It’s a matter of degree. Too much skepticism makes one closed-minded. Not enough skepticism makes one gullible. Just enough skepticism and you are open-minded.
MY DEFINITIONS OF TERMS:
Gullible: One is gullible when one believes most of what one hears, even that which contradicts.
Open-minded means willing to consider new evidence, to re-consider old evidence. He is also willing to reject any evidence if it is untrue regardless of its appeal.
Too much skepticism, and you become closed-minded, rejecting any evidence you find objectionable, regardless of its truth. (To use another topic as an example, I think it would be nice to have telepathic ability, but there is no good evidence that anyone has it, so I refuse to believe in its existence. But I’m willing to consider any GOOD evidence for its existence in anyone else. I’m 99% certain I don’t have it.)
My impression of Christian creationists is that they are unwilling to consider any evidence that falsifies the Bible because it might mean they aren’t going to Heaven. (It would also mean they aren’t going to Hell either, but try convincing them of that.) Some are willing to concede that Noah’s Flood didn’t happen as described in the Bible (Way to go, Robert Ballard!), but that doesn’t necessarily mean that Jesus didn’t die for their sins.
They believe that if they agree with the theory of natural evolution, they will go to Hell for it. Most of them have implied this to me and a few have said so outright and with anger. Others simply find the whole concept personally offensive. (“I refuse to believe that my first ancestor was a piece of protoplasm!” I wanted to point out that he was once a fertilized egg, but he was so hostile, I didn’t dare. “None of my ancestors were monkeys!” No one who knows better ever said they were.)
Me, I say it doesn’t matter if the truth offends you. You dismiss offensive truths at your own peril. But it takes courage to face up to a truth that frightens you. Quite frankly, some lack that courage.
But it’s no wonder it’s so difficult to reason with some of them; they believe they are fighting for their eternal lives and people can be quite unreasonable when they feel threatened.
What would it take to get me to believe in [non-human] evolution? Not much. My dad’s a scientist and he believes in evolution, so I just take it on faith.
I then suggest that you are using the terms incorrectly, at least in this forum.
Much in the way that many people have confused “theory” and “hypothesis” so that the common use has blurred the distinctions between the two, others have changed through popular usage the idea of “skepticism” from someone who questions beliefs to someone who is a professional denier. Skepticism, like science, is a position of doubt, not certitude. We know what we know based on the evidence at hand, and what we know may be proved false if new evidence arises. Anyone who goes so far as to declare the existence of God, souls, angels, or anal-probing aliens to be flatly impossible has left skepticism behind, regardless of what label he claims for himself. Now I, as a skeptic, may declare that there are no ghosts, no miracles, and no afterlife, but I declare it as a belief, not as unalterable fact. I will deny the existence of anal-probing aliens as well, however I will freely admit their possibility. I am convinced but not certain.
“A wise man is always in doubt; only a fool is sure of himself.”
So, to restate what I wrote earlier, “I do not believe there is any such thing as telepathy. I am convinced, but not certain that it does not exist.”
This may be a good topic for another debate: “What are the true meanings of words? Are they the meanings that people use in everyday speech? Or are they the meanings that the scholars and academics have determined them to be?” I think a case can be made for either point of view.