Intelligent Design

Educated Incapacity

Spread the love

On another forum, a colleague used this term to describe the phenomenon I illucidated in the final sentence of my post there. (I’ve reproduced the content of that post below as a blockquote.)

My comment was in reference to the widely circulated article, Naked Chimp Reminds Us of Ourselves.

The article begins with: “It’s been said that humans are just naked apes. And if you don’t think that’s true, just take a look at Guru, a hairless 20-year-old chimpanzee…”

Humans are much more than naked apes. Let me count the ways (with apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning):

Agriculture, houses, indoor plumbing, books, symphonies, cars, airplanes, philosophy, churches, hospitals, high-blood-pressure medication, nuclear reactors, magnetic resonance imaging, rockets, parachutes, supersonic aircraft, computer programs that play chess, telephones, e-mail, light bulbs…

Yes, indeed — all the evidence points to the fact that humans are qualitatively nothing more than chimpanzees with less body hair.

Apparently one needs many years of academic training, and preferably a Ph.D. from a prestigious university, in order to be so stupid as to believe this.

I suggest that the near universal acceptance of Darwinian orthodoxy in academia (random errors filtered by natural selection in a step-by-tiny-step process that explains all of biology) is a prime example of Educated Incapacity.

11 Replies to “Educated Incapacity

  1. 1
    Genruk says:

    I love how people point to their Blackberries and such in an effort to distance themselves from their genetic origins. It’s like a spider pointing to its web in an effort to disinherit its relations to other arachnids such as ticks and other “lesser” eight legged critters.

  2. 2
    Muramasa says:

    So, before our ancestors invented all those cool things, they weren’t human?

  3. 3
    Granville Sewell says:

    The fact that they had the “capacity” to do such things shows they were very different from apes, obviously.

  4. 4
    molch says:

    Our ancestors had the “capacity” to do all this stuff? Wow – so, why weren’t they doing it?
    Makes you wonder whether apes have all sorts of “capacities” for all sorts of wonderful stuff, and they are just waiting for the right time to bring it out, like our ancestors were?

  5. 5
    Borne says:

    Good one Gil.

    I like to point out to Darwinists and atheists their inability to reason correctly.

    Its a ubiquitous phenomena and any one that has had to debate with such, on the basis of logic and facts alone (no bible), knows it.

    I have a theory on this.
    Goes like this: when a person accepts various contradictory ideas into their minds, this creates what we call cognitive dissonance.

    Cognitive dissonance :

    A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one’s beliefs and one’s actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat.
    – an uncomfortable mental state resulting from conflicting cognitions; usually resolved by changing some of the cognitions

    Now, seeing how both atheists and Darwinists oblige themselves to accept as true, things that are clearly not true, they must live in a state of constant CD.

    Then, once illogical concepts have been received into the brain as true, something (I don’t know what yet) short circuits in part of their brains logic and reasoning control areas.

    This creates a mental blockage that then continues to short circuit their mind’s ability to see through the conflicting data.

    Thus all atheists and Darwinists (and no doubt with other belief systems) have an recurring error in their the logic circuits of their brains that they are both unaware of and yet responsible for.

    It is this neurological condition of acute cognitive dissonance that inhibits them from seeing how stupid the things they believe really are.

    That’s why, on all these forums, academia, etc. so few of them ever come to truth and why they seem unable to comprehend some of the most simple arguments against them.

    For ex. S. Hawking, an otherwise brilliant scientist, can come up with utter nonsense claims like nothing creating everything.

    A claim so visibly absurd that a child can see its nonsensical nature – yet many highly educated persons cannot. Specifically those that have this acute CD because of their insistent acceptance of contradictory concepts.

    Just this while debating some atheist clowns I was presented the “universe create itself out of nothing” argument.

    When I attempted to point out that the potential energy of nothing is nothing, I was chided for “bumbling” science and not understanding quantum physics!!
    The Copenhagen interpretation of course, not the De Broglie–Bohm theory -which of course they never heard of because atheist web sites avoid mentioning it. 😉

    Hoyle, himself an atheist, said that Darwinians are “mentally ill” :

    new believers became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology

    I now believe he was right, not just as a snidely comment on foolish Darwinists, but neurologically correct. Something goes wrong with the human brain when lies and contradictory statements are accepted as true.

    Amazingly, this was stated – in far different terms but still the same outcome – almost 2000 years ago by the apostle Paul, “if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel”

    And again,

    “They knew all the time that there is a God, yet they refused to acknowledge him as such, or to thank him for what he is or does. Thus they became fatuous in their argumentations, and plunged their silly minds still further into the dark.
    Behind a facade of ‘wisdom’ they became just fools

  6. 6
    molch says:

    “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel”

    Wow, what a nice guy!

  7. 7
    GilDodgen says:

    By the way, the term “educated incapacity” is originally attributed to Herman Kahn:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Kahn

  8. 8
    ciphertext says:

    Wow, what a nice guy!

    The relative truth of that statement depends upon which “side” of the divide you reside.

  9. 9
    GilDodgen says:

    Our ancestors had the “capacity” to do all this stuff? Wow – so, why weren’t they doing it?

    Human civilization has acquired and passed on much wisdom and knowledge, that is used by each generation to do more with what has been cumulatively learned.

    The insight, creativity, and skill required to invent and produce the first bow and arrow was probably on the same order of magnitude as the insight, creativity, and skill required to invent and produce the first airplane, but the Wright Brothers had the advantage of being able to draw upon the aerodynamics research of Otto Lilienthal, their practical experience as bicycle mechanics, and their knowledge concerning internal-combustion engines, which enabled them to design and produce an engine with a sufficient power-to-weight ratio for their project.

    Chimpanzees are still picking up ants with sticks — the summit of chimp technology after millions of years.

    Were I to be transported back to pre-bow-and-arrow times, and stripped of my current knowledge, I doubt that I would be smart enough to figure it out.

    There were undoubtedly some very clever cave dwellers, much more intelligent than I, who figured out some really cool, cutting-edge technology, given what they had to work with.

  10. 10
    Borne says:

    molch

    Wow, what a nice guy!

    Fyi, the “god of this age” in that text refers to Satan.
    No, he is not a “nice guy”.

  11. 11
    cngiff says:

    Gil: Your comment (& subseq.)hit the bullseye.
    By now, everyone ought to realize that 1) academia refuses any honest reflection &/or debate, &
    2) the general public still looks to academia for answers to any “Science” questions, therefore:
    3) to be viable, any campaign to get rid of bad science should begin by
    de-canonizing academia.
    For example: “Foucault’s Pendulum” is perhaps the most conspicuous and impressive academic icon. It is also perhaps the easiest bit of bad science to demonstrate to the general public. In museums and science halls everywhere, Foucault Pendulum exhibits symbolize the superiority of the academic mind.
    So why not turn every one of those exhibits into permanent symbols of how pin-headed hypocrites once hijacked all Earth Sciences.
    (Anyone who ASSUMES the bona fides of Foucault’s Pendulum deserves what he gets.) 2 of Foucault’s most obvious fatal flaws are recapped on:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxBKqZWY818

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5bdAQvVeew

    cngiff

Leave a Reply