There’s a kid at work who I’ve just discovered is a vehement creationist (or maybe just anti-evolutionist–he’s all the fuck over the place in his discussion of the topic, so that I haven’t yet been able to ascertain what, exactly, he does believe–only that he doesn’t believe in evolution).
He went to see that Ben Stein movie the other day and was all a-flutter over it in a “gotcha-ya!” kind of way. I spent half the day trying to explain one idea to him. Namely, that you don’t have to lend equal credence to all ideas. Simply because some nutjub with a degree (or not) proposes something, doesn’t, in and of itself, mean that the theory carries any weight.
Is there a clearer way to explain that to him? Or is it a losing battle, since he appears to have no real grasp on what the “scientific method” is and why it’s germane to the discussion?
My other, tangential question, is on the discussion of the eohippus -> modern horse spectrum of fossils. He claims that “modern science has disproved this and no longer in any way considers these fossils to be an accurate representation of the development of the horse”. He goes on to say that “everyone in science now understands that they were all different species that lived at roughly the same time”.
The best support I could find for this idea on Creation Wiki was a cite from the Watchtower Society (seriously) and the claim that… well… nothing that makes much of any sense.
I suspect that there’s nothing in the way of a rational argument that’s going to succeed, but is there a better way to explain that you don’t have to believe in every crackpot idea–simply because someone thought of it?
Just one added delightful detail: we work in research support in an institute of molecular biology and neuroscience.
this creeps me out a bit. What specifically does he do in his job in “research support”, and how can he do it if he has no concept of what scientific research is?
You’re never going to convince him about the big ideas–such as evolution. But is he capable of understanding the little ideas–the ones that make science work? Such as the need for accurate measurements; or the idea that results must be repeatable before they can be accepted by “everyone in science”.
Focus only on one small part of a technology which is directly part of his job, which he has hands-on experience with. Try to explain the basic ideas of an elementary school science textbook, using specific examples from your work.
(And don’t waste too much energy if you find it a losing battle. Life’s too short )
I was in a debate at another message board with a YEC. His evidence, which he repeated over and over, consisted of large C&Ps of the findings of Robert Gentry, a physicist and creationist who claims that the ‘polonium halos’ found in some granite prove that the granite must have been created in an instant rather than millennia. (That board does not have a prohibition against copying and pasting entire articles.) It was pointed out to him several times that citing a single person whose hypothesis had been pretty well debunked does not support his case. So he C&P’d more cites from Gentry. (And also ranted against Jesuits, Catholics, Jews, etc.)
This poster said that every word in the Bible is true. So I decided to ask him a simple question (before I fully appreciated what a wackjob he was): Does the Sun orbit the Earth? He answered by C&Ping Gentry cites on polonium halos and ranting against anyone who didn’t believe as he did. He never did answer the simple, straightforward question.
The Bible has several passages that at least imply that the Sun orbits the Earth. So if a person can be shown this is not true and therefor the Bible is wrong in this case, then might the Bible be inaccurate in the Creation myth? I never did get to use logic on him though, because he never did say whether the Sun orbited the Earth or vice-versa.
I think there’s Ignorance and Willful Ignorance. Ignorance, the state of not knowing something, can be fought. Willful Ignorance is much more difficult.
So ‘this kid’ might be taught. But you need to find a baseline and work from there.
Ah, the old “let’s use science to argue for the supernatural” technique. Gotta the cognitive dissonance that allows someone to claim that science doesn’t have all the answers because look, a scientist says so!
Explain how the peer review system works. Anyone can publish anything he wants, especially in the internet age, but ask him how much of this “evidence” is published in peer reviewed scientific periodicals.
Spend some time explaining the scientific method. It’s not a difficult concept-- we teach it in elementary schools.
Ask him to cite specific scientific articles that purport his view. OTOH, you can easily find good info on TalkOrigins like this for an overview of horse evolution and this for what appears to be your coworker’s mistaken information.
But I suspect anyone who says things like “everyone knows” doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.
I think this is the key.
Most YECs have got themselves into a state where they so want to believe, and they’ve dedicated so much of their life to fearing an OT-style god, that anything that might jeopardise their beliefs is rejected out of hand. Most don’t realise they’re doing this though.
I visit some Creationist websites from time to time. To me, their arguments always possess some obvious logical fallacy that stands out like an elephant in the room. It’s so bizarre that most of the visitors to these sites can’t see it. But ultimately, they don’t want to see it.
I suspect this may be the case with the OP’s colleague.
What people need to understand is that science would not work well if it were just a complete free-for-all where any opinion has equal validity. That’s what we’ve got the internet for. In science, we need to balance the need to allow new or controversial ideas to have a forum with maintaining a reasonable signal-to-noise ratio and the way that is done is through the peer-review process. Peer-review operates primarily at two levels: At the level of grant proposals, there is usually peer-review. I.e., since funding agencies don’t have an infinite amount of money to throw around, they need to prioritize and decide which proposals sound the most promising by having other scientists in the field review them. At the level of publishing results, there is peer-review of scientific papers before they can appear in the journal, again with scientists in the field reviewing the paper.
Science is not some namby-pamby democracy where everybody’s idea is treated as if it is as good as any other. Rather, ideas are ruthlessly critiqued and compared against the evidence.
It is also worth noting that there is a limited sense in which science can even address a hypothesis like “intelligent design”. I suppose that science can answer questions related to how probable it is that something could have evolved…or that life could have spontaneously arisen…or so forth, although even in that case, there is limited utility in the result because it is hard to put a meaning on a probability when we wouldn’t be around to contemplate it had it not occurred. What science can’t really address at all is the hypothesis of a supernatural creator or designer. This is simply because, by their very nature, supernatural beings don’t have to obey natural laws…So, it is not a falsifiable hypothesis to say, “God did this” or “This looks like it was designed by some supernatural being.”
By the way, a very good site to rebut many of the points in Ben Stein’s movie is http://www.expelledexposed.com/. In particular, on this page, the Challenging Science link, the Science & Religion link, and the links discussing each of the supposedly “expelled” people and demonstrating how the movie severely distorted the truth are good to read.
It creeps me out a bit, too, but his job likely isn’t one where his views on evolution, or even science in general, matters. We’re animal caretakers in the vivarium but he does have a bachelor’s in biology and hopes to go to grad school next year(!).
Yes, but it’s hard to pin him down to one topic at a time. If we get into areas like this, he launches into one bit of rhetoric after another, liberally sprinkled with tinfoil hat reasoning such that I just don’t get it because I’m so inundated with “the majority views” that I just can’t think clearly on the subject. There really doesn’t seem to be anything he won’t believe, except “evolution”–the irony being that he doesn’t even seem to have a clear grasp of what the theory of evolution encompasses, and what it doesn’t.
Such as:
I did ask him that very question, the first time the subject came up. His response, swear to Og, was that evolution and creationism are “just two different world views”. I told him that didn’t even make any sense, and he proceeded to pseudo-define the phrase “world view” and then begin an intricate and hugely flawed description of what he imagines “evolutionists” believe about the origins of life and the process of evolution. I let him go for several minutes before I interrupted the flow of gibberish to point out that evolution and genesis of life are two entirely different topics which are not mutually exclusive, and he bounced into a review of some guy (not the Raelian guy) who believes that aliens created the world.
We edged up to this when he was talking about the movie, but–you know–people with ideas outside the mainstream can’t get published because they get shut down by the mainstream scientific community. After all, look at what they did to Galileo! And the Smithsonian guy!
Sigh.
It is a losing battle for you, if you waste your time & energy trying to explain this to him.
He and others like him do not want to understand this, and are unwilling to accept facts that don’t support their beliefs. The humorous comment “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts” is unfortunately all too accurate for these people.
There were some pretty great scientists around before Darwin.
Having a religious blind spot doesn’t preclude someone from understanding oither areas of science. But it pretty much cuts off that blind spot, because religious blind spots can be rationalized from now until the cows come home.
To paraphrase an old saying, you can lead a creationist to science, but you can’t make him think. I agree with the others. Life’s too short. Let it go. What I’d do if I were in your shoes - after all, you have to work with the guy - is say, “Look, I’ve heard what you have to say and it doesn’t persuade me. You’ve heard what I have to say and it doesn’t persuade you. Let’s just agree to disagree.”
I wonder if it would do any good to approach it from a completely different direction. I’m beginning to think that many people’s fanatical adherence to creationism is simply not about rejecting science.
Here’s my hypothesis regarding what leads the vehement creationists to their willful ignorance:
the Bible is literally true and absolutely inerrant.
to argue with this axiom is to reject God and risk eternal damnation.
the Theory of Evolution, natural selection, and other scientific thinking are tools of the wicked, who will do their best to pull the believer away from their faith for the sheer fun of seeing the believer condemned to eternal damnation.
With this mindset, it’s no surprise that creationists resist any arguments in support of evolution. They’re not being asked to look at things from a different perspective. They’re being asked to forsake their beloved Creator and willingly damn themselves for all eternity. No logical argument is going to hold up to that.
I think, if you want to get someone to reconsider their stance, you first have to address their fears of being led into apostasy and damnation. So, instead of rejecting God and the idea of God creating the universe and all life in it, embrace it. Embrace it more fully and joyfully than the creationist does (if you can do that sincerely, that is). I think it’s necessary, also, to point out that God is much, much bigger than any argument over how things got to be the way they are, that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, so there’s no reason to fear God.
It’s my belief that if we can alleviate the fears that accepting the Theory of Evolution is equivalent to turning one’s back on God and accepting eternal damnation, then creationists will be more willing to listen to the logical arguments behind it.
I’m always interested in what such people make of lines like Isaiah 11:12: "And he shall … gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. " If it’s literally true, then the earth is flat and square. But these guys only take the parts of the bible to be literally true that they want to take. They have blinders on other parts. That’s the way they argue that Leviticus says homosexuality is a sin, and ignore that Leviticus also says eating pork is a sin. There’s no way to argue with such people: their own ego and sense of self are tied up in these delusional beliefs, and nothing that anyone says or does will change their view.
When the sky opens and a big golden voice calls down, “How could you believe in Me and not believe in My science?” … then, maybe.
“Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.”
– St. Augustine, “De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim”
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
