It seems the problem with your post from my perspective is it categorises creationists into three groups
No, I describe three kinds of behaviours I've encountered, some people do all three. I've never met somebody who doesn't do one, but there probably is. I'm not categorising.
The second problem with your argument is that it relies on the fallacy called the Black Swan Fallacy
This is where, to some degree, we hit a problem.
First of all, it's not an argument. The multiple "I met" and "in my experience" are to indicate it's just my experience. There's no large scale study of the Creationist community in the manner your discussing, at least not one I have seen, so I have nothing else. I'm not indicating this is absolutely true nor categorising creationists. Just listing three observed behaviours.
The "problem" I'm alluding to is that evolution is the scientific consensus. Perhaps there is a Creationist who fully understands it and has a solid argument against it. I've never seen them and neither it seems has the scientific community in general, since evolution is still the consensus of the scientific community and no such arguments are presented at serious scientific conferences.
Is it more likely you are just saying that to have a pop at creationists?
No. Creationists to me are an interesting American* movement. I never meet them in day to day life aside from the one guy on a sabbatical (from the US) I mentioned above. Honestly I don't really have a bias against Creationists anymore than you do against Fianna Fil.
It seems more reasonable to believe that as a human being, you have certain biases
Yes I certainly do, but as above, not about Creationism. I have no biases against Indian nationalists either.
Similarly I could say, "evolutionists are just another outgroup, they're clinging on to Neo-Darwinism when it's clear epigenetics and other factors have now shown it outdated, they are no different from Indian nationalists or flat earthers."
Except the global scientific community's assessment of the evidence is against the latter two and not the former. Just as it is against Creationism, that is the fundamental difference.
Now of course we could go deeper into it and I could begin to present the actual evidence which convinces >99.9% of the biological community, but that's what the entirety of the rest of the forum is about (has been about), I'm not going to rehash it.
The
observed fact is that scientific community is not convinced of Creationism and treats it just like flat-Earth and Indian origins for Indo-European. I would like to hear a non-conspiratorial explanation of that
fact.
If you want me to go in depth on a topic on which I have read both sides I can. It's specifically Cosmology, where I have read all the major Creationist papers and found them ignorant of modern cosmological evidence and theory, then I can. However I don't know if that is what you want.
*Of course it exists outside America, but I've mostly encountered it as an American issue and the form I've debated most is American.
Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.
Edited by Son Goku, : Clarifying "American"