[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Once these points are established, I’ve found that it defangs the issue enough that they’re at least willing to listen. I think those misperecptions about evolution play a large role in people’s reticence to accept it and have more than a little to do with the alarming numbers of Americans who tell pollsters they don’t believe in it.
[/QUOTE]
I agree completely. In fact, I won over a “convert” just a couple weeks ago. He is an evangelical Christian who simply did not understand the claims from either side. He isn’t an idiot; he just doesn’t trust people who assume he is. There’s a big difference between ignorance and stupidity.
Personally, I find it more problematic that there are creationist museum tour companies that go to regular museums to “debunk” the science being presented.
[QUOTE=kambuckta]
I was hoping to read that the actual polling questions were ambiguous enough to explain the depressing result, but they were damned straightforward wot.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, they were misleading.
Alfred Russel Wallace proposed a theory of evolution that was essentially the same as that proposed by Darwin, publishing his in the same year.
Later, however, while never repudiating his views on evolutionary theory, he came to champion “special creation” for humans. While having no poll figures to support me, based on my encounters with folks, I would guess that a majority of people do accept that the world is far older than 6,000 years and that evolution is the process that describes speciation–but that an awful lot of people step back from the notion that humans were not created directly by God.
In addition, the three poll questions really do not allow for the range of opinions:
- God created humans in present form
- Humans evolved, God guided the process
- Humans evolved, God did not guide process
While several posters have indicated that the 15% affirming position 3 are probably the people who are non-religious, I would say that position 3 is the official position of educated Catholics (for example) with some larger number of less well educated Catholics confusing actual church teaching with position 2. You could probably get similar responses from other major religious groups that do not teach biblical literalism.
To me, position 2 indicates that God wanders into the world of nature and encourages certain mutations to get what He wants out of life. That is more nearly Intelligent Design–rejected by the RCC–not the larger position expressed by the church which takes a number 3 position (while stumbling into the whole omniscience/free will discussions that have flourished on the SDMB for the last two months).
So, by directing their (not well worded) questions specifically at the concept of human creation (while providing a very limited range of answers) the reporters then changed the topic and used those answers to incorrectly describe American views on general evolution–conclusions which are not legitimately drawn from the responses.
Now, this is not to claim that the poll is widely in error. I don’t think that the numbers would swing by 20% if they went back and asked the more appropiate questions about general evolution. However, the conclusions published do not match the questions asked.
I am suspicious of the results of that poll. First of all, they only sampled 808 adults. Secondly, it was all done by telephone. Finally, they don’t say what time they called.
[QUOTE=kimera]
I am suspicious of the results of that poll. First of all, they only sampled 808 adults. Secondly, it was all done by telephone. Finally, they don’t say what time they called.
[/QUOTE]
Possibly the most perfectly subtle sarcasm ever conceived. (I hope.)
According to Gary Larson, the real reason the dinosaurs died out was that they were cigarette smokers. Ergo, they had to have lived concurrently with human beings.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Wow. That really is quite sad.
Still, this:
bothers me almost as much. Why the hell would you threaten an institution like this? What possible threat could they pose to anyone with two brain cells to rub together?
[/QUOTE]
But do you believe it? These are the same people that think the Librul Media is out to kill God and make us all worship trees and stuff.
A bunch of fanatics want to make everyone believe that the other side is a bunch of fanatics. More of their bullshit moral equivalence.
-Joe
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I agree completely. In fact, I won over a “convert” just a couple weeks ago. He is an evangelical Christian who simply did not understand the claims from either side. He isn’t an idiot; he just doesn’t trust people who assume he is. There’s a big difference between ignorance and stupidity.
[/QUOTE]
I once made the mistake of jumping down somebody’s throat immediately during an evolution/ID debate in such a manner. I had just come back from school and this person, knowing I was studying biology, asked me what I thought of Intelligent Design. I said anyone who believed in ID was a moron. The person I was conversing with took this in stride (to their great credit) and said they believed in ID.
I backpedaled a little bit immediately, not wishing to offend my friend further, but as the conversation went on I realized that the person I was speaking with only thought he believed in ID. What he actually believed in was the Christian God and that the Christian God was ultimately responsible for the generation of life. This is not incompatible with evolutionary theory–something he didn’t realize at the time. If I had recognized this at the outset, I wouldn’t have jammed my foot in my mouth.
The point is, I think a lot of people adhere to Intelligent Design as meaning “God exists and created us” which is not what ID says (although I’m sure the proponents of ID would like to conflate the two positions). As purveyors of the truth of evolution, we should be careful in identifying that distinction.
P.S. Liberal that’s a really good set of guidelines. Thanks.
[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
These people aren’t interested in empirical evidence. They are interested in facts. It’s very difficult to get people like this to change their mind. Attempting to tell them that they are wrong isn’t going to get you anywhere.
[/quote]
These people specifically may not be interested in facts, but there are plenty of folks who just don’t have sufficient information at hand to be able to say “yeah, that makes sense”, or “no, that doesn’t make sense” when confronted with creationism (or evolution, for that matter). By arguing on the basis of facts, you may well not sway the person you are arguing with, but may sway many an on-looker (or on-listener…on-reader…whatever).
On the other hand, humiliation is an oft-used tool in rhetoric, and has been known to sway arguments where facts themselves could not. So what do I know.
[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
These people aren’t interested in empirical evidence. They are interested in facts. It’s very difficult to get people like this to change their mind. Attempting to tell them that they are wrong isn’t going to get you anywhere…
[/QUOTE]
Not facts, Truth. It’s a top-down approach.
At least my local creationist museum (well, zoo) has rhinos and giraffes to look at if you don’t like the religious aspect: http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/
I don’t really feel comfortable that it’s so popular with local schools, but the website’s honest about the zoo’s agenda (“Creationist Biology”, anyone? The education pages are fabulous) so I guess the schools are aware beforehand.
Still sucks that I can’t go look at the rhinos and play in the world’s longest hedge maze (wheee!) without being bombarded with a creationist message, which would make me likely to either run screaming or lose my manners. Which would be a shame as I’m sure they’re very nice people.
A German link I found calls it “the Flintstone Museum”, and “a Disneyland for the gullible”.
Also, apparently, this thing was started by an Australian who came here to do it.
[QUOTE=nameless]
I backpedaled a little bit immediately, not wishing to offend my friend further, but as the conversation went on I realized that the person I was speaking with only thought he believed in ID. What he actually believed in was the Christian God and that the Christian God was ultimately responsible for the generation of life. This is not incompatible with evolutionary theory–something he didn’t realize at the time. If I had recognized this at the outset, I wouldn’t have jammed my foot in my mouth.
The point is, I think a lot of people adhere to Intelligent Design as meaning “God exists and created us” which is not what ID says (although I’m sure the proponents of ID would like to conflate the two positions). As purveyors of the truth of evolution, we should be careful in identifying that distinction.
[/QUOTE]
We ran into this problem a year and a half ago when the Discovery Institute encouraged Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna to write a pro-ID piece for the New York Times, thus provoking several scholars from the Vatican to point out the error where Schonborn confused the philosophical position of the church with the pseudoscience that the Discovery Institute pushes.
[QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch]
These people specifically may not be interested in facts, but there are plenty of folks who just don’t have sufficient information at hand to be able to say “yeah, that makes sense”, or “no, that doesn’t make sense” when confronted with creationism (or evolution, for that matter). By arguing on the basis of facts, you may well not sway the person you are arguing with, but may sway many an on-looker (or on-listener…on-reader…whatever).
[/QUOTE]
Then they should educate themselves. Ignorance is not necessarily bad, but being ignorant and still making decisions when there is information you choose not to you use all around you is bad.
Most of the people that I’ve discussion evolution vs ID with didn’t know much about ID, but still had no problem pronouncing it wrong or misguided or evil. The ‘man evolved from ape’ thing always trips them up. When I try to explain that it’s wrong they claim that it’s what they were taught. And it somehow always turns out that they learned it from an anti-evolutionist. No one seems to get taught that in college.
At least half the time the response to this is just ‘You’re wrong’. They won’t accept that they’ve been taught something incorrect. They fall back on the paradigm faith taught them: everything this group of people say is true. Liberal’s pointers are good, and anyone arguing should try to follow them. But in my experience they only work as long as the person you’re arguing with is actually willing to listen to you. You simply aren’t going to convince the people who started this museum that they’re wrong, facts or not. They aren’t working off logic or evidence that can be refuted, they’re running on faith. They already have the answer and they’re making up reasons that fit it. You can’t touch the reason without first getting rid of the answer.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Why the hell would you threaten an institution like this? What possible threat could they pose to anyone with two brain cells to rub together?
[/QUOTE]
Ignoring the first question (since I think the bomb threats are only slightly less credible than creation theory itself,) it should be all too obvious where the threat comes from, judging from the linked article:
That’s bad news for any representative democracy that wishes to avoid a modern Dark Age.
Oops. The first sentence in the second paragraph should read
Most of the people that I’ve discussed evolution vs ID with didn’t know much about evolution…
[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
But in my experience they only work as long as the person you’re arguing with is actually willing to listen to you.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but you need to be willing to listen, too. It has been my experience that these conversations seldom work when I treat them as lectures.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
They’re liars for one thing. They’re out to fleece naive, but often decent people for another. They’re toxic to the culture for another.
There’s a difference between the Jesus Horse purveyors like Ham and Hovind and Behe and Dembski and the marks they sell this crap to. Most people who believe this junk and buy their books and go to their “lectures,” and will go to this “museum” are mostly just ignorant, scientifically illiterate, religious (not a bad thing) and vulnerable to exploitation.
The assholes who pimp this twaddle actually KNOW what bullshit it is. They KNOW they’re lying and they do it anyway, not for any sincere religious reasons but just to make money. The Creationism industry is every bit as much a cynical con as faith-healing. The worst part is the damage they do to the culture, not just by poilticizing it but by literally demonizing science.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with you partially, but I have a hard time believing that all of those people know it’s a scam, particularly the “scientists” like Ken Hovind. I agree that a lot of the organizations that support creationism and sell merchandise for the museum know they are selling untruths (actually, they probably don’t care one way or the other if it’s true), but is there any reason to believe that “Ham and Hovind and Behe and Dembski” are cynical conmen as well?
Bingo. I think it’s most important to establish this first, along with how there are other theological perspectives that don’t take Genesis literally.
Yes, and if you listen to them and can understand why they believe what they do, you can figure out where the conflicts exist between them and evolution and try to reconcile them.
[QUOTE=Talon Karrde]
I agree with you partially, but I have a hard time believing that all of those people know it’s a scam, particularly the “scientists” like Ken Hovind. I agree that a lot of the organizations that support creationism and sell merchandise for the museum know they are selling untruths (actually, they probably don’t care one way or the other if it’s true), but is there any reason to believe that “Ham and Hovind and Behe and Dembski” are cynical conmen as well?
[/QUOTE]
While I suspect that Behe and Dembski are true believers who simply cannot get their minds around the impersonal immensity of evolution (and I know little of Ham), Hovind, like Gish, has been caught repeating nonsense after having been compelled to retract it in debates or written exchanges. I have no idea what he, personally, “believes,” but he advances his opinions dishonestly in public.
[QUOTE=kambuckta]
Wow.
I was hoping to read that the actual polling questions were ambiguous enough to explain the depressing result, but they were damned straightforward wot.
Wow. That’s really sad.
[/QUOTE]
The choice was "3. God created human beings in their present form. " That does not indicate that the dudes who choose that beleive that the Earth is only 6000years old.
Note that there is a large minority that accept Evolution, except as it applies to Humans. And, even there, some believe that there were “pre-humans” it’s just that the final product- Humans with a soul- was created by God. In other words, God guided evolution to create a near-human, which He then imbued with a Soul, creating the first "real’ human.
Not my beleif, btw.