The Willful Ignorance of Creationism

[Astrophile]

The most amazing thing that Coyne admits is that so many "believe" in evolution without knowing what it is. Imagine! People will accept the truth of evolution without any real education about it.

The same statement is true about most of the sciences. For example, most people believe in the existence of atoms and of sub-atomic particles without understanding the evidence for their existence. Also, more importantly, it is the people who know most about biology who are most likely to accept that evolution is true; specifically, more than 99.8% of professional biologists accept the reality of evolution.

 

[Deeje]

The same statement is true about most of the sciences. For example, most people believe in the existence of atoms and of sub-atomic particles without understanding the evidence for their existence. Also, more importantly, it is the people who know most about biology who are most likely to accept that evolution is true; specifically, more than 99.8% of professional biologists accept the reality of evolution.

Is that statistic a surprise when the ones who teach evolutionary science in the hallowed halls of academia are all convinced that evolution is a foregone conclusion because their teachers before them passed on that same message....A child comes out of high school believing nothing else.....he goes onto university and it is all reinforced. No one would dare consider the alternative because it is all....well...."unscientific" to believe in supernatural things.

Peer pressure creates a bad environment for questioning because who in that situation would be the one to put their hand up and say..."that evidence is based on nothing but supposition......do we have any real proof for that?" They would be howled out of the classroom and accused of ignorance and not understanding the way science works. They would then be barraged with diagrams and scientific papers showing them how foolish it is to question the "experts".

I am not afraid to call them out and ask for the real evidence....one that doesn't require faith or belief. We Christians have a belief system and it is based on faith in what our teachers and the Bible tell us....the way I see it, evolutionists also have a belief system based on faith in what their teachers and their textbooks tell them. If neither of us has the proof, then there is a stalemate...not a checkmate.

 

[siti]

Peer pressure creates a bad environment for questioning because who in that situation would be the one to put their hand up and say..."that evidence is based on nothing but supposition......do we have any real proof for that?"

You're right! But when was the last time you did that in the Kingdom Hall? Even the Apostle Paul discouraged women from asking questions in the congregation. And you are actively discouraged from reading "apostate" literature - or even debating subjects like the one you are in here - I'm surprised you haven't been counseled about it before now - perhaps you have? Would you relate your RF experiences honestly in the congregation - tell the Brothers and Sisters you are discussing evolution online with a bunch of atheists, lapsed Witnesses and various other reprobates? I doubt it. I remember feeling guilty for perusing a book about the evolution of humans (which had been on my shelf from long before I was a JW) and then feeling stupid for feeling guilty about reading a book. All down to peer pressure. I followed the evidence alone and secretively for years because of peer pressure. Its only really in the last decade or so that I have managed to free myself from it so that I can believe what I actually believe and not what I have been told to believe. Peer pressure is a bad thing.

But peer review on the other hand - the writing committee could have done with a dose of that before they wrote classic WT openers like "Sniff, sniff, mmmm!" for example - I can still see the entire congregations shoulders rise and fall in unison as they fought (in vain in my case) to suppress their incredulous giggles and try hard to get the Chaplinesque image of some ancient fossil of an elder sitting down in Brooklyn to compose this gem of spiritual instruction which - aside from the comedic opening three onamatopeisms - nobody remembered at all by the close of that day.

Anyway, the point is this: peer review is the reason why 99.8% of professional biologists accept evolution - they have read evidence that has been reviewed by fellow scientists - peer pressure is the reason why a large proportion of Christians refuse to even examine the evidence presented by scientists and prefer to swallow the morsels of out of context sound-byte quotes spoon fed to them by their religious teachers.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Is that statistic a surprise when the ones who teach evolutionary science in the hallowed halls of academia are all convinced that evolution is a foregone conclusion because their teachers before them passed on that same message....A child comes out of high school believing nothing else.....he goes onto university and it is all reinforced. No one would dare consider the alternative because it is all....well...."unscientific" to believe in supernatural things.

the ... "alternative"? Name ONE (1) that has any actual evidence, experimental support or even a single fact.

We'll wait-- but not be holding our breaths.

 

[Deeje]

Anyway, the point is this: peer review is the reason why 99.8% of professional biologists accept evolution - they have read evidence that has been reviewed by fellow scientists.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

 

[ImmortalFlame]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

Do you have any actual evidence that peer review is flawed in relation to the evaluation of papers on evolutionary theory?

 

[Deeje]

Do you have any actual evidence that peer review is flawed in relation to the evaluation of papers on evolutionary theory?

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/02/problems_with_p/

 

[ImmortalFlame]

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/02/problems_with_p/

Once again, this is alleging problems with the peer-review process. The question was do you have any actual evidence that peer review is flawed in relation to the evaluation of papers regarding evolutionary theory?

In other words, can you produce clear-cut examples of papers on the subject of evolutionary theory that passed peer-review on unjust grounds, and how it is determined that the papers were flawed?

 

[Audie]

Is that statistic a surprise when the ones who teach evolutionary science in the hallowed halls of academia are all convinced that evolution is a foregone conclusion because their teachers before them passed on that same message....A child comes out of high school believing nothing else.....he goes onto university and it is all reinforced. No one would dare consider the alternative because it is all....well...."unscientific" to believe in supernatural things.

Peer pressure creates a bad environment for questioning because who in that situation would be the one to put their hand up and say..."that evidence is based on nothing but supposition......do we have any real proof for that?" They would be howled out of the classroom and accused of ignorance and not understanding the way science works. They would then be barraged with diagrams and scientific papers showing them how foolish it is to question the "experts".

I am not afraid to call them out and ask for the real evidence....one that doesn't require faith or belief. We Christians have a belief system and it is based on faith in what our teachers and the Bible tell us....the way I see it, evolutionists also have a belief system based on faith in what their teachers and their textbooks tell them. If neither of us has the proof, then there is a stalemate...not a checkmate.

Peer pressure creates a bad environment for questioning because who in that situation would be the one to put their hand up and say..."that evidence is based on nothing but supposition......do we have any real proof for that?

What JW would dare to to that? You? In front of all
those other JW?

I am not afraid to call them out and ask for the real evidence.

I dont beelleeeve you!

You may well have had "science" classes, other classes
where to question the teacher is no no. In China, one
does not stand up in class and do that.

Making a silly assertion like that "evidence for ToE
is based on nothing but supposition" would get you booed.
Why?
Because the statement is stupid and ignorant,-and
obviously agenda driven. A chick tract thing.

And just the most egregious sort of bald face falsehood
you could come up with.


Now me, I didnt go to the kind of school where you
cannot ask questions.. I was lucky;
simple. We had the money for it. So I learned to
and was encouraged to question things.

But how do you do it in class? Interrupt a lecture?
Not cool.
In a comparative vertebrate anatomy class, the
professor made a mistake in his description of
how the poison fangs of a snake work. After
class, I told him what his mistake was. AND
next lecture, he pointed to me and said, "Mn there
corrected me on how...and this is...".

That is real life.
I cant speak for high schools, let alone in the low
rent districts. Maybe students cant ask questions.

In university tho, there are for lower level classe
big lectures, you dont interrupt. But then they
have smaller groups, to go over the lecture material
and open it to questions.

the way I see it, evolutionists also have a belief system based on faith

The way you see it is a fantasy. And good ol' equivocation
on the word "faith". I do wish you creationists would stop
that it is so tiresome!

One has to rely on others to have done their bit.
Teams of others, really. You dont stick your head
in the cockpit of an airplane and ask if he has an
engine and remembered to put gas in it.

You want to compare your sacred faith in god
almighty to the faith you have that they put
gas in the airplane? Surely ;you are joking!
Such a debasement of a highest value in your
religion!

You cannot check on god. Heck, if you could,
what is faith? No better than the "faith" that
fire will burn you.

But, in science / airplanes, you CAN check, if you
feel you must, and, as noted elsewhere, if you
find and error, or a missing engine, why you can
win critical acclaim.

If others are too chicken to try, so much the worse.
I am not.

Faith in "god" is based on nothing, Vapourware.
Where shall I go to see some evidence? Nothing can
be checked, nothing can be cross referenced, no experiment
to try, nothing. ZERO, nada, no data, no evidence, nothing.

In fact, your "god" has all (100%) of the characteristics of
something that does not exist at all.

Now how about science. You want to go check?
Go ahead. You find something that was falsified, or
has no basis? Great! You will get a lot of respect for
your skill.

And if you find that one person made mistakes in his
ice core work in Antarctica, well, he did. Happens.

They are not all wrong. A million good data points
that all show the ice deeply predates any possible flood
are not invalidated by one person doing careless work
in one place at one time All the physics and chemistry and
electronics that go into dont all consistently fail and
give the same phony results.

Look at layers. Count them. They test condutvity and see
how each layer id different. Cont back to AD 79 and, lo, there
is ash from Vesuvias, (each volcano has ash as recognizable as
fingerprints) There is the spike in sulfuric acid. Radio carebon
says the same date. You figure every bit of that is wrong?


See, while it is impossible to check every source of data,
it is also unnecessary and pointless. ALL relevant data
is consistent with ToE. From chemistry, physics, geology,all branches of biology. Not datum point one in contradiction.

Vast world wide conspiracy? Some thinks so, others
have some sanity left.

Your notion that science and religion are some way
equivalent in based on faith is not only profoundly
inaccurate, but an insult to both.

You sure you want to do that?

 

[ChristineM]

Is that statistic a surprise when the ones who teach evolutionary science in the hallowed halls of academia are all convinced that evolution is a foregone conclusion because their teachers before them passed on that same message....A child comes out of high school believing nothing else.....he goes onto university and it is all reinforced. No one would dare consider the alternative because it is all....well...."unscientific" to believe in supernatural things.

Peer pressure creates a bad environment for questioning because who in that situation would be the one to put their hand up and say..."that evidence is based on nothing but supposition......do we have any real proof for that?" They would be howled out of the classroom and accused of ignorance and not understanding the way science works. They would then be barraged with diagrams and scientific papers showing them how foolish it is to question the "experts".

I am not afraid to call them out and ask for the real evidence....one that doesn't require faith or belief. We Christians have a belief system and it is based on faith in what our teachers and the Bible tell us....the way I see it, evolutionists also have a belief system based on faith in what their teachers and their textbooks tell them. If neither of us has the proof, then there is a stalemate...not a checkmate.

The reason evolution is accepted through academia, science and much of christianity is that despite your unsubstantiated claim of alternatives, given the evidence, some of which you have been shown and either ignore, deny, mock or dismiss out of hand without understanding that evidence.

Interesting, your use of "we christians" as though you talk for all christians. Fyi, the vast majority of christians accept evolution.

 

[Audie]

The reason evolution is accepted through academia, science and much of christianity is that despite your unsubstantiated claim of alternatives, given the evidence, some of which you have been shown and either ignore, deny, mock or dismiss out of hand without understanding that evidence.

Interesting, your use of "we christians" as though you talk for all christians. Fyi, the vast majority of christians accept evolution.

We did of course notice all the unsubstantiated, unverifiable assertions of facts not in evidence about what goes on in the hallowed halls never graced by her presence, and in the minds of people in their millions all around the world.

 

[Astrophile]

I have no interest in reading his book for the same reason I have no interest in watching any more of his videos. I watched them but not to hear "evidence" for evolution....I watch them for a whole range of reasons, one of which is to hear "what" he was saying and "how" he said it.

The most amazing thing that Coyne admits is that so many "believe" in evolution without knowing what it is. Imagine! People will accept the truth of evolution without any real education about it.
Coyne has to tell people" its more than a theory, but is true".

Is that statistic a surprise when the ones who teach evolutionary science in the hallowed halls of academia are all convinced that evolution is a foregone conclusion because their teachers before them passed on that same message....A child comes out of high school believing nothing else.....he goes onto university and it is all reinforced. No one would dare consider the alternative because it is all....well...."unscientific" to believe in supernatural things.

Peer pressure creates a bad environment for questioning because who in that situation would be the one to put their hand up and say..."that evidence is based on nothing but supposition......do we have any real proof for that?" They would be howled out of the classroom and accused of ignorance and not understanding the way science works. They would then be barraged with diagrams and scientific papers showing them how foolish it is to question the "experts".

I am not afraid to call them out and ask for the real evidence....one that doesn't require faith or belief. We Christians have a belief system and it is based on faith in what our teachers and the Bible tell us....the way I see it, evolutionists also have a belief system based on faith in what their teachers and their textbooks tell them. If neither of us has the proof, then there is a stalemate...not a checkmate.

You are moving the goalposts. You said first that 'people will accept the truth of evolution without any real education about it'. Now that I have pointed out that the people who have the best education about evolution (i.e. professional biologists) are also those who are most convinced of its validity, you have changed your argument and are saying that these well-educated people have been indoctrinated to believe in evolution. You can't lose; it's 'heads you [Deeje] win, tails I [Astrophile] lose'. Which argument do you want to stick with, the argument that people accept evolution without having had any real education about it, or the argument that people accept evolution because schools and universities have indoctrinated them to believe in it?

If you refuse to read books by Jerry Coyne and other evolutionists, you are no better than the people who '"believe" in evolution without knowing what it is'; you are simply rejecting evolution without knowing what it is. This, if anything, implies that you, and other creationists, do not really believe in creationism; if you believed it, you would examine the scientific data in the conviction that they would provide evidence for creationism. That you refuse to do this suggests that you know that the facts are against you.

Peer pressure creates a bad environment for questioning because who in that situation would be the one to put their hand up and say..."that evidence is based on nothing but supposition......do we have any real proof for that?" They would be howled out of the classroom and accused of ignorance and not understanding the way science works. They would then be barraged with diagrams and scientific papers showing them how foolish it is to question the "experts".

You have been saying yourself that the evidence for evolution is based on nothing but supposition and that scientists have no real proof, and you have not been howled out of the forum. Being 'howled out of the classroom' and being 'barraged with diagrams and scientific papers' are incompatible; the person who questions evolution has to be still in the classroom to be barraged with diagrams and scientific papers. Finally, why do you think that being 'barraged with diagrams and scientific papers' is a wrong approach to providing real evidence for evolution, and that the evolution-denier would be right to reject the facts and conclusions provided by these scientific media?

 

[Audie]

You are moving the goalposts. You said first that 'people will accept the truth of evolution without any real education about it'. Now that I have pointed out that the people who have the best education about evolution (i.e. professional biologists) are also those who are most convinced of its validity, you have changed your argument and are saying that these well-educated people have been indoctrinated to believe in evolution. You can't lose; it's 'heads you [Deeje] win, tails I [Astrophile] lose'. Which argument do you want to stick with, the argument that people accept evolution without having had any real education about it, or the argument that people accept evolution because schools and universities have indoctrinated them to believe in it?

If you refuse to read books by Jerry Coyne and other evolutionists, you are no better than the people who '"believe" in evolution without knowing what it is'; you are simply rejecting evolution without knowing what it is. This, if anything, implies that you, and other creationists, do not really believe in creationism; if you believed it, you would examine the scientific data in the conviction that they would provide evidence for creationism. That you refuse to do this suggests that you know that the facts are against you.




You have been saying yourself that the evidence for evolution is based on nothing but supposition and that scientists have no real proof, and you have not been howled out of the forum. Being 'howled out of the classroom' and being 'barraged with diagrams and scientific papers' are incompatible; the person who questions evolution has to be still in the classroom to be barraged with diagrams and scientific papers. Finally, why do you think that being 'barraged with diagrams and scientific papers' is a wrong approach to providing real evidence for evolution, and that the evolution-denier would be right to reject the facts and conclusions provided by these scientific media?

The part in I put in bold is chick tract stuff, fantasy,
an imaginary scenario, based no evidence that it
would or ever has happened.

You are right, of course, that she, like other creationists,
does not know what she is talking about.

The few that do will be like our Dr K Wise,
(PhD, paleontology) who know the facts are against him,
so do not pretend (as do the ignorant) that facts
are against ToE. Nobody has ever come up with one
fact contrary to ToE.

Rather, Dr. Wise just says facts do not matter. He says he
would still be a yec if every fact in the universe were
against yec-because that is what the bible seems to say.

Love that "seems", btw.

I think our creationists would do a lot better to just
say the facts do not matter to them.

And if they are feeling just extra extra generous
spirited, to agree that facts do matter to scientists.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Peer pressure creates a bad environment for questioning because who in that situation would be the one to put their hand up and say..."that evidence is based on nothing but supposition......do we have any real proof for that?" They would be howled out of the classroom and accused of ignorance and not understanding the way science works. They would then be barraged with diagrams and scientific papers showing them how foolish it is to question the "experts".

No they wouldn't. They would be steered toward the evidence they were looking for. They would be encouraged to research and learn.

You've never participated in an actual science classroom, have you Deeje?

I am not afraid to call them out and ask for the real evidence....one that doesn't require faith or belief. We Christians have a belief system and it is based on faith in what our teachers and the Bible tell us....the way I see it, evolutionists also have a belief system based on faith in what their teachers and their textbooks tell them. If neither of us has the proof, then there is a stalemate...not a checkmate.

I'm sorry to say, it has become quite apparent that you don't know what evidence actually is.

What belief system do people who accept evolution adhere to? Do people who accept gravity also adhere to some specific belief system? How about those who accept germ theory?

 

[Audie]

No they wouldn't. They would be steered toward the evidence they were looking for. They would be encouraged to research and learn.

You've never participated in an actual science classroom, have you Deeje?

I'm sorry to say, it has become quite apparent that you don't know what evidence actually is.

What belief system do people who accept evolution adhere to? Do people who accept gravity also adhere to some specific belief system? How about those who accept germ theory?

Well, she is right that
Peer pressure creates a bad environment for questioning .

And it is for sure true of some religious groups.
I'd hazard it is so with JWs, and maybe that experience
makes her think that the "hallowed halls"-where she
has never been-are the same way.


A science curriculum that calls for "memorize and dont
question" is no science curriculum at all.

Science that has no supporting data, and is all speculation
is no science at all.

I am sure this is hard for someone not much versed in the
sciences to see, but if ToE could be proved wrong, and
the truth is that all were created as per the bible-

That would mean throwing all the hard sciences into
utter chaos, as all their supporting data would be wrong.

There would be little left of any of the sciences, beyond
some "follow the recipe"stuff, with no idea at all why it
works.

 

[Audie]

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/02/problems_with_p/

Aww, a cute lil' ol' link to a creationist site.

The Discovery Institute. Who would have guessed.
Droll.

Show me one thing on (god's green) earth that is not
"flawed". A new car? Your copy of the bible?
A tree?

Everything is flawed, so......?

It is a shoddy rhetorical trick to just say something is
"flawed", as if that meant it is worthless or even has significant flaws.



But shoddy is the norm for creosties. That you resort to
those is rather telling, dontcha think?

Check out this site..

https://mattcbr.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/evolutionnewsorg-caught-lying-out-its-***-again/

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/02/problems_with_p/

Neither article is in support of your claims, here.

Supernatural-- by definition-- is entirely *not* repeat *not* natural.

Why? Because once someone has facts/evidence in support of some seemingly "supernatural" phenomena? It is no longer supernatural...

Back in the day, all lightning was seen as Supernatural.... as a case in point.

 

[Jose Fly]

No they wouldn't. They would be steered toward the evidence they were looking for. They would be encouraged to research and learn.

That's exactly what happened to me. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian environment and went to a high school that barely glossed over the subject of evolution, so by the time I was a freshman undergrad, most of what I knew about evolutionary biology was from the creationist material our church handed out.

After a week or so of my Intro to Evolutionary Biology course, I went to the professor and asked him a question about transitional fossils. You know what he said? "If you want to be a scientist, you need to learn to think like a scientist. Don't take anyone's word for things. If it's important and you want to know the reality, go look for yourself!" He then told me to go to the science library and read some papers about various fossils. And if I wanted, he could arrange for me to go see some of the fossils for myself.

The following month changed my life. Not because of anything to do with evolution, but because of the long-term effect it had on my thinking processes. Basically, I've incorporated the "go look for yourself" approach into as many aspects of my life as I can.

One fascinating realization I had was how "go look for yourself" was a direct contrast to the "you shouldn't be looking at that" mindset that our church was teaching.

You've never participated in an actual science classroom, have you Deeje?

Keep in mind that Jehovah's Witnesses are discouraged from pursuing higher education (fewer than 10% of JWs have college degrees). It's not forbidden outright, but members are taught that college is dangerous (you might be swayed away from the faith) and a waste of time (the end times are coming). I've also heard JWs say that getting a college degree is just feeding one's ego.

 

[Audie]

That's exactly what happened to me. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian environment and went to a high school that barely glossed over the subject of evolution, so by the time I was a freshman undergrad, most of what I knew about evolutionary biology was from the creationist material our church handed out.

After a week or so of my Intro to Evolutionary Biology course, I went to the professor and asked him a question about transitional fossils. You know what he said? "If you want to be a scientist, you need to learn to think like a scientist. Don't take anyone's word for things. If it's important and you want to know the reality, go look for yourself!" He then told me to go to the science library and read some papers about various fossils. And if I wanted, he could arrange for me to go see some of the fossils for myself.

The following month changed my life. Not because of anything to do with evolution, but because of the long-term effect it had on my thinking processes. Basically, I've incorporated the "go look for yourself" approach into as many aspects of my life as I can.

One fascinating realization I had was how "go look for yourself" was a direct contrast to the "you shouldn't be looking at that" mindset that our church was teaching.


Keep in mind that Jehovah's Witnesses are discouraged from pursuing higher education (fewer than 10% of JWs have college degrees). It's not forbidden outright, but members are taught that college is dangerous (you might be swayed away from the faith) and a waste of time (the end times are coming). I've also heard JWs say that getting a college degree is just feeding one's ego.

Interesting to hear a real story instead of a Chick Tract.

 

[Jose Fly]

Interesting to hear a real story instead of a Chick Tract.

The funny thing is, Chick Tracts were among my favorite things in our church. I loved it when a new one came out! The drawing style fascinated me.