|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ignorant Creationists vs. Knowledgeable Evolutionists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kc8rdb Inactive Member |
Why is it that so many Creationists show obvious ignorance when it comes to arguing against Evolution, but Evolutionists are usually fairly knowledgeable about both topics?
Nicole
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
1) I think there is at least 1 existing topic on the matter.
2) We need to come up with a better topic title. Arguments for Creation/Evolution is about as vague as you can get. 3) I think you need to come up with more of an opening message, than just a 1 sentence question (even if it might be a good question). Please edit message 1, or post a new message instead. Include a better topic title as the subtitle. Adminnemooseus This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-03-2004 12:10 PM Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to Change in Moderation? or Thread Reopen Requests or Considerations of topic promotions from the Proposed New Topics forum
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kc8rdb Inactive Member |
In many of my discussions on another board that deals with the Evolution versus Creation debate, it has been my observation that the Evolutionists know far more about science than the Creationists. Why is this? Do you think that possibly Creationists are so content in their religious beliefs that they refuse to study other ways of looking at science? As of right now, I am a Creationist, who is studying into Evolutionary theory. The more I study and review the evidence, the more I tend to lean toward the Evolutionary line of thinking.
Nicole
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I think the short answer is that the creationist side studies the printed Biblical story of the creation while the science side studies the creation. A "look at the book vs. look at the real world" situation.
Moose Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
I think the problem is that creationists feel that they already have the answer and don't need to look farther. They may feel that testing their faith in the literalness of Genesis is a type of heresy. This mind set could be linked to the life sentence of house arrest for Galileo. His scientific ideas, much like evolution, challenged the literal interpretation of the Bible. He was never really challenged on the scientific soundness of his ideas, but instead was challenged because his ideas did not mesh with the Bible, and it also challenged the authority of the Catholic interpretation of the Bible. Even now, creationist sites try to cover up the Galileo Affair as if it wasn't about the conflict between religion and science. Today we see the same conflict, that theories based in science should not trump subjective opinions made on the strength of divine inspiration.
In my opinion, creationists don't care that they don't understand science. All they care about is understanding Genesis and a capability to parrot creationist websites. For them, creationism is an evangelistic tool not a scientific theory. They have fallen in the trap of assuming the conclusion and making the evidence fit the presupposed conclusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gary Inactive Member |
I agree with you. I think that although many people don't care either way, the Creationists who do care try to educate themselves somewhat on what they think is both sides of the argument. The problem is, this involves going to Creationist websites and books and learning arguements against evolution that are either irrelevant or have been debunked many times. The ones who would like to learn more end up learning a biased view of the evidence which strengthens their beliefs, even if people who believe in evolution have debunked their views a million times.
If you listen to sources about evolution, you'll probably end up believing in evolution. If you listen to sources for Creationism, you'll probably end up doubting evolution. If you listen to both sides, however, you'll probably go with evolution and learn much more about the problems with Creationism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I think it's more than that. Creationists do tend to think that they know everything and seem to find it quite painful to read opposing views. In this forum for instanc Lysimachus more than often claimed to be "sickened" by opposing views. On another forum I saw a creationist accept a challenge to read a popular book on evolution - and fail
Aside from the repeated misreadings and misrepresentations he never made it beyond Chapter 1. (The book was Steve Jones' Darwin's Ghost aka Almost Like a Whale).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
To be fair, it can be hard to read the "other side". I'm about half way through some book on dinosaurs, paluxy foot prints and the like by, IIRC, Morris. It is not exactly "fun" reading.
You do have to have some interest to keep plugging through. However, I think that individuals here demonstrate that not only are "evos" more knowledgeable about the science viewpoint (as you'd expect) but they seem to be more know about the oppossing viewpoint as presented by the likes of AIG, ICR and even Hovind and crowd than those who support that side. Given that the AIG etc. side is pretty simplistic compared to the real world perhaps that's not so hard. Absorbing a bit more material on the general topic isn't hard if you've already grappled with the complex and voluminous information on the science side.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GoodIntentions  Inactive Member |
Creationists do tend to think that they know everything and seem to find it quite painful to read opposing views.
Unfortunately, I must agree with you that many creationists do think they know everything. This is why I stopped associating with mainstream creationists a long time ago. I have also noticed that many creationists lack some serious reading comprehension skill. I see creationism as more of an endangered form of art rather than real live science at work. As to where I want to go with it, I am still searching. By the way, is Brad McFall an evolutionist or creationist? I am having trouble telling what he's saying most of the time. Is it me? This message has been edited by GoodIntentions, 11-03-2004 08:10 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
brad? no it is not you. brad is a creationist by my reckoning from his use of baramins rather than species. think of someone with a lot to say on an issue who sees whole pages of text from books expressed as icon phrases and multiple trains of thought at the same time and you may be able to come close (this is my opinion, brad can correct me please).
There is a topic on brad just because he is one of the special (again, imho) people here. I enjoy reading his posts. problem I have with creationism is that the actual product would seems to me to be a good source of information ... enjoy we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4913 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
Well I think the creationists have a lot more riding on it than the evos. If a person was of the mind that if the TOE is true then their entire faith is wrong, they have much more riding on the truth/lack thereof than the evos do. They then jump on anything that possibly is a flaw in evolution.
Evos on the other hand have nothing to lose if evolution is indeed wrong. In fact I'd imagine there's a lot of biologists out there who'd love the fame that would come with some fantastic new discovery that brought new light to the matter. I mean just look at Einstein bringing new light to classical physics with the theories of relativity. No one cared that it meant that Newton wasn't quite right. Because of this it is much easier for evos to research the TOE, without fear of what they'll find, and a lot less personal bias on the matter. And that brings a new slant to it, creationsts don't have the same bias correction that mainstream science has. Evos are peer reviewed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
What aboput the blood of Jesus? (Repeating for Chas) :-P
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I still think it is different. Are you sickened just by opinions that disagree with yours ? You're half-way through the book - and apparently without even the incentive of a direct challenge.
And I bet you would carefully check all your criticisms. The guy I'm talking about called Jones a liar for saying that fixity of species had been disproved - when even he accepted that species could evolve (but not "kinds"). And he stuck with it even after his error had been pointed out. The point is that many creationists are incapable of learning the science firstly because of their habit of twisting everything they read to fit their own preconceptions and secondly because they have an extreme dislike of reading material that contradicts their beliefs. Evolutionists in general are simply not dominated by bias and anger to the same extent. This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-04-2004 12:10 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kc8rdb Inactive Member |
This is kind of what I am going through right now. I am a Creationist, yet because of my lack of understanding I am going to the evolutionists for help. I have been studying evolution for almost a month now, getting most, if not all of my information straight from evolutionists. By doing this, I have discovered the problems that I mentioned earlier, and a few others besides.
Nicole
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024