hatsoff

...or so creationists would have you believe.

As recently as last year, I had no idea how many laypersons believed in literal creationism. The number is shocking! A 1997 poll suggests that as many as 44% of the general population rejects evolution in favor of religious beliefs. The distrust of science on their part is absolutely astounding.

I post a lot over at theologyonline.com. For those of you who don't know, it's the easy way out for agnostics/atheists. The discussions are usually simplistic and do not involve much of any critical thought. I go there when I'm drunk, tripping or just plain too lazy to commit to serious discussions. For those of you familiar with the place, I'm sure you all know it has a disproportionate population of creationists, as the forum is Christian-oriented. And now that I am dealing directly with those who reject evolution, I get to see for the first time how that denial comes about.

In responding to some creationist drivel, I came upon an interesting web page I'd like to share: "Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution" It is a fascinating read. The point of the article is to answer an evolutionist challenge sent via email: "can you name one scientist who (a) is not a 'Bible Literalist' and who (b) rejects evolution and supports the 'young earth' hypothesis?" Before even getting to that challenge, however, the article gives a lengthy introduction about why credentials don't make much of a difference. It eventually mentions the challenge, then continues by suggesting via magazing poll data that anti-evolutionism is gaining strength in the scientific community. It then goes on to explain that high school teachers and engineers should be considered evolution experts. After that, the author veers even further off-topic as he plugs a published collection of essays in support of creationism. Finally, in the very last section of the article, the challenge is met: the author provides the name of one scientist, who, rather than a Christian creationist, happens to be an Islamic creationist. The last few paragraphs are spent accusing evolutionists of "[dragging] religion into the discussion."

The article is typical creationist propaganda. It takes a key issue and, rather than addressing it directly, attempts to misdirect attention. In the end, while the quoted challenge is technically met, the author is unable to refute its meaning: that anti-evolutionism is a product of faith-based religious dogma.

Sad, that.

hatsoff

Hmm. I think I just posted this in the wrong forum. Sorry, mods.

Diogenes the Cynic

No problem. I'll move it to E/C for you. Please remain seated until the thread comes to a complete stop.

DtC, Moderator, BC&H

Flint

To the religious, everything is a religion. The only way things become true in the religious mind is to SAY they're true. Evidence, if considered at all, is just something that either ratifies what you SAY is true, or it is misunderstood/irrelevant/in need of appropriate interpretation.

And so the conversations go like this:
Q: Do you believe in evolution
A: In the same sense that I believe the sky is blue
Q: So you have faith after all
A: Tentative acceptance of evidence isn't quite what you mean by 'faith'
Q: But you said you believe in evolution
A: Not exactly. I accept evolution as the currently best-supported explanation for known evidence
Q: That means you believe in it. So it's a religion after all!

Keith&Co.

http://elephanticity.250x.com/evoligion.html

hatsoff

I think one of the biggest causes of creationist belief stems from the complexity of the science behind evolutionary processes. These are not mechanisms easily understood by non-experts. It takes a great deal of study, education, and pre-existing intelligence to comprehend the theories involved.

Because everything is so complex, creationists find themselves distanced from it. I imagine that contributes in no small way to the accusations of evolutionist "religious dogma."

Jukia

I post at TOL as well. In fact I have been banned on a couple of occasions, I think for raising questions about their fearless leader--Pastor Bob Enyart.

The complexity may have some issue but there are people who post there who will construct theories about how light speed has not been constant in order to account for a 6000 year old earth and thereby deal with red shift issues, who subscribe to Walt Brown's hydroplate theory to explain Noah's flood, who posit endlessly that mutations only lead to loss of "information". There are some fundamentalist Bible literalists who clearly have the ability to understand complexity. As someone with both legal and scientific training, who is struggling to continue to make sense of my substantial Catholic background as well, I find the TOL/Enyart minions mind boggling.

l_johan_k

Hej!

I really like Jonathan Miller's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Miller) answer (I suppose given to some creationist :devil1: )
"I am an evolutionist just as I am a gravitationist." :notworthy:

(So is gravitation also a religion?)

Check out the Life after Darwin (part I and II, with Miller and Dawkins) video on http://www.reitstoen.com/dawkins.php.

Cheers
Johan, Sweden
Homepage: http://home.student.uu.se/joka3625/

Flint

It is if you SAY it is.

Al Fresco

If they want to play the religion game, then give them a taste of their own medicine. See http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item37.htm .