this is a response to a response to this:
“From what your argument seems to be, until THEY won’t shift their reality, neither will you.”
Explain to me how you have a meaningful conversation with someone who willfully doesn’t care what reality is? I realize that extreme diplomacy has it’s place, but how much do I have to sugar-coat explaining that well-funded organizations (some of which are making tons of money) are misusing the trust they have earned by no other means than identifying with a particular religious movement(s), are willfully lying in a systematic and calculated way to a large group of people who simply don’t have the scientific background to understand that they are being lied to? No, I don’t respect that – in the same way I don’t respect HIV denial, germ theory denial, homeopathy, chelation therapy for autism, hollow earth theory and holocaust denial – because some of those come with a pretty damned big body count. If we could just make our own realities where stuff worked a completely different way, I could totally respect other people’s reality – but that’s now how the universe functions.
Sorry, but I respect people too much to pretend that all opinions are equal and not to call out liars. Unless there was anything in my several posts that you didn’t understand due to being blunt – where is the communication problem? Yeah, I realize, it’s not nice to realize that you’ve been duped and that the people you thought you could trust because of the community you identify with have led you to put stock in stances that are, in the light of observation and documentation, simply untrue or good old fashioned dangerous (as in, making decisions that cause people, like 330,000 HIV positive adults and 30,000 HIV babies in South Africa, to suffer and die needlessly). Satire and ridicule can be polarizing, but at some point they do have their place.
The stork theory is not a good analogy – really. A better one is flat earth, the moon being luminescent, and the geo-centric/celestial sphere model since all of those have, at one time, been supported by religious institutions even when new evidence clearly showed us that they were flawed. I have shown students a flat-earth website – and allowed them to laugh and ridicule the ideas there because they always naturally do – and I refer back to how they felt about that website when I explain some of the stances of YEC and ID.
Why did you think flat-earth was silly? – Well, because we know about gravity and we’ve seen pictures of the earth from space. We know that planes and boats can circumnavigate the earth.
If people didn’t have the evidence in front of them, would it make sense that the earth is flat? Are there some observations that support a flat earth? Could a reasonable person believe that? – Well, yeah, I guess.
How do you think biologists feel when people say things that are starkly contrary to the evidence that they are familiar with and the mechanisms that they see everyday, such as dinosaurs and humans living together, the absence of beneficial mutations or the earth being 6,000 years old?
Yeah, it’s sort of like that.