Ignorance about evolution no longer a valid excuse for creationists

[Warren Clark]

586 books relevant to evolution, plus many, many more for a host of other science subjects, are now free to read on line.

"The National Academies Press Makes All PDF Books Free to Download;
More Than 4,000 Titles Now Available Free to All Readers
​

Sweetness!!!! There is my summer reading!
Do they have something for the nook? HEHE

 

[Warren Clark]

Which is fine. We all put faith in things. Just about every day I put faith in my car's brakes to stop it, because I have no science to tell me they will.

Actually you have faith in your brakes due to probability.
(Probabilty is a mathematical science)
If you have used brakes on a car before and they worked, you are more likely to make the choice to use them.
I bet if they didn't work all that often you wouldn't trust or "have faith" that they would work.
You wouldn't have as much "faith" in a car that is run down and has twice as many miles.
Logically you would have it checked out.

Just as I have "faith" in whatever chair I sit in will hold me up.
This is because most chairs that I sit in do support my weight.
Logically I will not sit in a smaller less sturdy looking chair.
(As in the preschool plastic chairs)

We got the theory of gravity from probability.
We say there is gravity because 99% of the time, if I let go of a paperclip it will fall to the nearest surface more dense than that of the paper clip.

 

[Android]

Brakes can also be observed and tested.

 

[McBell]

Hmmm....methinks I've seen this before. How long before Astrid tells us "It's all woffle"?

EDIT: Even the misuse of the quote function is the exact same! Ok NewHope, why are you back under a different name?

And here I was going to wait until they could post links and see if the same technique was used...

But yes, I suspect that it is Newhope under a new name.

 

[Thief]

As I have already stated, Safarti is a chemist and Sanford is a horticulturist however, their support of Behe's (biochemistry) and Demski's (mathematician) thoroughly discredited argument of Irreducible Complexity hardly speaks well of their overall common sense.

These four scientist, who are not credentialed biologists, are what I like to call "Intentionally Ignorant".
They have the information, but choose to ignore it it favor of religious dogma.

And Man was created intelligently ignorant.

Back to Genesis...and that tree of knowledge.

 

[Astrid000]

And here I was going to wait until they could post links and see if the same technique was used...

But yes, I suspect that it is Newhope under a new name.

Who is Newhope?

 

[Astrid000]

And Man was created intelligently ignorant.

Back to Genesis...and that tree of knowledge.

Are you a man?

 

[Astrid000]

Actually you have faith in your brakes due to probability.
(Probabilty is a mathematical science)
If you have used brakes on a car before and they worked, you are more likely to make the choice to use them.
I bet if they didn't work all that often you wouldn't trust or "have faith" that they would work.
You wouldn't have as much "faith" in a car that is run down and has twice as many miles.
Logically you would have it checked out.

Just as I have "faith" in whatever chair I sit in will hold me up.
This is because most chairs that I sit in do support my weight.
Logically I will not sit in a smaller less sturdy looking chair.
(As in the preschool plastic chairs)

We got the theory of gravity from probability.
We say there is gravity because 99% of the time, if I let go of a paperclip it will fall to the nearest surface more dense than that of the paper clip.

Yeah and the complete theory of gravity did not get chucked out because of the quantum mechanics,,and I do not think these researchers are ignorant because they do not know everything.

Yet here creationists are being made fun of. I am neither here nor there and yet I do not make fun of my creationist friends and they most certainly are not ignorant. I am also not ignorant in that I can accept that people have a right to choose.

Many people believe in evolution because they just do. The same for creationists. I am not that into myself that I truly believe that everyone that does not think the same as I are less of a person than I am, nor has any less right to believe what they want without prudjudice.

I think that is why when I first joined and stumbled on this thread I thought I'd comment.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yeah and the complete theory of gravity did not get chucked out because of the quantum mechanics,,and I do not think these researchers are ignorant because they do not know everything.

Yet here creationists are being made fun of. I am neither here nor there and yet I do not make fun of my creationist friends and they most certainly are not ignorant. I am also not ignorant in that I can accept that people have a right to choose.

But they do not have a right to choose what is fact and what is not.

Many people believe in evolution because they just do. The same for creationists. I am not that into myself that I truly believe that everyone that does not think the same as I are less of a person than I am, nor has any less right to believe what they want without prudjudice.

I think that is why when I first joined and stumbled on this thread I thought I'd comment.

Simple question: if someone told you the earth was flat, would you consider them ignorant?

This isn't just a question about beliefs. It's about what is true. Evolution is an established fact, and to deny that fact is no different to claiming the earth is flat. The only cause of this is ignorance, willful or otherwise.

 

[Astrid000]

Brakes can also be observed and tested.

And if you are not happy with your brakes after they have been tested I suppose one has no leave to complain as the test has been done satisfactorily by those that know.

If I wasn't happy with my brakes because they were still grinding, I'd still go elsewhere.

 

[tumbleweed41]

And Man was created intelligently ignorant.

Back to Genesis...and that tree of knowledge.

Yes Thief, we are all, (well, most of us), aware of your ontological arguments and reliance on Genesis.

However, the subject here is whether or not ignorance, intentional or otherwise, is a valid excuse for Biblical Creationism.

And whether or not someone can find 10 qualified and accredited biologists and their peer reviewed publications that propose a valid scientific argument for an alternative to biological evolution.

 

[ellenjanuary]

What excuse? Creationism happens. Intelligence evolves. Something is learnt, or perhaps we're all burnt. But they're just "environmental mutation to challenge species fitness" in my book... I really can't even work up the stress no mo'

 

[tumbleweed41]

What excuse? Creationism happens.

Is that a belief?
Or an observed scientific fact?

 

[Astrid000]

But they do not have a right to choose what is fact and what is not.

So are the evolutionary researchers that propose the multiregional approach ignorant also because they do not accept the fact of the out of Africa theorists. I would say not. They have access to the same knowledge, are just as well credentialed yet do not accept out of Africa support. Are they also ignorant?

Simple question: if someone told you the earth was flat, would you consider them ignorant?
Yes because the earth being round is no longer theoretical. I think the comparison you are trying to make is a little out there. Do people living in tribal communities learn about evolution or a circular earth? I do not know. Ignorant means to not be aware of the facts and is meant as an insult. Rather I would describe such people as unknowledgeable in the sciences. However creationists scientists are educated and learned and I would not be so rude as to describe them as ignorant, because they can expalin the reasons for their disbelief.

This isn't just a question about beliefs. It's about what is true. Evolution is an established fact, and to deny that fact is no different to claiming the earth is flat. The only cause of this is ignorance, willful or otherwise.

No I think you chid yourself to stick to this line. A lot of stuff changes what from I have learned at school and from what my creationist friends have told me. I can see why they may not want to believe in evolution.

If I asked an evolutionist out on the street, just the average Joe, they likely would say they believe in evolution for no other reason than that is what the majority of scientists say is true and that is what they were taught at school. Many cannot explain why, they just do. Does that mean the average evolutionists that cannot defend evolution is any less ignorant than a creationist that can explain why they disagree with evolution? I do not think so, you know. I think it is a cheap shot at a minority group and that it is shameful to allude to every single creationist, scientists included, as being ignorant.

Besides how many people are geneticists? How many people are biologists? These are the ones with the finger on the pulse and there are scientists that do not accept evolution and they are not ignorant as they can articulate the reasons for their belief. This is very different to the ignorance displayed in saying the earth is flat or round because it just is, because I was told so and I believe.

I think a form of ignorance is to blindly believe, in which case there are many ignorant evolutionists out there also as the best they will have as their reason is 'because they said so'. That is also ignorance, don't you think.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So are the evolutionary researchers that propose the multiregional approach ignorant also because they do not accept the fact of the out of Africa theorists.

Not if they have good, scientific reasons to.

I would say not. They have access to the same knowledge, are just as well credentialed yet do not accept out of Africa support. Are they also ignorant?

We're not talking about two competing ideas with their own facts. We're talking about an established scientific fact being contested by religious doctrine. There's a difference between ongoing scientific debate on the specifics of certain theories and outright rejecting an established fact.

Yes because the earth being round is no longer theoretical.

Neither is evolution. We have already directly observed evolution leading to speciation.

I think the comparison you are trying to make is a little out there. Do people living in tribal communities learn about evolution or a circular earth? I do not know. Ignorant means to not be aware of the facts and is meant as an insult.

It can be used as one, but being ignorant in and of itself is not a personal flaw. We are all ignorant about a great many things without it being our fault, the only time it becomes a personal issue is when people defer to ignorance in order to dispute facts.

Rather I would describe such people as unknowledgeable in the sciences.

That means exactly the same thing as being ignorant in the sciences.

However creationists scientists are educated and learned and I would not be so rude as to describe them as ignorant, because they can expalin the reasons for their disbelief.

And those reasons are...?

No I think you chid yourself to stick to this line. A lot of stuff changes what from I have learned at school and from what my creationist friends have told me. I can see why they may not want to believe in evolution.

"Why" they don't is inconsequential. I could see why someone would want to believe the earth is flat, it doesn't make them any less ignorant.

If I asked an evolutionist out on the street, just the average Joe, they likely would say they believe in evolution for no other reason than that is what the majority of scientists say is true and that is what they were taught at school.

So? I'm sure I could ask some random people in the street how a tree grows, and though they don't know specifically how it does they still understand and accept the fact that trees do grow.

Many cannot explain why, they just do. Does that mean the average evolutionists that cannot defend evolution is any less ignorant than a creationist that can explain why they disagree with evolution?

I would say that people who don't understand the science or can't explain it have no business being in the debate, hence why the vast majority of creationists have no business in the debate.

I do not think so, you know. I think it is a cheap shot at a minority group and that it is shameful to allude to every single creationist, scientists included, as being ignorant.

But they are. There is no other reason to dismiss facts other than ignorance, willful or otherwise. You have yet to bring any facts to the table that suggest otherwise.

Besides how many people are geneticists? How many people are biologists? These are the ones with the finger on the pulse and there are scientists that do not accept evolution and they are not ignorant as they can articulate the reasons for their belief.

Again, just because they have reasons for not believing evolution doesn't mean they aren't ignorant. Also, can you present any names of credible scientists in a relevant field who reject evolution?

This is very different to the ignorance displayed in saying the earth is flat or round because it just is, because I was told so and I believe.

Except that there are people out there who can and do articulate their reasons for believing the earth is flat:

Flat Earth Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think a form of ignorance is to blindly believe, in which case there are many ignorant evolutionists out there also as the best they will have as their reason is 'because they said so'. That is also ignorance, don't you think.

Whether or not there are ignorant people who accept evolution is neither here nor there. The question is whether or not rejecting facts makes you ignorant, which by definition it does.

 

[Astrid000]

Is that a belief?
Or an observed scientific fact?

Wow finally post 15 I think...Woopie!

I think Ellenjanuary is onto something. If the process of evolution has created all of life today then creation is observed. The mechanisms are unresolved. Intelligence has highlighted how much we do not know.

Now let's see if I can find some peer reviewed creationist research.

I really should not need to. I respect the scientists that are creationists or evolutionists alike, but it is unlikely that creationists would get a fair hearing, is my expectation.

 

[fantome profane]

Wow finally post 15 I think...Woopie!

I think Ellenjanuary is onto something. If the process of evolution has created all of life today then creation is observed. The mechanisms are unresolved. Intelligence has highlighted how much we do not know.

Now let's see if I can find some peer reviewed creationist research.

I really should not need to. I respect the scientists that are creationists or evolutionists alike, but it is unlikely that creationists would get a fair hearing, is my expectation.

I hope you understand that when they ask for peer reviewed they mean reviewed by other credentialed scientists. They don’t mean written by creationists and reviewed by creationists.

I think you will find this challenge an interesting and enlightening one. Good luck.

 

[Warren Clark]

No I think you chid yourself to stick to this line. A lot of stuff changes what from I have learned at school and from what my creationist friends have told me. I can see why they may not want to believe in evolution.

If I asked an evolutionist out on the street, just the average Joe, they likely would say they believe in evolution for no other reason than that is what the majority of scientists say is true and that is what they were taught at school. Many cannot explain why, they just do. Does that mean the average evolutionists that cannot defend evolution is any less ignorant than a creationist that can explain why they disagree with evolution? I do not think so, you know. I think it is a cheap shot at a minority group and that it is shameful to allude to every single creationist, scientists included, as being ignorant.

Besides how many people are geneticists? How many people are biologists? These are the ones with the finger on the pulse and there are scientists that do not accept evolution and they are not ignorant as they can articulate the reasons for their belief. This is very different to the ignorance displayed in saying the earth is flat or round because it just is, because I was told so and I believe.

I think a form of ignorance is to blindly believe, in which case there are many ignorant evolutionists out there also as the best they will have as their reason is 'because they said so'. That is also ignorance, don't you think.

I think any one that tries to pose an arguement against either case with out being fully educated best have an open mind to learn.


I used to be a creationists.
I had no idea what carbon dating was.
I thought it was a computer scientists made.
Turned out it was an exact science.

But all through high school and my first year of college I was claiming the earth was young and evolution could not have happened.

Then Dawkins explained the blind watch maker and how it wasn't that we evolved from monkeys. It was that monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor.
I had an open mind and I was able to think logically outside of the Bible.
But a lot of Christians take the Bible as the truth, word for word.

So saying the earth is millions of years old would go through one ear and out the other because the Bible says differently.

However, unlike most Christians, I took responsibilty for my own illogical nonsense and my opinion changed and aligned with logic and reason.

This in the end had me drop the Bible from my life. Not as a bad thing but a wonderful enlightenment to the world around me.

Christians have their nose stuck in a book and they are blind to the real issues of the world. They expect there to be a God to solve their problems but they don't realize that humans are ultimately the cause of their own fate.


So when presented with young earth and creationism, logically, the defenders have every reason to be blamed for their own ignorance.
Its called taking responsibility for oneself.

I respect everyone of all religions. I understand that their religion may help them get through life or whatever.
But when it comes to discussing science and reason.
Leave your Bible at home because Logic and Reason are the only permisable attributes for exact science.

 

[Warren Clark]

This isn't just a question about beliefs. It's about what is true. Evolution is an established fact, and to deny that fact is no different to claiming the earth is flat. The only cause of this is ignorance, willful or otherwise.

As much as I agree with the rest of your statement.

Evolution is not a fact but a theory.
FACT: Evidence of the supported theory.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As much as I agree with the rest of your statement.

Evolution is not a fact but a theory.
FACT: Evidence of the supported theory.

Actually, it's both. Evolution, as in the change over time in allele frequency, is an observed fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation of how the fact occurs. It's exactly the same as gravity being an observed fact, while the theory of gravity is a factually supported explanation of that fact.