Which alternative science group is the most harmful?

[John Dibble]

Evolution is the alternative science not Creation science.

Yeah... not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support

Creation science isn't really even science, much less the alternative science. You can't just start with an idea and then throw out any evidence that doesn't match your idea - that's not how science works - and yet that's what creation "scientists" do.

[angus]

Since it is somehow fair game to compare holocaust deniers to climate change skeptics.....then it must be said that climate change proponents are only pushing their beliefs to kill poor people in poor countries!

Actually, I do think the proponents recognize it as a chance for more Lebensraum.  Where do people like to live?  Here's a hint:  the population density of places like Canada, Siberia, Alaska, and Antarctica are very low.  A five-degree increase in temperature would increase our habitat.  T. Rex doesn't know what a glacier is, because they didn't exist in the Mesozoic Era, but I bet he'd agree that it seems like a pretty crummy place to live if he ever saw one.

Global Warming = more habitat range.  Yay for Lebensraum!

[traininthedistance]

Since it is somehow fair game to compare holocaust deniers to climate change skeptics.....then it must be said that climate change proponents are only pushing their beliefs to kill poor people in poor countries!

What a stinking load of absolute codswallop.  Considering that the first and hardest-hit victims of climate change are going to be the poor people in places like Bangladesh and the Pacific Islands who will see their living space literally washed out to sea... I think it's fair to say that the exact opposite is true.

And, in any case, virtually every policy I've seen to fight climate change (save, perhaps, some of the more extreme geoengineering proposals) would be a good idea for the future of humanity anyway.  For example, even if CO2 wasn't an issue, we'd need to make a concerted effort to build an economy and infrastructure not dependent on oil and other fossil fuels, because oil is a limited resource (and things like burning coal cause immense health problems, besides).  We'd need to aggressively promote birth control because available arable land is shrinking rapidly and overfarming is leading to desertification in places.  Etc. etc. etc.  95 percent of the time, trying to forestall the consequences of global warming merely heightens the urgency of what we need to be doing anyway.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The problem is that the predictions you cite in your post are far from a certainty, especially in light of new science that could lead to a lowering of predictions of warming.

And I still think the impoverished would be better served by getting them the infrastructure they need to succeed... and yes... that will include some "dirty" energy.  I'd shy away from coal... but natural gas, for example, is a relatively clean fuel.

At the moment, governments are ignoring climate change or are refusing to bail out failed climate change initiatives like the carbon trading scheme in Europe.  And European governments are on the verge of reversing renewable energy commitments so they can keep their economies growing.

This all stems from a lack of urgency due to a lack of warming.  You can keep pushing the coming warming back and back... but people are beginning to think it's just simply not coming at all.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Evolution is the alternative science not Creation science.

face meet palm. 

Creationists, of course.  It's the most pervasive.  Humanity will achieve so much more when we stop believing we are special. 

     I would agree with this. When 40% of people think that the Earth is 6,000 years old, you know that we're all in trouble.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Regardless what you think about global warming, creationists have no affect on the world what so ever. We are here, and that is all what matters. I find the inclusion of creationists in this thread as offensive.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I find the inclusion of creationists in this thread as offensive.

Really?

[RI]

Yeah, I think creationists are wrong, but what harm do they do?

[Donerail]

Yeah, I think creationists are wrong, but what harm do they do?

Education?

[Sbane]

Since it is somehow fair game to compare holocaust deniers to climate change skeptics.....then it must be said that climate change proponents are only pushing their beliefs to kill poor people in poor countries!

What a stinking load of absolute codswallop.  Considering that the first and hardest-hit victims of climate change are going to be the poor people in places like Bangladesh and the Pacific Islands who will see their living space literally washed out to sea... I think it's fair to say that the exact opposite is true.

And, in any case, virtually every policy I've seen to fight climate change (save, perhaps, some of the more extreme geoengineering proposals) would be a good idea for the future of humanity anyway.  For example, even if CO2 wasn't an issue, we'd need to make a concerted effort to build an economy and infrastructure not dependent on oil and other fossil fuels, because oil is a limited resource (and things like burning coal cause immense health problems, besides).  We'd need to aggressively promote birth control because available arable land is shrinking rapidly and overfarming is leading to desertification in places.  Etc. etc. etc.  95 percent of the time, trying to forestall the consequences of global warming merely heightens the urgency of what we need to be doing anyway.

The fact of the matter is that if global warming were such a big deal, and we needed to curtail our carbon emissions to even a moderate extent, it would hurt poorer, faster growing countries more than stagnating places like Europe. Would Europe be willing to cut their emissions by 30-40% so that India, China, and yes, Bangladesh could catch up somewhat to their standard of living? Europe wouldn't be willing to do that. It is absolutely a fact that real changes to combat global warming would hurt poor countries way more than rich countries, unless the rich countries agree to curtail and reverse their carbon emissions to a much, much greater degree.

Of course, I don't really think either rich or poor countries need to worry too much about carbon emission. They should focus on things like switching from fuel sources that will go extinct within the next 50 years to newer sources of energy, including renewable and nuclear energy. Those in poorer countries should focus more on their environment and how to curtail pollution (and I don't mean carbon) and keep their water clean. They also need to tackle things like birth rates and desertification. Those are all great things to do, but crucifying themselves upon a cross of carbon is not a good idea.

It's not completely fair to say that global warming alarmists are motivated by screwing over poor countries, but is it really fair to compare global warming skepticism to holocaust denial?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Yeah, I think creationists are wrong, but what harm do they do?

Education?

Education? You mean private Christian schools? Private schools have the right to teach what they want, and should go unmolested.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, I think creationists are wrong, but what harm do they do?

Education?

Education? You mean private Christian schools? Private schools have the right to teach what they want, and should go unmolested.

Ah, the Glorious and Very Essential Freedom of Ignorance...

[RI]

Yeah, I think creationists are wrong, but what harm do they do?

Education?

Even in the worst case scenario, where evolution was not taught in public schools and only YEC was, what real impact would it have on anything?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Evolution is the alternative science not Creation science.

Nope.  Sorry bud, the fossil record kind of disproves you on this one.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Yeah, I think creationists are wrong, but what harm do they do?

Education?

Even in the worst case scenario, where evolution was not taught in public schools and only YEC was, what real impact would it have on anything?

Stupid children?

[jpj1421]

Yeah, I think creationists are wrong, but what harm do they do?

Education?

Even in the worst case scenario, where evolution was not taught in public schools and only YEC was, what real impact would it have on anything?

Stupid children?

An entire generation of scientifically illiterate children?  The continued refusal to accept scientific consensus?

[dead0man]

Obviously the GM haters are by FAR the most harmful as we can actual point at the many many thousands, potentially millions of deaths they have already caused.  The three options here have murdered minimal people.

[RI]

Yeah, I think creationists are wrong, but what harm do they do?

Education?

Even in the worst case scenario, where evolution was not taught in public schools and only YEC was, what real impact would it have on anything?

Stupid children?

An entire generation of scientifically illiterate children?  The continued refusal to accept scientific consensus?

Which effects what? Evolution is one branch of one field of science, and it is one that is not pertinent to the lives of any non-scientist. There are no policies "based" on evolution, in fact, attempts to do so have been disastrous. Besides, anyone would still be able to learn it in college if it's really that important.

My point is that the evolution-creationism "debate" is exceedingly unimportant beyond the scientific community.

[DC Al Fine]

Obviously the GM haters are by FAR the most harmful as we can actual point at the many many thousands, potentially millions of deaths they have already caused.  The three options here have murdered minimal people.

I'm pretty sure there are some 90-something holocaust deniers puttering around in Argentina who have killed people.

[Antonio the Sixth]

My point is that the evolution-creationism "debate" is exceedingly unimportant beyond the scientific community.

The scientific community is probably the place where the "debate" is the most unimportant...

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Yeah, I think creationists are wrong, but what harm do they do?

Education?

Even in the worst case scenario, where evolution was not taught in public schools and only YEC was, what real impact would it have on anything?

Stupid children?

An entire generation of scientifically illiterate children?  The continued refusal to accept scientific consensus?

The idea that a "continued refusal to accept scientific consensus" is in itself a bad thing shows just how scientifically illiterate people can be. 

Really, there are plenty of kids who have never learned a thing about creationism whose knowledge of evolutionary processes are mostly informed by Pikachu.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Yeah, I think creationists are wrong, but what harm do they do?

Education?

Even in the worst case scenario, where evolution was not taught in public schools and only YEC was, what real impact would it have on anything?

Stupid children?

An entire generation of scientifically illiterate children?  The continued refusal to accept scientific consensus?

The idea that a "continued refusal to accept scientific consensus" is in itself a bad thing shows just how scientifically illiterate people can be. 

Really, there are plenty of kids who have never learned a thing about creationism whose knowledge of evolutionary processes are mostly informed by Pikachu.

Pikachu isn't being taught in schools.

[RI]

My point is that the evolution-creationism "debate" is exceedingly unimportant beyond the scientific community.

The scientific community is probably the place where the "debate" is the most unimportant...

Well yeah, but that's something of an overly narrow view on what I meant by the statement.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Yeah, I think creationists are wrong, but what harm do they do?

Education?

Even in the worst case scenario, where evolution was not taught in public schools and only YEC was, what real impact would it have on anything?

Stupid children?

An entire generation of scientifically illiterate children?  The continued refusal to accept scientific consensus?

The idea that a "continued refusal to accept scientific consensus" is in itself a bad thing shows just how scientifically illiterate people can be. 

     There is a context in which that refusal is appropriate and a context in which it is not. When that refusal is rooted in a strong desire to believe that Genesis 1-6 is historically accurate rather than in any application of the scientific method, it approaches the scientific discourse in bad faith and ultimately undermines it.

[Ban my account ffs!]

First thing you learn in Philosophy 101... you can neither use religion nor science to prove or disprove the other.

Religion is inherently based on faith... science on observable fact.

People who would try to use lack of evidence of God in science to prove there is no God don't understand this distinction and shouldn't be taken seriously.  If they are atheists, then they have faith that there is no God.. or they admit they would need observable evidence of God in order to reconsider.  It is still a question of faith in the big unknown.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.. or vice versa.