented as such.

mijopaalmc

16th June 2007, 10:05 PM

Accept evolution?

As your Lord and personal Savior?:p

In all seriousness, I do think that there is alway going to be a problem with whatever word you choose, but I do agree that "accept" is better that "believe" when referencing a scientific concept with respect to theistic beliefs.

BPSCG

18th June 2007, 08:06 AM

Found this interesting (http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/):
Opposition to Darwinian explanations of human nature is rooted primarily in the idea of the "transcendental self"--the idea that human beings have some psychic or spiritual capacity that sets them apart from and above the rest of nature. Against this idea, Darwinian science explains human beings as fully within the order of nature and thus at home in the universe.

The transcendentalist rejection of Darwinism can be either religious or secular. Religious transcendentalism affirms the uniqueness of human beings as created in God's image and thus set above the rest of creation. Secular transcendentalism affirms the uniqueness of human beings as having the capacity through reason or culture to create themselves as belonging to a realm of freedom beyond the realm of natural causality. Religious conservatives often adopt the first form of transcendentalism. Secular liberals often adopt the second.
And this (http://www.darwincentral.org/blog/about/):

Regarding the alleged social consequences of the theory of evolution, we recognize that it has, at various times, been blamed for virtually all of the ills of society, including communism, fascism, racism, and eugenics — notwithstanding that such evils existed long before Darwin, and notwithstanding Stalin’s persecution of biologists who accepted evolution. It has also been said to be the basis for “ruthless laissez-faire capitalism (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=454)“.
We regard all such allegations to be essentially baseless, and even if such claims were true, it would not affect the scientific validity of the theory.

The authors of this blog, and its affiliated website (http://www.darwincentral.org/), are conservatives (in the American sense of the term). We suspect that a great many in the scientific community are conservatives also, so they should feel especially welcome here. There is nothing socialistic, communistic, fascistic, or atheistic about science.

One of the great un-exploded myths of the 20th century is that the political left is the natural home of intellectuals. While that may be true for a certain kind of intellectual, we do not believe it to be true of scientists.
Science is one of the precious few examples of rationality in human experience. It appeals to the conservative mind for the same reasons that free enterprise does — it is reality-based, it focuses on what works, it rejects failed concepts, and it produces results. Like free enterprise, science will flourish where there is a minimum of governmental interference; it will wither and die in any kind of tyranny, including a theocracy.