The Willful Ignorance of Creationism

[Polymath257]

You can discern so much about that man just from that little video. Listen to what he says.....do you find it compelling? Are your sure that wiggling your ears is really proof for evolution?

Have you ever watched his videos? I have but I need a bucket.

Is it proof? No. Is it evidence? yes. But to see the relevance of that evidence, you have to do comparative anatomy with other species and realize that those muscles that wiggle our ears and have no real purpose are the same as those that *do* have a useful purpose in other animals. And that is *one* piece of evidence for evolution. Again, not conclusive, but one piece.

 

[sealchan]

Every time I recommend reading a book that lays out all of the evidence for evolution to creationists (typically Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne or similar books), they always either do not respond, or state that they will not read it. Why could this be? If they truly believed in searching for the truth, they would read books that challenge their current viewpoint. If they had confidence in their beliefs, they would research the arguments of the other side, and would not fear a challenge to their belief system. But the fact that they refuse to research all of the evidence for evolution by reading a pro-evolution book indicates to me that they fear that being presented with the evidence will change their mind. And this fear of evidence is common among all creationists that I have encountered, not just those on this forum. I grew up in an environment of fundamentalist Christians who either sent their children to private schools or home-schooled them because they did not want their children to learn about the evidence for evolution in public schools. The only motivation for this that I can think of is fear. These people know that their belief system is weak, and they fear that being presented with evidence for evolution would change their minds and their children's minds, thus they literally hide themselves and their children from this evidence, out of their fear that they will realize just how weak their belief system actually is.

I hope that this does not come across as too accusatory or preachy. I am simply reporting my personal observations of how creationists (both on this forum and in my personal life) behave in the face of evidence for evolution. But maybe some of them will prove me wrong. How many of you young-earth creationists will take up my challenge to read Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution is True? If any of you will take the time to read it, I will gladly have a discussion with you about it.

It can depend a lot on how much time a person has for reading...and if they feel guilty reading such a potentially subversive book before spending twice the time reading scripture.

What those people might better digest is a book that claims to integrate science's perspective with Genesis such as the writings of Gerald Schroeder. Then they would get something they wouldn't feel was an act based on a lack of faith.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Every time I recommend reading a book that lays out all of the evidence for evolution to creationists (typically Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne or similar books), they always either do not respond, or state that they will not read it. Why could this be? If they truly believed in searching for the truth, they would read books that challenge their current viewpoint. If they had confidence in their beliefs, they would research the arguments of the other side, and would not fear a challenge to their belief system. But the fact that they refuse to research all of the evidence for evolution by reading a pro-evolution book indicates to me that they fear that being presented with the evidence will change their mind. And this fear of evidence is common among all creationists that I have encountered, not just those on this forum. I grew up in an environment of fundamentalist Christians who either sent their children to private schools or home-schooled them because they did not want their children to learn about the evidence for evolution in public schools. The only motivation for this that I can think of is fear. These people know that their belief system is weak, and they fear that being presented with evidence for evolution would change their minds and their children's minds, thus they literally hide themselves and their children from this evidence, out of their fear that they will realize just how weak their belief system actually is.

I hope that this does not come across as too accusatory or preachy. I am simply reporting my personal observations of how creationists (both on this forum and in my personal life) behave in the face of evidence for evolution. But maybe some of them will prove me wrong. How many of you young-earth creationists will take up my challenge to read Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution is True? If any of you will take the time to read it, I will gladly have a discussion with you about it.

I am an Atheist Creationist, and I have read the book Philosophy of Biology by Peter Godfrey Smith: Princeton Foundations of Contemporary Philosophy . I was actually surprised to find how little it tried to defend micro-Darwinism.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

If you watch his videos, he has the same air of superiority that Dawkins demonstrates.

Hehe.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

When can we expect it?

Oooh! Oooh! I got this one:

Let me see-- I have to consult my 'I Survived The End Of The World Check-Off Card' for the next 'End Of The World' tour date...

.... hmmmm.... it seems that the latest 'End Of The World' has come and gone without so much as a solar flair....

*sigh* I need a new card-- mine current one is all checked-off...

 

[Deeje]

Only at the expense of intellectual honesty, I fear.

How do you define "intellectual honesty" then? It is because I am intellectually honest that I expose the dishonesty in the findings of many scientists. If one attacks the evidence that science presents in this day and age, one is virtually attacking a cherished belief system. And a 'belief system' is all it can be called when there is no verifiable evidence for anything other than adaptation. Taking what is verifiable and expanding it without qualification is intellectually dishonest. Everything science 'supposes', that is outside of what they can prove, is assumption, not fact.

By saying that, you show a lack of acquaintance with the actual findings of biology, as well as with the scientific method.

Impressive in a way.

The actual "findings of biology" based on "the scientific method" are what we would expect from those who acknowledge evolution as the only reason for the variety of species on this planet. One can read into these findings whatever they like as long as it makes evolution the bottom line. Like the fossils...they have no voice except the one scientists give them....and funnily enough they all say that they evolved! How amazing!

Then you should expect to feel to be in a position of disadvantage. Sometimes things are just as they seem to be.

I disagree....sometimes things are waaaaayyy different than they are made to seem.

If God is on my side what does it matter who is against me?

 

[LuisDantas]

How do you define "intellectual honesty" then? It is because I am intellectually honest that I expose the dishonesty in the findings of many scientists. If one attacks the evidence that science presents in this day and age, one is virtually attacking a cherished belief system. And a 'belief system' is all it can be called when there is no verifiable evidence for anything other than adaptation. Taking what is verifiable and expanding it without qualification is intellectually dishonest. Everything science 'supposes', that is outside of what they can prove, is assumption, not fact.



The actual "findings of biology" based on "the scientific method" are what we would expect from those who acknowledge evolution as the only reason for the variety of species on this planet. One can read into these findings whatever they like as long as it makes evolution the bottom line. Like the fossils...they have no voice except the one scientists give them....and funnily enough they all say that they evolved! How amazing!



I disagree....sometimes things are waaaaayyy different than they are made to seem.

If God is on my side what does it matter who is against me?

If reality is not on your side, then what kind of God are you sided with?

 

[Deeje]

If reality is not on your side, then what kind of God are you sided with?

You assume that reality is not on my side....but what if it turns out that reality is not on your side?

I have chosen to take sides with the Creator of the Universe....whose side are you taking? Someone with more knowledge? More wisdom? More power? More education? A knowledge of the future?

Seems to me as if science is a poor choice by comparison.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You assume that reality is not on my side....but what if it turns out that reality is not on your side?

I have chosen to take sides with the Creator of the Universe....whose side are you taking? Someone with more knowledge? More wisdom? More power? More education? A knowledge of the future?

Seems to me as if science is a poor choice by comparison.

What if reality is on a side that hates Christians? What if the Buddhists are right? Or the Hindus? Worse yet the Muslims? You better pray for the FSM as a second choice.

 

[LuisDantas]

You assume that reality is not on my side....but what if it turns out that reality is not on your side?

I have chosen to take sides with the Creator of the Universe....whose side are you taking? Someone with more knowledge? More wisdom? More power? More education? A knowledge of the future?

Seems to me as if science is a poor choice by comparison.

Thanks for the laughs. Unfortunately, that is all that you are offering me.

 

[metis]

I have chosen to take sides with the Creator of the Universe

Which is not a scientific approach, plus it's based on your assumptions not rooted in any objectivity whatsoever.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think it's beautiful how a big religious faith creates a parallel world in people's mind. I also think it is a cruel game to insist on trying to wake up religious people from this dream.
I mean...do value their faith

Well...Dawkins was more direct

 

[AdrianCo]

Maybe both have merit? www.theexplanationforeverything.com

 

[Audie]

You assume that reality is not on my side....but what if it turns out that reality is not on your side?

I have chosen to take sides with the Creator of the Universe....whose side are you taking? Someone with more knowledge? More wisdom? More power? More education? A knowledge of the future?

Seems to me as if science is a poor choice by comparison.

That you "choose", and assume there is a
"creator", and, too, take pride in membership
in an organization that eschews higher education
that might lead one away from the teachings..
these things are the very embodiment of , a
definition for intellectual dishonesty.

The easiest to fool is yourself.
Note that none else here are taken in.

 

[Audie]

Which is not a scientific approach, plus it's based on your assumptions not rooted in any objectivity whatsoever.

Being, as noted, the opposite of intellectual honesty.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Another good read in the Evolution department, is Your Inner Fish: A journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin.

And as I googled the correct spelling for his name? I discovered there was a PBS based on his book.

I have read it, it's quite good. I've not see the PBS version, but I plan to.

Here's a link to the episode guide on PBS. I haven't been able to locate a resource for viewing it, unfortunately. It was made back in 2014.

Edit: Forget the now commercial PBS. I found episode 1 up on YouTube.

Your Inner Fish, Episode 1

Actually, if it's 3.5 billion years, it should be called "your inner bacterium". Just sayin.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Actually, if it's 3.5 billion years, it should be called "your inner bacterium". Just sayin.

Most people don't get that excited about mitochondria, but they are interested in gross anatomy that we inherited from the ancestors we share with modern fish.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Actually, if it's 3.5 billion years, it should be called "your inner bacterium". Just sayin.

You'd have to take that up with Dr Schuman, I guess. I suspect he picked fish as the oldest representative with a bony backbone, which all internal-skeleton life shares on Earth.

 

[gnostic]

Does evolution prove that God does not exist? Can't speak for everyone else but it can't. Here's why: everything we know about evolution and every fact about evolution is IN THE MIND. Evolution and any atheist belief about the origin of life or the universe depends upon the existence of KANTIAN NOUMENA-a copy of what's in our consciousness that is not our consciousness nor made up of consciousness in the external world.

Sorry, but Charles Darwin was never an atheist.

Darwin was a Christian when he went on voyage as a young man during the 1st half of 1830s, and he was still a Christian when he made public On Origin of Species in 1859. He did leans towards agnosticism, but he never renounced his Christian faith. All Darwin did, was keep his belief from his works, in science, that’s all.

Most of scientists in Darwin’s days, who accepted his Natural Selection, were largely Christians, not atheists.

As to the universe, the expanding universe model, in 1920s (later called the Big Bang in very late 1940s), there were 3 independent scientists giving the same model.

Alexander Friedmann (Russian, in 1922), Howard Percy Robertson (American, 1924-25) and Georges Lemaître (Belgian, 1927) all wrote their papers on this model. Friedmann and Robertson may have been atheists, but Lemaître was a Christian, and even Roman Catholic priest.

So you have 3 scientists coming up with same concept on the origin of universe, so clearly it isn’t about atheists and theists.

And very earlier on, the Pope, in 1950s, I don’t remember his name, actually supported Lemaître’s work on the Big Bang. Again, clearly, the Big Bang isn’t about atheism or theism.

You are generalising, and like all silly creationists, you have ignored some of the scientists with Christian background, having contributed to both evolution and the Big Bang.

Stop making sweeping claims about evolution being “only for atheists”.

 

[danieldemol]

Oooh! Oooh! I got this one:

Let me see-- I have to consult my 'I Survived The End Of The World Check-Off Card' for the next 'End Of The World' tour date...

.... hmmmm.... it seems that the latest 'End Of The World' has come and gone without so much as a solar flair....

*sigh* I need a new card-- mine current one is all checked-off...

I don’t think Biblical literalists ever consider how unevidenced their end of the world scenarios are, after all any natural scenario which would make the world uninhabitable for non-believers would make it just as uninhabitable for believers.

So after the end of the world unless space travel becomes efficient or religious life forms evolve on other planets there will be no more believers for the same reason there wouldn’t be non-believers left after any globally catastrophic scenario.