Education

One of the things I consistently come across when I debate evolution with creationists is their consistent lack of knowledge in science. I'm not saying they lack higher education, but their lack of knowledge in science seems evident by the arguments they give against evolution.Do people see a lack of knowledge in science as a possible cause for their inability to understand what evolution truly is?Are their any papers or statistics on the variation of science education among evolutionists vs. creationists?Do you think we would be having these problems with evolution and creationism if education in science were stronger?This message has been edited by Ned_Flanders, 12-10-2005 05:35 PMThis message has been edited by Ned_Flanders, 12-10-2005 05:36 PM

Prophex,Sorry if I mis-understood what you said in your post, but it appears to me that you understand and realize that evidence goes toward evolution and not creationism. But you choose to believe in creationism because you think there is a specific purpose for you, and that you not some random creation.That takes my post in a somewhat different direction. But do you think a lack of education in science is a big result of people choosing creationism over evolution? I'm talking about looking at the evidence for both sides and making a decision.
Do you think there are many creationists who have advanced education in science such as yourself?

Yes there obviously is a trend.It would definitely be interesting to see that poll broken down into more categories. Such as degree earned, classes taken etc...This message has been edited by Ned_Flanders, 12-10-2005 08:25 PM

Nighttrain,I've heard some ridiculous things just like you have. The most recent that made me laugh was someone comparing that snakes being the only terrestrial animal without legs proving the existence of the devil, and of course God. Even when he was enlightened to the existence of legless lizards he then tried to lump them together as the same thing. Ridiculous....I went to parochial school for 12 years, had religion class every day of school. I even took some religious studies courses as an undergrad. Creationists are shocked when I tell them that because I believe in evolution.Unfortunately the person who performs their service whether it is a priest, deacon or whatever is looked upon as the authority figure for everything. If he says so it must be true... Never mind what the scientists say, Deacon Bob says their lying.Even if some people further their education in science many go into it with their mind already made up.

quote:

---

The statistics show that college graduates are more apt to believe in evolution, this may be from the constant barrage of majority opinion, evidence, and data while in school. When you drop out, or go on to work, you don't have to fight for your beliefs against anyone, but in college, those few that arrive with beliefs against evolution are finally molded by the majority of people there, it's rather disturbing really. Because the evidence is really part of a system that will be gone anyway, when you die, when this world is gone.

---

I'm not sure if many people would switch sides while in college. From my experience I see many already have their mind made up by the time they are in college. Many evolutionists are very strong headstrong toward their belief. I've seen this from my religious education and from where I go to school. I have seen high school students on my campus for Bible school during the summer wearing shirts that say "Darwin Lied." I just don't see them getting molded to a pro-evolution view.

quote:

---

No, creationists would not want to waste their lives on such a worthless pursuit. They would be ready to spend time in theology programs, to study God, or other particular studies such as philosophy. The mindsets are very different for these two specific groups of people. Evolutionists are usually well versed in science, and mathematics, both studies dedicated to the measurable world, whereas, creationists might not even consider college, or advanced education. It becomes deeply personal, people are different, but I'm really not sure on why there is a trend between education and people of the ID philosophy. Each is probably a different story. I see what you mean though, this doesn't look too good for those who would want a community of intellectuals for their argument.

---

I know it is not likely everyone will be well educated to both sides. But from my perspective its ridiculous to see people try to refute evolution using science when they really don't know what they are talking about.Your right, it doesn't look good for their argument. What seems to benefit them is that most with their beliefs are on the same level as them when it comes to education in science.

Something else I think is a big problem is the lies spread about science and evolution. Anyone seen those people passing out those little Bibles on college campuses?Well this past year they were passing out little booklets against evolution. The booklet was full of lies. Of course the most famous lie about evolution was in it (atleast I think it is). A statement roughly saying "I can't believe they think we came from monkeys."Wish someone would make a little booklet like that to be passed out called Evolution for Dummies.

quote:

---

Sounds like the work of Jack Chick. It's hard to believe that anybody on a college campus would swallow that garbage.

---

Yep, thats it. Here it is Chick.com: Big Daddy? You'll laugh and get mad at the same time.

quote:

---

I see evos, even scientists, showing a deplorable lack of scientific rigor and basic logic and reasoning. Not to sidetrack this, but I learned this past week debating on Haeckel's fraudulent drawings, that it wasn't just that his drawings were used in textbooks, but according to the 1997 Richardson study, evolutionist scientists in their research had pretty much just taken the claim of a single phylotypic stage on faith without any citations, except maybe Haeckel who had faked his data.

​

It was quite eye-opening to say the least, but I think it illustrates a point. Evos claim to be more scientific, but often I find evos are really very far from science, but just clothe unscientific approaches and reasoning, such as basing theories (such as a phylotypic stage) off of unsubtantiated and unproven claims), with scientific data.

​

Evolutionism, it appears to me then, to be more of a hybrid of mythmaking and real science, a sort of pseudo-science.

​

On the other hand, often the informed creationist or IDer seems to understand evolutionary theory better than evos themselves.

---

Mythmaking??? You have got to be kidding, the only thing that is mythical is the Bible. Science relys on evidence taken from observations. Those may change or be refuted as a result of new technology, experiments, or ideas. Thats more than creationists can ever hope for. Creationism has absolutely nothing except some old book with stories that obviously don't add up.Back to mythmaking... Man was created from clay, and woman from mans rib.IDers continuously advertise lies such as science believes people came from monkeys. And you think Iders understand evolution.Your statement is as full of holes as creationism itself.

quote:

---

Can't be worse than what the evos do in teaching the Biogenetic law until the 50s, 60 years after it was known to be wrong, or presenting Haeckel's faked drawings claiming a single phylotypic stage, claiming human gill slits, etc, etc,...

​

I am sorry, but Jack Chick is about the same level, actually a little higher, in adherence to scientific standards, imo, than most of what passes as evolutionism.

---

Don't know whether you statement about biogenetic law being taught until the 50's is true. But that does not mean the scientific community as a whole still believed it. That could very well and is likely a case of a few just being idiots. Kind of like a people saying evolutionists believe humans came from monkeys. Creationists are still teaching that lie.Jack Chick is higher in scientific standards? I proved earlier he published lies on what evolution is, and you say he is at a higher standard? Man, you just showed your education level right there, deplorable....
Your posts have done nothing but back up the origional idea of this thread.This message has been edited by Ned_Flanders, 12-11-2005 07:15 PM

quote:

---

I think when a group of scientists rely on faked data and claims for over 100 years, despite repeated evidence the claims and data are faked, then yes, I think they are probably less rigorous than Jack Chick in their fact checking.

---

Fact checking?! Go read the booklet I posted the link to earlier written by Jack Chick. That thing is full of lies...Pathetic how Christians will read a little comic book like that and take it as the truth without looking into the issue on their own. Again, shows the education level and mentality of creationists. You get the right person to say it and they will believe it. Reasons like that is why Scientology is gaining popularity. You have people so desperate they will believe anything.

quote:

---

Perhaps if evos stuck to science instead of relying on hoaxes, frauds, overstatements and exagerrations, they would have more success, but listening to basic evo claims is like hearing Al Gore claim to have too the initiative in creating the internet or another dem come out and promise a middle class tax cut.

​

It just doesn't work anymore because people are seeing these types of things for what they are, false evidentiary claims.

---

Hoaxes, overstatments, exagerations... Again, your giving examples that are wide spread in Christian views of creaionism. Science may make mistakes and correct itself, but creationists are advertising the same hollow statements over and over. Creationists can't even support their view (not theory).

quote:

---

What do you call Haeckel's drawings and the theory of recapitulation, if not a myth?

---

I call it a theory that was proven wrong. Plain and simple. Science goes through this all the time. Just because one person had a bad idea doesn’t make evolution wrong. It’s pathetic that you judge science by one man that had a theory that was proven wrong. Want me to show you some inconsistencies in the Bible? There are plenty...

quote:

---

I think when a group of scientists rely on faked data and claims for over 100 years, despite repeated evidence the claims and data are faked, then yes, I think they are probably less rigorous than Jack Chick in their fact checking.

---

You still have not addresses that Jack Chick has blatantly lied in his stupid little books. But of course you say he is more rigorous in his fact checking. Right???
Do you support spreading lies to support the creationists cause?
The only thing he is rigorous in is spreading lies to a bunch of people incapable of thinking for themselves.

quote:

---

Maybe this should be taken to a different thread, but yea, I think the fact evos kept teaching something fraudulent for 125 years makes the field suspect in terms of it's standards.

---

Have you ever read the Bible?

quote:

---

The problem is they kept using the faked drawings and some if his false ideas for 125 years after being proven wrong.

​

What do you call presenting Haeckel's drawings as factual? Telling the truth?

---

Once again you refuse to answer my questions.You are making statements challenging the credability of scientists when you say Jack Chick is more rigorous in his fact checking.So once again, I pointed out obvious lies in his stupid little booklet against evolution. Simple things about evolution that are common sense that he lied about.
You bash scientists but here you are supporting a creationists who consistently lies in one of his publications.So do you think its alright for Jack Chick to lie about evolution? Do you support lieing about evolution to support creationism, because it sure seems so from your previous posts?

quote:

---

It is unrealistic to expect the entire population to fully understand the theory of evolution. For most people it should suffice that they have a broad overview, and that they have some respect for the scientific community.

​

The problem is a willful dogmatic rejection of science. This rejection is done with enormous hypocrisy, with those who reject science still feasting on the benefits it has brought to them.

---

I'm not expecting the whole population fully understand evolution. I just think its ridiculous when someone criticizes it with misinformation and says it wrong when they realistically don't know what its all about. Most creationist’s act like a bunch of parrots repeating the same misinformation they hear from their ill-informed church leader or from other sources such as the lies in Jack Chick's stupid booklets.I find it somewhat humorous how creationist will take full advantage the many perks of science such as medical advances. But they try to discredit evolution when they both use the scientific method. Hypocrisy...This message has been edited by Ned_Flanders, 12-13-2005 01:23 AM