First of all, I just want to say that I DONT want this thread to turn into a general flame fest like most of the other Creationism threads out there. This thread is not out to slight Creation Science in any way, that has been covered in other threads.
I remember looking at yet another Creation website a couple of months ago thinking it was fairly run-of-the-mill (I believe this was when the SciAm article came out). What absolutely floored me however, was the fact that it had a very detailed section about arguments that Creationists SHOULDNT use when trying to defend their case as they had been proven wrong. This was all basic stuff which had been conclusively disproven (or was faked) many years ago yet this seemed to be the first Creationist website I have seen that acknowledged that some of their arguments were outdated.
Many Creation Scientists claim that they are experts in this field with papers and everything yet, you would expect experts to stay abreast with their field of study and KNOW that an argument has been made obselete over 30 years ago.
Now, Hanlons razor states “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity” yet, for the life of me, I cannot fathom the amount of stupidity required to blatently ignore so much evidence.
So, are many of the famous creationists ignorant, or manipulative?
Just to re-iterate, I am talking specifically about arguments that are clearly, factually wrong an have been clearly, factually wrong for many years.
I think that part of the problem is not so much that any scientist- creationists are clinging to false arguments, but rather their “followers” are. Any reputable scientist will stop using an argument once it has been shown to be false. If these scientists are indeed reputable, then I would expect that they have done just that.
However, the general population of creationists will tend to cling onto any glimmer of hope from proponents of their side. So, if a scientist once used an argument, even if that scientist no longer believes it to be valid, the general population may continue to use it. Since such people are undoubtedly used to following religious leaders, a scientist who accepts creationism could be viewed as such a leader. As such, until that person explicitly says, “Don’t use this argument anymore! It’s bunk!”, the teeming millions (thousands?) will continue to do just that.
So, it is not necessarily the case that the scientists are continuing to make these arguments, just that their followers haven’t been told not to conitnue using them.
I think that there can also be a certain level of denial involved on the part of some anti-evolutionists. If any glimmer of interpretation can be found to support an idea which they are greatly emotionally invested in then they will cling to that angle, no matter how specious.
Finding a “missing” fossil layer, for instance, gives them a peep of hope that maybe the accepted geological timeline has a hole in it. It doesn’t matter that such a seeming inconsistency has a natural and prosaic explanation, (erosion) they can just claim that geologists are making up lies to cover their mistakes. A folded layer (in which seismic or volcanic forces have caused the layers to be pushed up and “folded” over so that an older era appears to be lying on top of a younger era) gives them even more ammunition. Never mind that the folding can be easily deduced when seen it it’s entire striatic context. This is just “interpretation” as far as they are concerned and they are going to interpret it their own way.
I am puzzled, though, as to why so many anti-evolution pseudo-scientists still try to use the 2nd law argument. It is so patently and dispositively debunkable that I can’t see why they haven’t abandoned it. Some of the newer ID stuff (Behe’s “irreducible complexity” is at least clever and takes a little bit of time and knowledge to address. To dispose of 2nd law, all you have to do is understand the definition.
I agree with this and I’ve actually experienced this. No matter how many times you show certain creationists (to be fair not all of them ascribe to this), they will deny it to the end.
I totally agree with this. I think though a majority of the anti-evolution crowd is only interested in hearing arguments against evolution and dismissing anything that contradicts with it. Certain Creationists trust the word of a preacher/fellow Christian (even Jack Chick) over logic and science. They would rather believe in a conspiracy.
Another thing I don’t get is that Certain Creationists (YEC’s mostly) will not accept most sciences that contradict their line of thinking, yet they will cling to bad science and bad argument practices.
It wouldn’t bother me if they wanted to take the philosophy/faith angle, but when science is involved it’s a different story. If you are going to argue science, then argue science, not psuedo-science (IMO).
I’m taking part in a discussion about this right now on another message board - I don’t believe the word ‘science’ can be truthfully applied to creationism because there is no scope to modify hypotheses - a key element of the scientific method.
That might sound like a complete sidetrack to this thread, but wait - when you take away ‘real’ science, what remains? - Creationism (of the mainstream variety) is about argument, nitpicking and denial. I fail to see how the people ‘at the top’, churning out the stock arguments and denials can be both mentally stable and earnest.
I totally agree. I think that the hardcore creationists (the anti-evolutionists) misunderstand science and pick and choose what they care to accept based on what they “believe”.
When you take away the science from creation science you are left with a philosophical/religious argument.
When most of these “papers” that deal with evolution/creationism are checked on it turns out that they appeared in creationist publications. When the few practicing scientists among them have a paper in a recognized and peer reviewed publication it seldom, I would say never but that’s hard to prove, has anything to do with evolution or creationism.
I would say there are some of both kinds you mentioned, but there is another type (probably a few other types as well). The other type of creation scientist that decieves their audience is the one that are so focused on proving what they want to prove because their faith hinges on it. If they don’t prove it, they are godless, in their minds.
“If they don’t prove it, they are godless, in their minds.”
Amen
That is the prime argument given by creationist to their followers. Evolution is a Godless theory. The Bible explicitly states that God made man and after that saw “It is not good that the man should be alone.” God then took one of man’s ribs and made woman. And thus the creationist argument goes… Do you believe that God made you or that you are just pond scum?
I say more power to em for whatever their reasons are. Without that belief they may end up killing themselves or someone else. These are usually the same people who ask, “If you don’t believe in God why don’t you just kill yourself?”
My girlfriend and I were discussing urban legends a few weeks ago. I said something like “It’s amazing that people will believe something irrational just because they heard it once.”
She sagely replied, “Not because they heard it one, but because they said it once.”
Once you declare something to be true, you can twist yourself in knots trying to justify your own credibility – to yourself. And the more you say it, the more you will believe it.