Why are people afraid of creationism?

[Shakeel]

Well, religious people are more inclined to illogical thinking.
As for intelligence, that is not the case.

It is however true that the higher one is educated, the least likely one is to be (or remain) religious.
But educated and intelligent, aren't synonyms.

It's perfectly possible to be extremely intelligent, yet uneducated.
Or vice versa.




One doesn't require proof / evidence for claims one isn't even making.



At no point. Evolution is a gradual process. There is no "first chicken". In exactly the same way as there is no "first french speaker".

Then you can't say the egg came first because that was the first chicken. The implication was quite clear. You even affirmed it. Inclining to illogical thinking is a fault in intelligence.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That implies religious people are less intelligent or are more inclined to illogical thinking. But there is no proof for that in your psychological studies, is there?

Proof? Possibly not. Evidence? Perhaps some.

For example, it is mostly the religious right who today believe that Donald Trump will be "reinstated" as President in August (that's the rumour going around that demographic these days). Yet, even I -- not an American -- know that such a thing is simply constitutionally impossible. There is no such thing as "reinstatement" of a defeated President. They believe it anyway -- why?

You would have to ask those aquinted with the evolution theory at which point did the chickens become true chickens.

Over to you then -- which of these is the "true chicken?"

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Then you can't say the egg came first because that was the first chicken. The implication was quite clear. You even affirmed it. Inclining to illogical thinking is a fault in intelligence.

And denying science without having any particular knowledge of science is a fault in those who favour believing without any particular evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then you can't say the egg came first because that was the first chicken

That makes no sense.
Egg laying creatures existed before chickens evolved.
Species ancestral to chickens, laid eggs.

So eggs existed before the species "chicken" evolved.

The implication was quite clear. You even affirmed it.

But clearly you didn't understand it....

Inclining to illogical thinking is a fault in intelligence.

It is not.
Newton, arguably one of the biggest geniuses that ever lived, had his share of illogical thinking.

Although we might be defining "intelligence" differently.

I define it in terms of ability of abstract/conceptual thinking and the ability to learn. The more intelligent a person, the faster / easier (s)he'll learn and the least problems they'll have to think in abstract or conceptual terms. Also the ability to reason about complex problems with many variables and factors.

An IQ test, doesn't quiz you for pop-knowledge. You don't need a phd education to do well on such a test.
IQ tests, in fact, are usually designed in such a way that educational level is irrelevant.


I also think intelligence can be trained to an extent. In that you can do things to "train" your brain and gain some additional IQ points from that process.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It's not really arbitrary limits, it's limits because of religious beliefs.

Yeah, exactly... arbitrary. Religious belief that does not correlate with reality in any demonstrable or predictable way ends up being a completely arbitrary limitation on thought/action. As in - you may as well have made something up and then decided that's your limiting factor. Truly, that is exactly the situation.

And anything in religion that does happen to correlate with reality is just best described as "reality." As in - you don't need religion, at all, to express it or understand the limits within which you are working, because reality is going to remind you with itself at all times. In other words, in my estimation religion adds nothing but fantasy to reality. Which means it is nothing but arbitrary (outside of the things it happens to "get right" - which, again, it is unneeded for anyway)

 

[GardenLady]

It would be rather self righteous and oppressive to try to force them stop believing, seeing as it makes many people feel better and behave better.

I know plenty of nonreligious people who are kind, moral, and socially responsible. While I am religious person myself, I find the assertion that religion is necessary for someone to "behave better" highly offensive.

Plenty of people of various religions believe God created the universe and also accept the extensive scientific evidence supporting deep time and the evolution of life. The objection (not fear) is that there are those who believe in Genesis as a literal science and history textbook and attempt to force these religious beliefs into science classrooms.

If someone wants to send their child to a religious school and raise them to be YECs and science deniers, that's not my business. But IMHO it is a grave disservice to their children. It would be a shame if someone with the talent and interest to be the next Newton to Einstein or Salk or Fauci were raised thinking Genesis is literally true and science is false.

 

[ecco]

Science certainly can't answer the question as to which came first, but that is the point of the text I think.

Science knows that that is a silly concept and doesn't bother to try to address it.

 

[ecco]

My mom's cardiologist said that in his 50 years of practice he has seen a lot of out of body experiences of people whose hearts stopped. He says that they recounted in full detail, conversations in other rooms of the hospital that they could not possibly have heard as they claim that their spirit roamed the halls. Highly educated, not brought up religious, yet, with no other way to explain events, he turned to religion.

A second-hand anecdotal story is not persuasive (except to people who want to be persuaded).

 

[Shakeel]

You being a Muslim and me being a Christian we do have some common ground that we believe in..

Sure.

Science is good as long as stays within the boundaries of what science is to be.

I don't know who makes the boundaries, but for us, as far as I know, it is simply a matter of accepting what there is proper evidence for and that which does not contradict the teachings.

 

[Shakeel]

Science knows that that is a silly concept and doesn't bother to try to address it.

I was already told it did address it.

Does science have a definition for a chicken?

 

[Shakeel]

Again, there is no "first" chicken.
Gradual processes don't work like that.

But someone I quoted said the egg came first. That's what I'm responding to.

 

[ecco]

For example, it is mostly the religious right who today believe that Donald Trump will be "reinstated" as President in August (that's the rumour going around that demographic these days). Yet, even I -- not an American -- know that such a thing is simply constitutionally impossible. There is no such thing as "reinstatement" of a defeated President. They believe it anyway -- why?

And denying science without having any particular knowledge of science is a fault in those who favour believing without any particular evidence.

These two comments bear repeating.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then you can't say the egg came first because that was the first chicken. The implication was quite clear. You even affirmed it. Inclining to illogical thinking is a fault in intelligence.

Why are you assuming that chickens are the only animals that lay eggs?

Also, there is no "first chicken." That's creationist thinking, not evolutionary thinking.

 

[ecco]

I don't know who makes the boundaries, but for us, as far as I know, it is simply a matter of accepting what there is proper evidence for and that which does not contradict the teachings.

You have just very clearly stated the problem with religious beliefs and why they are dangerous.

Science is good except where it disagrees with my religion, then it is wrong and bad.
​

Science is science and does not bend and twist to suit the needy beliefs of religious people. Honest, rational, people would accept things based on evidence even if they contradict religious teachings.

 

[ecco]

Does science have a definition for a chicken?

Google "scientific definition of chicken" and you get...

Chicken, (Gallus gallus), any of more than 60 breeds of medium-sized poultry that are primarily descended from the wild red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus, family Phasianidae, order Galliformes) of India. ... The chicken is perhaps the most widely domesticated fowl, raised worldwide for its meat and eggs.Apr 15, 2021​

That not so hard, is it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But someone I quoted said the egg came first.

Which is correct.
Egg laying species, ancestral to chickens, existed before chickens.

Consider this: "what came first, roman languages or french?"

Well, french is a roman language and evolved from latin, which is also a roman language.
So roman language existed first.

And no, there is no "first french speaker" either.
But there certainly was a time when french didn't exist and a later time when french did exist.
Yet french evolved gradually, meaning there is no "first" french speaker.

As in: there was never a time when a non-french speaking mother raised a french speaking child.
You can take an abritrary generation in the recent past and say "well, NOW they are REALLY speaking french". But if you go back one generation further, to their parents in other words, those parents would speak virtually the same language. So it's arbitrary to say of generation X that it is speaking french while generation X-1 doesn't.

Ever new generation spoke the same language as their parents and grand-parents.
Yet over time, latin turned into spanish, italian, french and portugese.

This is the nature of gradual change. And biological evolution is no different.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't know who makes the boundaries, but for us, as far as I know, it is simply a matter of accepting what there is proper evidence for and that which does not contradict the teachings.

Emphasis mine. That, right there, is exactly the dangerous problem with religious anti-science thinking.

Here, you literally affirm your intellectually dishonest approach to science and evidence.
You don't evaluate scientific ideas based on their merits and evidence.
Instead, you evaluate it based on your a priori dogmatic faith based beliefs.

You are free to do that off course, but by doing that, you have effectively rendered yourself completely irrelevant in discussions concerning science.

Your opinions and beliefs are literally irrelevant because right out the gates, you simply affirm that you don't care about evidence and accuracy. All you care about is upholding your beliefs.


Classic case to which I can only respond:

When the evidence of reality contradicts your a priori beliefs, it is not reality that is incorrect!

 

[Subduction Zone]

There should be no seperation between the church and the state of a country if it was to be genuinely Christian. This is just another example of hypocrisy.

One is either a Christian or is not a Christian.

So I take it that you are not an American. What country do you live in?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you can't say the egg came first because that was the first chicken. The implication was quite clear. You even affirmed it. Inclining to illogical thinking is a fault in intelligence.

No, there was no "first chicken" as you are thinking of it. The Genesis stories are myths. That of course does not mean that Christianity is wrong, though it may mean that your personal version of Christianity is wrong.

 

[GardenLady]

There should be no seperation between the church and the state of a country if it was to be genuinely Christian. This is just another example of hypocrisy.

One is either a Christian or is not a Christian.

Countries with a state religion have historically engaged in discrimination and suppression (often violent suppression) against those who do not follow that religion. Is that a world you advocate? Or would you favor countries expelling those who do not follow a state religion?

BTW: It's "separation" not "seperation." Very common error, of course. Easy way to remember: "There's a rat in separate."