But what else can we think? Given that I am convinced that evolution is very clearly true, what explanation can I have for any given creationist's failure to see that? In truth, there are only so many possibilities.
He could be wicked, deliberately lying.
He could be insane.
He could simply be an imbecile.
I don't think that those are true though, not in most cases. Most creationists are honest enough in what they believe. Few are insane (although some clearly are). Most are not idiots (although in my view, more than usual are).
But what of those honest creationists who are not insane idiots? What could explain their apparent inability to see sense?
Well, charitably, I would not like to assume that they are lying, or that they are mad, or stupid. It seems much kinder to assume;
a) That they are simply ignorant of the information needed to see through creationism's falsehoods, or;
b) They are deluded, having fallen for the cheap charms of some very bad arguments.
Please don't think that to call someone ignorant or deluded is some kind of cheap insult here. In this context, it is the most charitable assumption, After all, we are all ignorant of something. Human knowledge is vast, we can't know it all and we are all ignorant of the majority of what is known collectively. Similarly, we are all operating under our own personal delusions, it's nothing particularly shameful.
Of course it could be;
c) I am wrong, evolution is false and creationism is true;
but I do not think that likely. Certainly I think it less likely than the idea that some people are ignorant and deluded and if I gave the possibility of my being wrong very much weight, I would, after all, be forced to switch sides...
This misunderstanding comes from a misconception about how scientists, or humans in general, work in regards to evidence. The key concept to remember is this: evidence is always interpreted. Evidence never dictates anything, it never says anything, it never 100% forces a conclusion. Even in those rare cases where a set of evidence seems to allow a single interpretation, science must always allow a door open for future evidence that can come in and completely change that picture.
Now, I know that you probably already knew this. It seems so obvious that facts are always interpreted. But I think you do not realize how far-reaching the consequences of this are: this is, in my opinion, the whole basis of the paradigm-shift based approach to the history of science developped by Thomas Kuhn. Einstein, in a conversation with Heisenberg, even went as far as to say that ''It is the theory which dictates what we can observe''. Said like this, it seems so wrong, but it is nevertheless true.
Once we realize this, than the Dawkins' trichotomy of ignorant, idiot or wicked cannot be taken seriously, because at heart it is unscientific. Clearly, it was Dawkins the crusader, not Dawkins the scientist, who said this, because it seeks to stop inquiry, it wants to prevent people to question. In fact, as a student in a scientifc domain, I cannot imagine anyone saying something like this about any other theory. Not even relativity or electromagnetism, which, in my opinion, are the most supported theories in all of science.
Dawkins is akin to a detective arriving at a crime scence, and after looked at the evidence, concludes that person A killed person B with object C. But then, when another detective, after having looked at the same evidence, comes to a different conclusion, he calls this person deluded, stupid, or a lier. Obviously, the real reason is that the data was interpreted differently, and each detective happened to come to different conclusions.
But, assuming that I am correct and evolution is real, what you describe above would fall within the category of delusion. You looked at the evidence, but came to the wrong conclusion. That would count as a delusion. There's nothing shameful about it, but delusion it is.
Further, you must think the same of me.
Why do I deny the Christian God? Why do I embrace the false doctrine of evolution? Why do I criticise the Bible? What explanation can you give for my perverse attitudes? Surely, if you are right, then I must be mad, bad, ignorant, idiotic, insane or merely deluded.
Do you have another option?
Yes, in fact I do. I realize that you are interpreting the evidence in a wholy different paradigm then I am, and therefore you come to widely different conclusions.
Nowhere is this more apparent then in the case when someone makes a complete 180 degrees turnaround, a complete paradigm shift, such as was the case of Dr. Sanford. He spent his whole career as an atheist evolutionists working in genetics, completely convinced that creationism was false. And yet, today, he sees evidence against evolution, and for creation, everywhere.
Is he stupid ? No evidence for this, and in fact his PhD in genetics suggests that he is at minimum a perfectly intelligent person.
Is he ignorant ? Unless it can be shown that you can remain ignorant of evolution while working in genetics, I would assume not.
Is he a lier ? Unless you can produce evidence to the contrary, I would assume not, since who would lie about believing in evolution, associating with creationist, and by this destroying his life's work reputation ?
The only option then, is that he is honest when he thinks that the evidence supports creation more then evolution.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2