Why Won't Creationists Learn?

So I was talking to Faith in Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish? and I finally came down to wondering why most YEC's absolutely refuse to bother studying the science they are attacking. I used a couple of analogies that I will repeat here: My main question is this. Why do YECs on this board and elsewhere feel that they can be legitimately critical of sciences for which they have essentially no knowledge about?Similarly, wouldn't it be better to actually go out and learn at least basic geology before spouting out gems like or as if they really knew how principles of geology were developed and are used? If they did, they would realize how this relates to the two analogies I listed above.Also, I would like to discuss the following:How does this relate to the intellectual honesty of a debate participant when they engage in this behavior?
How do debate participants who engage in this behavior feel they are justified in making the statements that they do in ignorance?I trust moderator judgment as to the placement of the thread. I only suggest that it be placed in a forum such that some of our restricted members can address these issues.

I have felt myself wanting to discuss this topic in other threads where it is not on topic. This is just a friendly reminder that this is here for all you cool topic promotion folks.Thanks!

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

Not really because it is specifically addressing the lack of desire or otherwise of even obtaining "qualifications" and the fallout thereof.I think a good place might be Misc Topics in EvC as long as Faith and randman are able to post there to address the issue since it was motivated by them.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

I think I was mainly looking for more of an academic discussion about why they feel they do not need to learn about, for example mainstream geology, before they start what seems to them a deep criticism of it.There are some fundamental properties that allow them to do this and then there are the corellary questions in the OP.I was thinking about it the other day after I proposed the topic and I thought of a few things.1. They absolutly do not care about looking silly and thus will say thing similar to the analogies in the OP. A person educated in the subject matter sees it as total gibberish and a person without the knowledge or the audacity would not have said anything at all.2. There must be some sort of spectrum of reason why they refuse to educate themselves on the topic. These can range from laziness/apathy at best to at worst outright fear that it might somehow make them not believe in God anymore. IT is as if they will loose their faith the moment they try to educate themselves on the subjects they are trying to criticize.Of course this poses the quesiton of what gives them any semblance of honesty when they criticize something they obviously have no knowledge of. This is worth answering because it is an epidemic in the EvC debate and while it can be fun for some (in the circus freak sense of fun) it truly is a barrier to those who legitimatly want to engage in civil discourse with creationists.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 08-11-2005 12:07 PM

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

Great reply.I agree with your point about the motivating factor. Most creationists are probably involved in the debate due to the percieved threat it presents upon their faith. Not because they have a true interest in discovering the truth or properly defining science with regards to science education.I do disagree though with the notion that they cannot learn or that they do not know they are ignorant of the topics. Many times they can and have articulated their lack of knowledge on the subject matter and yet continue as if it should not be a barrier to legitimate criticism. Furthermore, it is obvious as is in the case of both Faith and randman that they are both quite intelligent and capable of learning the principles if they would even bother to try.I know many of my friends who fall into the c & d student category who where perfectly aware of the reason they fell into that category. Certainly there will be some like you suggest but in my experience it will be at most half of the type of people who come in here and stay awhile that have this issue.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

I believe there is truth to your position but I feel it is a worst case type of situation. There are those who have come through here and been so blatantly insecure about their faith that this was the exact issue at hand.I am not necessarily convinced though that this is the case for all creationists who come in here. It is almost that they feel they have a duty to make criticism about things that they know they do not understand and have proven thusfar unwilling to educate themselves on. Where does this stem from and is it very intellectually honest of them to continue to do so? Assuming your answer, is there anything we can do to make transparent that this is the case for them?

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

While I do appreciate the participation I feel that discussing the "flipside" is not appripriate for this thread.In your situation you would require skeptics of the Bible to become Christians in order to be effective critics. In my case all we would need is for creationists to educate themselves with objective knowledge that does not require an emotional or otherwise investment.All I am talking about here is knowledge. Knowledge of what the thing is that they are criticizing. It is terribly evident that they do not have this knowledge when they say things that amount to nothing more than academically worded gibberish. There is use of terminology without proper definition, and theory without proper understanding of what it really is.Moreover, if they know this, why do they feel they are continually justified in their criticism?

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

There is one big mistake you made in the OP on your new thread. I choose to respond here because it is relevant to this thread and not yours.That arguments are being made in ignorance of the actual science is not in dispute. The examples I used of Faith in the most recent thread are obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of formal geology. This pattern has been repeated countless times in this forum and probably will continue.Moreover, after explicitly pointing out that, based on their statements, it is painfully obvious that their knowledge of the subject area is wanting, often the classical creationists will continue as if unencumbered by being called on their ignorance.That this happens is not up for debate. What is up for debate is the why and if this type of behavior is intellectually honest.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 08-22-2005 11:22 AM

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Thats fine. I just thought you shouldn't be shut out.I don't undersant why this should be such a controversial topic for you. You yourself have admitted to lacking subject knowledge so the whole "obviously ignorant" part of it is taken care of as it is accepted on both sides of the issue.The question of this thread is why you then feel justified in saying things like OE geology is "obviously silly" without even a reasonable background into what you are calling silly.These are serious questions. You tend to take everything I say to you as an attack. This is not mean as one big ad-hominem. I really would like you input as to why you feel that your positions are intellectually honest. Obviously you feel that they are or else you would not be making them.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

I am seriously trying to be very objective here. Please, none of this is meant as an attack. This is a legitimate inquiry. I really am trying to reconcile this meta issue here.We know by your use, and you have freely admitted to having a lack in formal science training.Despite this, and despite being told this in the context of your argument, you seem to feel justified in your argument.To those of us who DO have the formal training it looks like someone who is faking it. I have been using various analogies with little success it seem but it is like when a man who knows nothing about cars pretending to have a discussion with his mechanic about the workings of a car. Sure there are some things that are common knowledge but when he disagrees with his mechanic about something like the timing belt needing to be changed and cites some rediculious reason then it gives insight into just how much actual knowledge he had to begin with.When this is finally pointed out. Why do you feel justified in sticking to your guns? We told you that your argument is in ignorance of the things being described to you. You admit ignorance in geology. If you don't understand the examples and the principles being described then how can you argue with us?Main question in bold. It is like two cars traveling in opposite directions. We get frustrated because you are not engaging us on the points we are making. Then some of us have the lofty idea of try to teach you some of the basics so you can potentially debate us with REAL insight into the theory. At least to me, it felt like this attempt was treated as an attack on your person. If you don't want to be taught, just say so. NO one is asking you to believe in the theory, just know it so you can properly attack it.You are a smart creationist Faith or at least you come off as highly intelligent. At a minimum you are a very good writer. Some of us really want to engage in an intellectual discussion on the real issues regarding science and science education with someone of the opposite persuasion. But if you can't even identify the position you are calling "silly" then how can we even have a discussion?And another thing. Why, after being informed that you don't seem to understand the issues being presented do you still feel justified or intellectually honest in continuing down the same line of reasoning on a topic that essentially is fake due to misunderstanding? The topic literally and actually becomes nonsense because the thing being debated is not what is reality due to lack of grounding in what the theory actually says. You end up debating, dare I say it, a strawman but based on mis/non understanding rather than purpose.I hope this is clear. Once again. There is no attack here intended. If you feel that there is please point it out so I can clear it up and we can go on with the actual points.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

But we are pointing to the science in our refutations and you are engaging us in that domain after that. But they are exactly dealing with what you are trying to say. Your opponents are trying to debate with you, show you how you are wrong and to do that the tool is objective scientific inquiry. I don't mean for this to sound rude at all but this is a debate thread. Your opponents are making very specific points with regard to fact and theory. If you feel that the theory is silly don't you think you need to know "what" the theory is and "why" the theory is first? Because what you are doing is exactly attacking the theory and you do so in ignorance of it both demonstrated and freely admitted. If you wanted simply to post your opinion unencumbered maybe starting a blog about the subject might be better suited for you. Again I mean no insult by that. It may just be more your style. But we are using these principles to address your claims. Once again this is a debate. You bring up a claim, we address it with principle X. Further discussion regarding principle X then decends into nonsense based on not understanding what principle X really is. If you don't understand principle X, don't you feel it would be better just to say, "I don't really understand but I believe it be wrong because of my faith?" Instead what you are doing is either repeat your original claim with various other explanations that fail to address why principle X is important, or make an attempt to discredit principle X based on a misunderstanding of it. I still tend to think that your misunderstandings are innocent but they are misunderstandings none the less.Your opponents make it about the geology and the principles when they post an explanation/refutation to your claims. You chose to engage those refutations and thus are addressing the science and the principles therin. Thats paragraph in particular is interesting and I would like you to focus on it for a minute. "seems to me to get AWAY from the argument I'm trying to have" shows me that there is a lack of understanding as to why the points being raised refute your claims. They do not "get AWAY from the argument" they are refutations of the argument. That you don't understand why or how they are refutations should be a good indicator for you why there is this constant frustration.Faith we are addressing your claims. Then when it dosen't seem like you understand the refutation we try to tell you that it dosen't seem like you understood. This is not an attack upon you but rather simply identifing the knowledge gap between posters. We are talking about valid counterpoints to your claims for which you most certainly are "faking it" in terms of your attempt to discredit them. When this happens it makes you SEEM dishonest. I know you don't feel like you have been dishonest but that is what it looks like to us on the other side who simply see and argument that does nothing to address the counter point and often does nothing more than the equivalent of repeating the original claim. Can you at least understand why sometimes WE FEEL like you are being dishonest? I am very sorry you lost your post. I would loved to have read it. It only took loosing my post one time for me to learn to write substantial posts in an word editor where I could save it. Hopefully a good tip for the future. That is the MAIN point of discussion here. You most certainly have not identified the position you are calling "silly" because you have both demonstrated and admitted a lack of understanding of the basic theory. What you are calling "silly" are things like great age, sedimentation principles, mutations, etc which are the theory. When you call these things "obviously silly" you ARE attacking the theory for which you do not understand. I have asked this question now many times. Don't you feel that it would be better as a YEC to base your offensive debate upon an actual understanding of the theories you disagree with?Again no one is asking you to BELIEVE in mainstream geology or the ToE but I want to know why you feel justified in attacking it without even knowing what it is.Without trying to be condescending, I just would like to point out in closing again that none of this is indented as an assault on your person. In the interest of keeping this debate civil I will make sure to clarify this often as it seems to have caused problems in the past when I have not done so.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Obviously you do not have a problem with what you said above or else you would not have said it. Can you AT LEAST see why we might think this is maddeningly rediculous?To me, this in on par with crashfrog saying that he dosen't read posts that are too long before he replies to them. I just cannot imagine a person with interest in honest discussion would actually say such a thing as the above.How can you possibly attack anything properly that you do not understand?

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

My whole purpose for even starting this thread was to try to root our why it seems that our discussion always descend into frustration. My first though along that line of thinking are these cases where it is actually very obvious that you do not understand the arguments you are attacking. Hence this thread. This is a start but it still does not answer the question. Before you can properly attack OE concepts don't you feel like you should understand them without necessary believing in them? If not then why not? If yes then is there any way that we can help you get to that point of understanding?Continuing: Part of the problem is that many times those "OTHER" things are actualy adressing your claims of "absurdity" and in your responses you demonstrate simply that you didn't understand how they address it. NO one here is trying to take away your belief in the absurdity of it all. That being said, often the rebuttal against your reason for belief in absurdity can only be addressed by an attempt to correct your misinterpretation of the theorey. I don't think anyone here really thinks that they can change your belief that it is absurd but we at least want to make sure that your belief is based on an actual understanding of the theorey. Blast it all you want for whatever reason but do so for what it actually is rather than what you concieve that it is.Last: Here is where I think the "deeper problem" is. I couldn't find where holmes said this but it dosen't really matter. Even if there is many interpretations of how the GC formed they are going to USE OE theory. They all will still have to explain each of the facts from the layers, fossils, unconformities, cross-bedding, radiometric data, etc. I would expect that the "many" interpretations of the formation of the GC are only going to differ on the finer points and not on the obvious such as the sequence of events, relative age, depositional environments, etc.The theory is the TOOLS used to reconstruct the geologic history of something like the GC. THAT is why we were totally missing eachother on the other thread about the oil. It isn't just the state of the formation that is important but also the WHY and HOW it got that way. In order to dispute that there must be a different WHY and HOW it got that way derived from a different theory that is just as successful in practical application as the original.Please lets not get back into that discussion. The point is that I am of the strong opinion that you don't really know what the theory is and as such are misidentifying it and misinterpreting it only to your own demise. To those of us whom you are addressing it obvious and the barrier that it creates is the primary source of the frustration for both sides.In conclusion:
Have your belief that OE Geology and the ToE are absurd. Please just help us identify the areas that you wish to discuss for which you are ignorant of the actual theory so we can help you learn it if you like. Please understand that, when you continue like you do, it looks as though you are not only willfully but sometimes even purposfully ignorant due to your deep personal disbelief in modern scientific theories.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 08-25-2005 08:58 AM

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

What the heck do you think I and may others have been doing across hundreds of posts to you? Especially recently. Assuming too much. I got started in this debate trying to figure out what was right. I still continue that search waiting for someone to show me how modern scientific theory is absurd. The problem is, you have never done so because you are describing as absurd something completely different from modern scientific theory. I have no emotional investment in evolution or geology. I just want to know the truth and so far I have not only heard no truth from YECism but dishonesty regardless if it is intentional or not. Yea, that certainly motivates me to spend countless hours filling up this forum with a regurgitation of semester upon semester of my education. How about you start over, coax the admins to let you back into the science fora with the intent of readdressing one issue of interest to you. If you approach the situation with a little bit of humility I am sure there will be plenty of people lined up to answer your questions. Take a cue from TheLiteralist. Probably as staunch a YEC as you but came in here after some time bring up some issue that were actually much closer to a criticism of theories we are all at this forum to talk about. No one is asking you to be a geology whiz in a week but there is seriously an awesome knowlege base here on this forum to tap.I cannot wait for the day that you post an actual criticism of OE or the ToE. I am hungry for it. Only by putting these issues to the fire will we even know the truth.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

If you want to join the thread join the thread. I was under the impression that you had a very low opinon of it.No where did I say that YECs don't understand mainstream theory because the don't believe in it. Most of the time they are ignorant simply because they don't have or don't care to have education in the topics they are critical of. That many of these discussion are awash with ignorance from creationists is not up for debate.Address the actual issues raised in this thread or don't participate. It is simple.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show