The Ignorance of Creationists

It escapes me why so many people have developed such an addiction to proving each other wrong. This militant atheist movement that is gaining popularity at the moment is starting to seem about as appealing as Pat Robinson.

reply to post by infp1958


On this forum, we argue the science. The fact that some of us might be atheists is irrelevant. Science has no religion.

The OP has simply made a common mistake. This usually happens when one does not truly comprehend the meaning of some simple scientific terms. Such as...........
-scientific fact.
-scientific theory.
-scientific law.
Science in general is defined as- Study of the physical and natural world using theoretical models and data from experiments or observation.
Think about that for a moment.
If one knows enough about science then they surly understand that there not any absolutes. If you take the time to research the terms above you will find this to be the case.
The OP, in many ways, reminds me of the early Catholic church. Just look at the final question issued in the OP and you can clearly see what I mean.
I can see in history where such questions as "how do we remedy this problem" got no few great minds killed for being a heretic or blasphemer.
I suppose it was what the Church asked of itself when Galileo was tried by the Inquisition and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.
It has been stated in this very thread that science is not a religion. This is true. Yet some have taken it upon themselves to make it such. They think everyone should believe as they do and constantly try to preach their version of the "truth" to those "not well educated" (non believers?).
Science is not what many want it to be. It will not be the proverbial sword that kills God in the minds of all.
It is not an absolute and it, as well as it's facts and theories, change as we learn more about the world and universe in which we live.
To claim that "there is no God" is just as closed minded as the early Church was towards Galileo when he claimed that "the world is round".
The hardest part for most is to learn from our history. I suggest many look to the small amount of recorded history we have and perform a scientific experiment with it. Use it to create theories and facts, but keep in mind this one constant as you do so..............
We don't really KNOW (with out a doubt) anything about what we claim as TRUTH.
Look at how we have grown in the last 800 years. Can you imagine what will be said about our current beliefs in the next 800?

if man came from dust, how come dust is still around?
and how come we don't see dust turning in to men today?

or
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by infp1958

Originally posted by infp1958
It escapes me why so many people have developed such an addiction to proving each other wrong.

I don't care if they're wrong. They can be as wrong as they want about whatever they want. Unfortunately, creationists aren't satisfied with just being wrong, they want to force their ideas that are definitively wrong upon others through education.

This militant atheist movement that is gaining popularity at the moment is starting to seem about as appealing as Pat Robinson.

Please, tell me how we're as unappealing as that unrepentant bigot. We don't say that natural disasters and terrorist attacks are caused by people's sexual behavior, we don't say that people not accepting our claims deserve whatever tragedies befall them.

And as PieKeeper pointed out, this is about the science. Two of my closest friends, one who I've known for nearly two decades now, are incredibly devout theists who accept evolution as scientific fact. Why? Because science has no regard for religion, it doesn't care about religion, it's just there to tell us about the natural world.

reply to post by Quadrivium

Originally posted by Quadrivium
The OP has simply made a common mistake. This usually happens when one does not truly comprehend the meaning of some simple scientific terms. Such as...........
-scientific fact.

That which is backed up by the scientific evidence to the point beyond reasonable doubt.

-scientific theory.

A framework to explain natural phenomenon. Circuit theory, germ theory, cell theory, the theory of gravitation, etc all spring to mind.

-scientific law.

A description of the phenomena in the universe

Science in general is defined as- Study of the physical and natural world using theoretical models and data from experiments or observation.
Think about that for a moment.

Le sigh...creationists also seem to be ignorant of the philosophy of science.

If one knows enough about science then they surly understand that there not any absolutes. If you take the time to research the terms above you will find this to be the case.

No, there is actually a way in which one finds absolutes in science. The absolute lack of evidence for a phenomenon/theory/etc. This absolute lack of evidence (or even scientific reasoning) is found in creationism.

The OP, in many ways, reminds me of the early Catholic church. Just look at the final question issued in the OP and you can clearly see what I mean.

"I wonder how we can remedy this."
That wasn't a question, it was me thinking to myself. And honestly, to put that up there with the forced conversion of heretics? Sort of rude of you. I'd like to see an increase in scientific knowledge through peaceful, voluntary education.

I can see in history where such questions as "how do we remedy this problem" got no few great minds killed for being a heretic or blasphemer.

So this is a logical fallacy which is an odd distortion of the 'argument from Hitler', instead substituting a religious institution that persecuted individuals in grotesque and violent ways for religious reasons.

I don't want to kill anyone, I don't want to imprison anyone. I just want to calmly explain things to people.

I suppose it was what the Church asked of itself when Galileo was tried by the Inquisition and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

Wow, just wow. No, this is nothing like that. I can't believe you, the religious individual espousing a religious doctrine against evidence based science is arguing that I'm the Catholic church.

It has been stated in this very thread that science is not a religion. This is true. Yet some have taken it upon themselves to make it such. They think everyone should believe as they do and constantly try to preach their version of the "truth" to those "not well educated" (non believers?).

It's not a version of the truth, it is the truth as demonstrated solely by the evidence. There is no doctrine or dogma is science, merely a tyranny of evidence.

Science is not what many want it to be. It will not be the proverbial sword that kills God in the minds of all.

This isn't about God(s), this is about science. Evolution isn't the sole property of atheists. In fact, there are more people who accept evolution in the world than there are atheists in the world. There are more theistic people who accept evolution than there are atheists in the world.

Logical fallacy: red herring. You're trying to move the scope of the argument. This is about the general scientific illiteracy of creationists, not about concepts of deities.

It is not an absolute and it, as well as it's facts and theories, change as we learn more about the world and universe in which we live.

Yes, but certain things don't change much. Like evolution. It has changed, but the general concept has remained. The change is good.

To claim that "there is no God" is just as closed minded as the early Church was towards Galileo when he claimed that "the world is round".

Again, red herring. Theists can accept evolution. I'm not claiming there isn't a deity either, but that's a subject for one of the many threads attacking atheism, not a thread about why creationists are ignorant.

The hardest part for most is to learn from our history. I suggest many look to the small amount of recorded history we have and perform a scientific experiment with it. Use it to create theories and facts, but keep in mind this one constant as you do so..............
We don't really KNOW (with out a doubt) anything about what we claim as TRUTH.

Now you're moving it to epistemological certainty. Again, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the philosophy of science.

I can claim something as truth. Circuit theory. It's at the very least true in its basic premises or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Look at how we have grown in the last 800 years. Can you imagine what will be said about our current beliefs in the next 800?

Hopefully a lot more scientific and a lot less unscientific. But honestly, this is just a big red herring. You're distracting from the point, creationists are ignorant of even the most basic points of the conversation.

They cannot define what a theory is, they cannot define what evolution as a theory states, they cannot distinguish a theory of biology from theories of cosmology, etc.

Originally posted by racasan
if man came from dust, how come dust is still around?
and how come we don't see dust turning in to men today?

or
www.youtube.com...

Brilliant video!! Perfect description of the O&C forums on here

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


It would seem that you are as narrow minded as I am "rude".
You claim that I "tried to change the argument" this shows that you did not even recognize what you were claiming in your very own OP.

This isn't about God(s), this is about science. Evolution isn't the sole property of atheists. In fact, there are more people who accept evolution in the world than there are atheists in the world. There are more theistic people who accept evolution than there are atheists in the world.

Logical fallacy: red herring. You're trying to move the scope of the argument. This is about the general scientific illiteracy of creationists, not about concepts of deities

When you deny Creationism, you are claiming that there is no God for almost all Muslims, Jews and Christians. So when you claim the "ignorance of Creationism" you are actually claiming that those whom believe in God are ignorant.
Make your "claims" but try to understand that what is true today may not be so tomorrow. We are just starting out on our road of discovery and as of yet we are like little children. Do not burn to many bridges because even with your sense of "all knowing science" you have no idea what lies ahead.
Every thing, as of yet, can not be explained. Therefore any Scientific "facts" and "theories" can not be absolute truth. There can not be an absolute truth with the lack of knowledge and there is no absolute " lack of evidence" until all is known. In short, Anything is possible. To think otherwise is a symptom of a narrow mind.

reply to post by Quadrivium

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

It would seem that you are as narrow minded as I am "rude".

It would seem like you're venturing into the logical fallacy of poisoning the well.

You claim that I "tried to change the argument" this shows that you did not even recognize what you were claiming in your very own OP.

I do recognize what I claimed in my OP. I claimed it, didn't I? Now, you're the one saying that an attempt by science it correct general ignorance of it is akin to a religious institution trying to kill heretics.

originally posted by madnessinmysoul
This isn't about God(s), this is about science. Evolution isn't the sole property of atheists. In fact, there are more people who accept evolution in the world than there are atheists in the world. There are more theistic people who accept evolution than there are atheists in the world.

Logical fallacy: red herring. You're trying to move the scope of the argument. This is about the general scientific illiteracy of creationists, not about concepts of deities

When you deny Creationism, you are claiming that there is no God for almost all Muslims, Jews and Christians.

Except...no. I'm aware that the biggest group of Christians (Roman Catholic Church) accepted evolution. I've rarely met a creationist Jew, but if you can point me to some data that shows that the majority of Jews are creationists, I'd gladly look at it. As for Islam, there's a general level of scientific illiteracy in the Muslim world due to lack of development.

In fact, I'd actually like to see evidence that "almost all" Christians, Muslims, and Jews are creationists.

Furthermore, the existence of any monotheistic deity (I don't know why you didn't include Hindu creationists...actually, I might have an inkling) is not tied into the creation story. It, like many other things in the holy books of those particular religions, can be taken as allegory.

So when you claim the "ignorance of Creationism" you are actually claiming that those whom believe in God are ignorant.

No, I'm not. This is again a red herring and a moving of the goal posts. This isn't about the existence of any deity, it's about observed scientific fact. You'e shifting things around.

Or did Copernicus claim that those who believed in God were ignorant in his day?

Make your "claims" but try to understand that what is true today may not be so tomorrow.

Well, evolution via natural and sexual selection as defined by a change in allele frequency over successive generations will almost certainly remain unchanged. You can't just plead to the possibility that something will be proven wrong in the future when there are literal mountains of evidence in support of it

We are just starting out on our road of discovery and as of yet we are like little children.

Bad characterization of science much? Yes, we are like little children in some fields, like abiogenesis, advanced physics, certain forms of engineering, some forms of biotech...but for the most part, we're pretty damn advanced. This is just a random, baseless statement. We can split atoms to create energy or destroy large areas of land! We are close to recreating the power of the sun in a controlled way! We understand the ways in which information is passed on from one generation to the next.

Will we learn more? Sure. But that doesn't mean that most of what we know today is going to change.

Do not burn to many bridges because even with your sense of "all knowing science" you have no idea what lies ahead.

Straw man. I'm not claiming that science is "all knowing", I'm just claiming that the stuff for which we have mountains of evidence is pretty damn certain.

Every thing, as of yet, can not be explained. Therefore any Scientific "facts" and "theories" can not be absolute truth.

Wow, it's almost as if you read excerpts from Karl Popper....without bothering to go for whole pages. So what if epistemological certainty is impossible? We've known that for a while. We do, however, have more than enough reason to believe that the science we have now is a hell of a lot better than the creationist alternatives.

There can not be an absolute truth with the lack of knowledge and there is no absolute " lack of evidence" until all is known.

There is an absolute lack of evidence at this time. Based upon our current understanding of science there should be a plethora of evidence in support of creationist claims. There should be predicted flood sedimentation in a uniform pattern at a certain layer all over the world. There should be no evidence of speciation. There shouldn't be any vestigial organs or atavisms.

In short, Anything is possible. To think otherwise is a symptom of a narrow mind.

Creationists: ignorant of the philosophy of science. Please, pick up either this book or this one, as they'll help clear up your clear lack of information on the philosophy of science.

Except...no. I'm aware that the biggest group of Christians (Roman Catholic Church) accepted evolution. I've rarely met a creationist Jew, but if you can point me to some data that shows that the majority of Jews are creationists, I'd gladly look at it. As for Islam, there's a general level of scientific illiteracy in the Muslim world due to lack of development.

In fact, I'd actually like to see evidence that "almost all" Christians, Muslims, and Jews are creationists.

Furthermore, the existence of any monotheistic deity (I don't know why you didn't include Hindu creationists...actually, I might have an inkling) is not tied into the creation story. It, like many other things in the holy books of those particular religions, can be taken as allegory.

Abraham= The three main religions have this common ancestor. The Christian creation story comes from Jewish text. The Muslim story is similar to it.

Bad characterization of science much? Yes, we are like little children in some fields, like abiogenesis, advanced physics, certain forms of engineering, some forms of biotech...but for the most part, we're pretty damn advanced. This is just a random, baseless statement. We can split atoms to create energy or destroy large areas of land! We are close to recreating the power of the sun in a controlled way! We understand the ways in which information is passed on from one generation to the next.

Will we learn more? Sure. But that doesn't mean that most of what we know today is going to change.

This is laughable

...but for the most part, we're pretty damn advanced. This is just a random, baseless statement.

Apply your "logic" from the second statement to the first and you will see what I am referring to.
So...... we're pretty advanced huh? By what standards? What are you basing this fallacy/fantasy on?
I believe that we are as children in all areas of science. There is just so much we do not know about the universe in which we occupy a spec of.
We are like newborns actually. We have not even been out of our own solar system, we have not even been to another planet.
Just think of all that we still have to learn compared to what little we now know.

Wow, it's almost as if you read excerpts from Karl Popper....without bothering to go for whole pages. So what if epistemological certainty is impossible? We've known that for a while. We do, however, have more than enough reason to believe that the science we have now is a hell of a lot better than the creationist alternatives.

Nope no Karl Popper as of yet but I will look at his work. Sounds interesting.
I have yet to give my opinion on the theory of Evolution. I believe that almost all of the evidence "supporting" it can be filed under adaptation. We are able to adapt to our surroundings over time.

reply to post by Quadrivium

Originally posted by Quadrivium

Except...no. I'm aware that the biggest group of Christians (Roman Catholic Church) accepted evolution. I've rarely met a creationist Jew, but if you can point me to some data that shows that the majority of Jews are creationists, I'd gladly look at it. As for Islam, there's a general level of scientific illiteracy in the Muslim world due to lack of development.

In fact, I'd actually like to see evidence that "almost all" Christians, Muslims, and Jews are creationists.

Furthermore, the existence of any monotheistic deity (I don't know why you didn't include Hindu creationists...actually, I might have an inkling) is not tied into the creation story. It, like many other things in the holy books of those particular religions, can be taken as allegory.

Abraham= The three main religions have this common ancestor. The Christian creation story comes from Jewish text. The Muslim story is similar to it.

This response = not having anything to do with anything I said. I asked for evidence that "almost all" Christians, Muslims, and Jews are creationists. I don't deny that their religious texts have creation stories, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they take this as literal truth.

Pentecostal preacher, incredible paleontologist, and beard enthusiast Robert T. Bakker wouldn't deny that there's a creation story in the Bible, he'd just argue that it isn't to be taken literally.

Bad characterization of science much? Yes, we are like little children in some fields, like abiogenesis, advanced physics, certain forms of engineering, some forms of biotech...but for the most part, we're pretty damn advanced. This is just a random, baseless statement. We can split atoms to create energy or destroy large areas of land! We are close to recreating the power of the sun in a controlled way! We understand the ways in which information is passed on from one generation to the next.

Will we learn more? Sure. But that doesn't mean that most of what we know today is going to change.

This is laughable

Just to let everyone know my intent in quoting these large chunks like this: I'm just trying to show people that you're not showing anything.

It's laughable? Ok, how?

...but for the most part, we're pretty damn advanced. This is just a random, baseless statement.

Apply your "logic" from the second statement to the first and you will see what I am referring to.

...again, nothing to see here. You're not demonstrating anything. You're simply lobbing random accusations.

So...... we're pretty advanced huh? By what standards?

There isn't really a 'standard', but I'd say we could base the claim that we're 'pretty advanced' on the fact that we're able to radically alter landscapes, destroy life, alter the basic building blocks of life, kill off most life on Earth, escape our atmosphere, etc.

Now, were we to simply compare ourselves to any other organism on this planet, I'd say we're damn advanced. But I'll just compare our advancement to how far we can apply our knowledge...which is pretty damn far.

What are you basing this fallacy/fantasy on?

It seems you're lobbing out more accusations. In what way is my statement a fallacy? Does it fall under the category of formal or informal fallacies?

Also, fantasy and fallacy are in no way interchangeable terms in that statement.

I believe that we are as children in all areas of science.

Believe all you want, but you're not backing up this statement in any way.

There is just so much we do not know about the universe in which we occupy a spec of.

And yet there is also just so much that we do know about the universe in which we occupy a spec of.

We are like newborns actually. We have not even been out of our own solar system, we have not even been to another planet.

That's technological advancement, not scientific advancement. We know exactly how to get onto other planets and out of the solar system. The problem is that we don't have the resources to devote to either. Were we to devote enough resources to either of those projects, we'd be able to get somewhere.

Just think of all that we still have to learn compared to what little we now know.

Getting out of the solar system or onto other planets doesn't have much to do with general scientific knowledge, just with application of knowledge and resource expenditure.

Wow, it's almost as if you read excerpts from Karl Popper....without bothering to go for whole pages. So what if epistemological certainty is impossible? We've known that for a while. We do, however, have more than enough reason to believe that the science we have now is a hell of a lot better than the creationist alternatives.

Nope no Karl Popper as of yet but I will look at his work. Sounds interesting.


Indeed it is. Heavy, but interesting. Don't expect a light read.

I have yet to give my opinion on the theory of Evolution. I believe that almost all of the evidence "supporting" it can be filed under adaptation.

In what way?

We are able to adapt to our surroundings over time.

By what mechanism? Please elaborate.

Originally posted by Quadrivium
I have yet to give my opinion on the theory of Evolution. I believe that almost all of the evidence "supporting" it can be filed under adaptation. We are able to adapt to our surroundings over time.

"I like flying places, but I don't believe in airplanes." The mechanism for that adaptation is evolution.

reply to post by PieKeeper


That's plain horse$hit. science is not supposed to have a religion, but the scientific paradigms at any given time IS a religion. It just so happens that the current paradigm's main dogma (which changes periodically) is evolutionism and yes it is an ism....

Jaden

reply to post by iterationzero


no, you believe that the mechanism for that adaptation is evolution. besides, which type of evolution are you referring to. I have NEVER heard ANYONE deny that microevolution takes place. EVER....


Jaden

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You can so easily substitute evolutionist with creationist in that statement and it would become 98.9% more true.

I have only heard of creationists wanting to eliminate lies about science from the classroom and to provide alternative theories as well. It is only the evolutionists that I have heard state that they are the be all end all of truth and only their truth should be taught in school...

Jaden

reply to post by Masterjaden

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

You can so easily substitute evolutionist with creationist in that statement and it would become 98.9% more true.

Going 'NO YOU!' isn't a suitable discussion topic. How is "that statement" (I'm not sure which one as I never use the word 'evolutionist') made more true by substituting those words?

I have only heard of creationists wanting to eliminate lies about science from the classroom

Name a single lie that is in the science classroom that the creationists want to eliminate. Simplifications don't count. We can't expect schoolchildren to study at college levels.

and to provide alternative theories as well.

I'm sorry, but there aren't any alternative theories. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it is a religious belief. It has no body of evidence to support it.

It is only the evolutionists that I have heard state that they are the be all end all of truth

I'm sorry, but evolutionary biologists are quite clear on the fact that science is fallible and changes with new evidence, the problem for you is that all of the evidence supports evolution.

and only their truth should be taught in school...

It's not their truth, it's scientific fact.

reply to post by Masterjaden


No, scientific paradigms are not dogma because they are open to attack by evidence. And evolution is not an ism because it is a scientific theory.

reply to post by Masterjaden


There is no distinction between macro and micro evolution in the scientific literature anymore.

Now, if you admit "micro"evolution takes place, what is the barrier that prevents "macro"evolution from taking place?