MrDarwin

Oolon, I think that's a tad unfair. In general, the OEC/ID movement is simply a form of theistic evolution, and as such, they are saying that some designer (of course they think it is the Christian god) has tinkered or "meddled" in the course of life. Personally, I don't have much of a problem with this as such meddling is what we humans are capable of today and could take many different forms: the diversion of an asteroid to impact the planet; transporting individuals of a species to an area (island, continent, whatever) where this species never lived before; inducing a potentially beneficial mutation in a single gene in a single organism; designing a disease to wipe out most of a species; etc.

The problem is that we know that all of these things can and do happen in the present, with entirely naturalistic explanations (or so we think). If we have evidence for them happening in the past (and we do), the challenge for the old-earth creationist is to tell us how to distinguish between natural (or man-made) events, and supernatural events that seem, on their face, to have been indistinguishable from natural events.

Let's take one simple example: a change in floral symmetry from zygomorphic symmetry to radial symmetry. We know that such a change in symmetry is due to a simple mutation in a single gene, and has been fixed in individual species (sometimes genera) in several groups that otherwise have zygomorphic flowers (with a concomitant change to pollinators that prefer actinomorphic over zygomorphic flowers). And that mutation happens naturally and spontaneously in plants with zygomorphic flowers; such mutant individuals with radially symmetric (peloric) flowers can be found in natural populations with otherwise zygomorphic flowers, and they also happen spontaneously in cultivated populations of plants with zygomorphic flowers (an example is the "gloxinia", Sinningia speciosa, in which a spontaneous peloric mutation gave rise to a horticulturally valuable ornamental plant from a wild plant with less showy flowers).

Now, knowing that this mutation is a simple change to a single gene, and that this change happens spontaneously, i.e., without intervention of any kind, should we assume that those species and genera in which this change has become fixed are the result of "tinkering" by a designer, or that the mutation happened entirely naturally? Until IDers can tell me how to distinguish between the two possibilities, I'll stick with the natural explanation, because a supernatural explanation is entirely unnecessary.

KnightWhoSaysNi

Hi Oolon,

I have to concur with Mr. Darwin. I think "stupid or insane" is somewhat harsh. I think it has more to do with either a lack of knowledge or an emotional commitment to a belief (i.e. cognitive dissonance). Especially true with YEC beliefs. I think this, along with lack of knowledge, is what mainly causes 'slothful reasoning' as you stated. I don't think this error in reasoning is confined to creationists. It happens in politics, academia, social issues, and can affect any of us.

Oolon Colluphid

Really? One might say that of some IDists, perhaps... but then I’d still have to point to unintelligent designs as a straightforward refutation. And -- apparently I wasn’t clear -- I wasn’t particularly thinking of IDists when thus categorising.

But Old Earth Creationists? Please explain? As far as I’m aware, they are still creationists: the only bit of the scientific scheme they do not deny is the age of the earth, is it not? Day-Age, and all that...?

Surely a theistic evolutionist, when asked whether man and monkey, and amoeba, share a common ancestor, would say ‘yes’. I was under the (mistaken?) impression that a theistic evolutionist is merely a theist who accepts evolution -- and by accepting a god, they’re allowed to have it tinker, so long as it looks like natural processes, or by it actually using natural processes.

But ask an OEC if man and monkey are relatives...? Do we know any to ask? Well we could try Ed, who seems to be an OEC. Oh, we have . How about you, Steadele? Are you related -- very distantly, I hasten to add -- to an oak tree? Cos I am. I’m a mammal, an animal, a DNA-user. I’m a rose-tree relative, and proud of it! *

Sorry MrD, but unless I’m missing something, one is an ‘evolutionist’ if one accepts the ancestral unity of all earthly life. You can be theistic as much as you like, you can be Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist, atheist, neo-nazi or new-age tree-hugger, and still be an evolutionist.

But if one does not accept this unity, then one is (by default) a creationist. Hence the 'C' in OEC. And to not accept this, given the evidence, means that one is ignorant (of the evidence), stupid (unable to grasp it and/or make reasoned inferences), or insane.

Unless I’ve been misusing these terms all this time...?

* Obscure Python reference, just in case you’re all wondering what I’m wittering about.

Cheers, Oolon

Oolon Colluphid

Sure. I'm not particularly suggesting that there are many stupid or insane creationists: it is usually ignorance. But those are included for completeness, since they are other possible reasons for rejecting evolution. And if the cap fits, let 'em wear it.

Oh, and cognitive dissonance is fine as a sub-reason. It is the reason for not looking at the evidence and/or not accepting it. But that is a main cause behind the ignorance, not a separate cause. I'm inclined to say that rejecting something simply because you don't like it is a form of stupidity...

If it sounds better, the list might read 'plain ignorant, wilfully ignorant / slothfully inductive (erm, or something ), stupid or insane'. Anyone know of any other reasons for rejecting the fact of evolution?

Oolon

Albion

"Anyone know of any other reasons for rejecting the fact of evolution?"

Fear. The sort of fear drummed into people from the time they were toddlers - the fear of being rejected by the community and the church and being a social outcast and majing Jesus sad and then buring in hell for eternity. The Pascal's Wager sort of fear. The sort of fear that paralyses the mind. It's not just willful ignorance, it's bone-deep terror.

Godot

*sigh* Sex, sex, sex. That's all kids think about these days. Now where were we. *







*a paraphrase from the next line of the not particularly obscure Python reference.

unregistered_user_1

In this thread.

I have no idea if it's any good or not, but it's a start until I can find some more that I've stashed around here...

feel free to contribute if you can.

The Lone Ranger

What's really frustrating is that so many of them are not just ignorant, but deliberately ignorant. I can forgive the Average Joe on the street who is poorly-educated, has swallowed the lies told by the "professional" Creationists, and knows little or nothing about logic and science, and so doesn't understand he's being lied to.

But the ones who've actually made some study of the matter and simply dismiss the evidence which contradicts their claims. Ugh! It's like they have blinders on that prevent them from seeing anything which contradicts their beliefs. You can lead a Creationist to evidence, but you can't make him think.

Of course, fear may be an important reason why they're unable to accept (or even acknowledge the existence of) evidence contradicts their beliefs.

What really frustrates me, though, is the ones like Gish and Hovind who lie shamelessly. Given that the "evidence" for their "scientific" case consists largely of deliberately re-written, out-of-context quotations, surely they must know, at some level, that they're lying. Then, they actually accuse a belief in "evilution" of leading to immoral behavior! The hypocrisy is simply breath-taking.

Perhaps they "justify" such lying with the belief that it's better to lie to people in order to lead them to "God" and "Jesus" and all that, than to encourage them to think for themselves, and in so doing, perhaps reject such "Truths".

Cheers,

Michael

unregistered_user_1

Is this an example of what you're talking about?

JonF

No, that was another discussion board, not the one being discussed here. That was at the discussion boards at the Institute for Creation Research. Shortly after that incident the requirements for registration were changed, and only Young Earth Creationists were allowed.

I think those boards are gone; there never was a link from the home page, but they used to be at http://www.icr.org/discussion/ and that's a 404 now.