Asha'man

Nope, no such animal.

Every single creationist I've ever encountered, or at least every single one that has elaborated on their views at II, has been either very ignorant or very dishonest. (It's can be hard to distinguish the two, but I usually suspect ignorance first)

Richard Forrest

See: "Sadly, an Honest Creationist"
by Richard Dawkins

http://www.secularhumanism.org/libra...kins_21_4.html

Richard Forrest

Spanish_Inquisitor

I would tend to think that the followers, the ones who parrot the creationist line after reading all the web sites, the ones who cut 'n paste (you know who you are ) are the simply ignorant ones. They probably believe what they are saying.

The ones who put up the web sites, and make a buck on the project, are the liars. They know of what they speak.

SI

Graculus

Even if there was such a theory (which there wasn't, it was media hyperbole), Creationists are actually less likely to be on the "creative" side of things. A great many are engineers, etc.. people who play with hard numbers.

I generally find Creationism more often linked to LACK of imagination.

Kotter

I suspect that there would have to be - wasn't it Wise who did his Ph.D under Gould? As we have all seen the propoganda, they all seem to know just enough (in some cases, anyway) to give a distortion of the facts to suit their ends. Either that, or some are working under the assumption that if you tell this BS enough, it may come true!

mosesnoses

I used to teach Honors Biology to high school students in a suburban public school. On the first day of class I would tell everybody that we would be studying evolution in the class, that it was a fact based on huge amounts of evidence from a variety of disciplines, and that it was one of the basic precepts of modern biology. I also informed them understanding the facts of evolution would be required to pass certain parts of the course. I then stated that if anyone's religious beliefs were contrary to what I would be teaching that I in no way wished to interfere with their beliefs. I said that such beliefs are a matter of personal faith and are outside the realm of science, but that we would only deal with measurable, testable theories and facts in the class. I told them if they wanted to argue intelligently and effectively against evolution, the only way to do so would be to have a thorough understanding of what it really is and what the evidence is for evolution. I would always have one or two creationist kids in my classes (or should I say kids with creationist parents and pastors) and in my teaching career I never had a parent complain about my very unabashed teaching of evolution (I am a paleontologist by training), and the creationists' kids always did very well on the relevent testing. My approach made learning about the subject attractive to these kids and they appreciated it.

Anyway, I like to think that somewhere out there are a few creationists with a pretty good understanding of evolution and the evidence therefore. Realistically, one will almost never be able to dissuade a creationist from their beliefs, the very nature of their belief precludes that, but maybe my former students will listen more critically when they hear misstatements made by creationist zealot hacks like AIG and others.

DrummerWench

That is truly sad....

DG

Flint

The Dawkins essay Forrest links to illustrates more clearly than anything else I've ever seen, the capacity of the human mind to deceive itself. Our intellect seems to be a rather flimsy overlay, subservient to our urges and needs. And much like Wise, Wells managed to earn a rather high-powered PhD in biology *entirely* for the purpose of better distorting and misrepresenting the scientific material. The issue here is NOT ignorance in any way. The issue is integrity.

Naruto

:rolling:

Flint

Naruto:

Read the damn link. And how can you say Wells is ignorant? He earned a legitimate, major-university PhD. This is not possible for the ignorant. For the dishonest, this is entirely possible. NOT for the ignorant.