Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Won't Creationists Learn?
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 1 of 59 (231844)
08-10-2005 12:03 PM


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:
It is like telling a computer tech support person on the phone that you can't get your email because the g-wave flux capacitor in your computer is broken. It is a total indication of your lack of fundamental understanding of the principles being talked about. I hope this does not offend you but rather inspire you to branch out and study this if it interests you.
Here is another one, what if I came up to you and said that Jesus was a tall east-asian roman soldier and I listed as my reference the Gospel of Brian which is right after Luke. Wouldn't I be completely betraying my complete ignorance about what is actually in the Bible?
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
I have not excluded ANY knowledge of the actual physical layout in anything I've said. I insist on it, all of it. That's what geology does, I assume it's all needed. It's the AGE theory that's not.
or
Wrong since geologists are trained to assess the evidence. But you are right that a technician with the same skills as geologists could use those skills to do the same job with or without relying on OE beliefs.
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Jazzns, posted 08-11-2005 1:24 PM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 6 by CK, posted 08-11-2005 1:39 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 10 by nwr, posted 08-11-2005 2:07 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 23 by Omnivorous, posted 08-11-2005 9:42 PM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 41 by dsv, posted 08-23-2005 12:59 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 2 of 59 (232298)
08-11-2005 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jazzns
08-10-2005 12:03 PM


Friendly Bump for Mods.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jazzns, posted 08-10-2005 12:03 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by AdminNosy, posted 08-11-2005 1:27 PM Jazzns has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 3 of 59 (232300)
08-11-2005 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Jazzns
08-11-2005 1:24 PM


Where to?
It's not clear to me where to put this. Could it be tacked onto Brians "qualifications" thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Jazzns, posted 08-11-2005 1:24 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Jazzns, posted 08-11-2005 1:32 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 4 of 59 (232305)
08-11-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by AdminNosy
08-11-2005 1:27 PM


Re: Where to?
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AdminNosy, posted 08-11-2005 1:27 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 5 of 59 (232306)
08-11-2005 1:34 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
randman is not able to post here for another day and some. Perhaps after that.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 08-11-2005 01:35 PM

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 6 of 59 (232311)
08-11-2005 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jazzns
08-10-2005 12:03 PM


Total waste of time
This is very very simple.
The bible is the LITERAL word of God.
THEREFORE any science that disagrees with the bible is wrong. You don't actually have to understand the science, as a fundie you just need a simple question - "is this in conflict with the bible?" if the answer is yes - then the science is wrong. That's the start, middle and end of it.
It's a total waste of time - trying to convince a Fundie is like trying to convince a crackhead that "hell that pipe IS burning your lips" - they just cannot understand what you are saying. The crackhead/fundie had to want to change for themselves, you will never never manage to explain to them why or how they have got it so wrong.
You are just going to get 100s and 100s of posts explaining in long very dull detail how in fact you just don't understand the point they are trying to make because you are an EVILutionist and oh by the way did you know that those diagrams were fake and scientists lie.
And so on and so on....
I do understand what you are trying to say (and I agree) but it's utterly pointless, you might as well talk to a wall.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-Aug-2005 01:42 PM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-Aug-2005 01:44 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jazzns, posted 08-10-2005 12:03 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 08-11-2005 1:43 PM CK has replied
 Message 9 by Jazzns, posted 08-11-2005 2:06 PM CK has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 7 of 59 (232312)
08-11-2005 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by CK
08-11-2005 1:39 PM


I will agree with the basic premise, here. I would say, however, that on the flipside, it is pointless to argue with a non-believer (in God) about the meaning of Biblical texts. They simply do not get it because they do not know Him. Just as I do not know geology, so why argue with a geologist. I do not know physics so why argue with a physicist??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by CK, posted 08-11-2005 1:39 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by CK, posted 08-11-2005 1:52 PM Phat has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 8 of 59 (232318)
08-11-2005 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Phat
08-11-2005 1:43 PM


But that's not true is it? Look how Brian and others take to pieces people's arguments because a) they HAVE read the bible and b) they know this historical context in which it is placed.
You might be right about the "spiritual" side of it but you are entirely incorrect about the "factual" side of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 08-11-2005 1:43 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 08-11-2005 3:31 PM CK has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 9 of 59 (232324)
08-11-2005 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by CK
08-11-2005 1:39 PM


Re: Total waste of time
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by CK, posted 08-11-2005 1:39 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by CK, posted 08-11-2005 2:19 PM Jazzns has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 10 of 59 (232328)
08-11-2005 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jazzns
08-10-2005 12:03 PM


Learniing is hard work
I am mainly expressing my opinion here, based on my experience as an educator and as a participant in debates on usenet.
Why Won't Creationists Learn?
It is not that they won't learn. The problem is that they cannot learn.
I don't mean this as a reflection on their intellect. Learning is hard work. Those of us who are into science don't notice how much effort we put into our studies, because we enjoy it. But many creationists are not turned on by science. So they find it a chore, and perhaps they even find it boring. In such circumstances, it is very difficult for them to develop a solid understanding of the science.
Those of us who are into science might have similar difficulties if, for example, we were trying to study the theology of Aquinas.
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?
This is because they don't recognize how poorly they understand the subject. They believe themselves to know more than they actually know.
I often notice this as an educator. The A students know that they are A students. The B students know that they are B students, and they have some idea on where the weakness is in their knowledge.
Many of the C and D students are quite certain that they are A or B students, and are shocked at the poor grades they receive. They just do not know enough to be able to recognize their limitations.
How does this relate to the intellectual honesty of a debate participant when they engage in this behavior?
What we see as intellectual dishonesty may often be more a matter of confusion, and of a lack of awareness of how little they know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jazzns, posted 08-10-2005 12:03 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Jazzns, posted 08-11-2005 2:25 PM nwr has not replied
 Message 45 by coffee_addict, posted 08-23-2005 1:51 AM nwr has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 11 of 59 (232333)
08-11-2005 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jazzns
08-11-2005 2:06 PM


It's fear
quote:
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.
It's to do with fear and the worldview that they have built for themselves. Fundementalists tends to be people who have invested their all in the bible (or other holy text) and their religion. It is at the core of their being. If the bible is not the LITERAL world of god, then it opens up all sorts of painful and difficult questions. If it's not all true, maybe none of it is true? If none of it is true, what will happen to me when I die? What is the purpose of my existance? Those are questions they already have answers to - they have the certain word of God to fall back upon.
Let me reprint something from another thread:
quote:
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a JW a while back, we were talking about the Kingdom and the claim of that cult that it would be on earth. The person I was discussing it with found it physically painful to discuss the matter, they actually started to shake - just from a discussion!
Further to this - we started looking at my bible and when they read elements of it aloud, what they read wasn't on the page. I cannot remember the verse but they kept subbing in "earth" for "heaven". It was truely mindboggling stuff, they just struggled to see what was quite clearly on the page.
in your debates with Faith, you think you are debating science, you are not - you are attacking her as a person at the most basic level, you don't mean to do that and that's not what you intend to do but that's the reality of dealing with fundementalists.They are their belief in the most literally sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jazzns, posted 08-11-2005 2:06 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Jazzns, posted 08-11-2005 2:32 PM CK has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 12 of 59 (232343)
08-11-2005 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by nwr
08-11-2005 2:07 PM


Re: Learniing is hard work
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by nwr, posted 08-11-2005 2:07 PM nwr has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 13 of 59 (232348)
08-11-2005 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by CK
08-11-2005 2:19 PM


Re: It's fear
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by CK, posted 08-11-2005 2:19 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by CK, posted 08-11-2005 2:38 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 14 of 59 (232352)
08-11-2005 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jazzns
08-11-2005 2:32 PM


Re: It's fear
It's not true for some of the younger ones who come in here and don't actually know very much about anything (including the bible). You will notice that they will appear with the "it's not a theory not a fact" or "how come there are still apes" and then disappear when they realise what they know is wrong. Some do stick around and those willing to learn don't tend to stick to their hardline viewpoints.
The worst seem to be those who come to their position via religious conversation due to some tramatic and hurtful event (divorce,rape, abortion, drug abuse, just generally being a waster). Those are generally beyond reason the bible has to be literally true because it made the bad things go away.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-Aug-2005 02:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jazzns, posted 08-11-2005 2:32 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Rahvin, posted 08-11-2005 3:58 PM CK has not replied
 Message 19 by Rahvin, posted 08-11-2005 4:01 PM CK has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 15 of 59 (232384)
08-11-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by CK
08-11-2005 1:52 PM


But what if the spiritual IS the factual? In other words, you cannot theoretically explain a God in whom you do not believe. All you CAN do is explain (or attempt to explain) the human side of it. The Bible can be seen in the context of an ancient bit of writings from human perspectives and experiences of the day that they were written or spoken. The belief behind the book, however is the character of the book....who is Jesus Christ. OT or NT, Jesus Christ is the character behind the book.
Some would assert that this is merely opinion that can easily be dismissed with context. What they are doing, however, is originating the context with the humans who transcribed the book. The context that I am talking about is the God behind and above all humanity. We are talking apples and oranges. You see human wisdom as the origin of truth. I see God as the origin of truth. Its the chicken and the egg. Which came first? God who created humans or humans who made up god stories? We will not soon agree on this one!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by CK, posted 08-11-2005 1:52 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by CK, posted 08-11-2005 3:50 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 17 by Jazzns, posted 08-11-2005 3:55 PM Phat has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024