Just browsing through my facebook, when I came across an interesting article from Dr. Donald Prothero, Professor of Geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles, here, about a reality show called Conspiracy Road Trip. In it, he describes being invited by a BBC television producer and narrarator Andrew Maxwell to provide evidence of evolution to five religious creationist layman on a cross-country road trip in the US as part of a reality tv series.
I watched the entire one hr segment and found it both entertaining and enlightening. As a former Bible-thumper myself and current deist leaning universalist, I found it interesting how closed-minded these people were and how quickly they blinded and deafened themselves to the evidence presented to them (the tv segment I honestly think does a poor job showing how much evidence there really is supporting evolution). There was only one person, JoJo, who was totally honest with herself and willing to listen to the evidence.
Just curious if any of you had watched this and if so what are your thoughts on the psychology of creationists and is it possible that people like the belligerent Phil, could ever change their mind. What would it take to change the mind of an ardent creationist if anything. Your thoughts?
{BY Adminnemooseus - The link is not working for me. DA tells me by PM that it is here}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : BY Adminnemooseus
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
I really enjoyed this. I think Phil exemplified everything that is wrong with fundamentalist Christianity. His agenda all came out in the open when he began trying to censor the others on issues like abortion and gay marriage. He was a bully. You've got to wonder how he sorts it all out in his head. He claims to follow an all-loving God but sees evil in everything non-Christian. This supposedly loving person hates views that contradict his own.
Phil and Jo Jo were opposites. Jo Jo was very open to building her own theology as long as the Bible remained at the base. The other girl seemed to be sincerely wrestling with herself, saying that she didn't want to be blinkered but couldn't accept anything that might mean giving up her deeply held religious beliefs. Evolution was unacceptable to her because if evolution was true then Adam and Eve never happened, and I think she showed a fair grasp of logic there.
I watched this last night. I'll note that it is almost one hour, so don't start watching until you have a good block of available time.
I found it interesting, but not surprising. I've been part of the debate at evcforum, to have a good idea as to the way people react.
I liked the way that Percy describes Phil and JoJo.
I think the era of the Phil's of this world is passing. With the availability of information on Internet, it is becoming impossible to keep children in a protective cocoon of ignorance. The more open minded kind of religion that we see in JoJo is better able to withstand the flow of information that can no longer be stopped. I think we were seeing some of that change in the choices of younger voters during the recent election.
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
I'll note that it is almost one hour, so don't start watching until you have a good block of available time.
Hopefully I'll find some time this weekend, I would like to see it.
I think the era of the Phil's of this world is passing. With the availability of information on Internet, it is becoming impossible to keep children in a protective cocoon of ignorance.
I agree. I think we're on the verge of a new era, one with possibilities that can't be imagined right now. The internet didn't just provide a way for people to learn. It's also provided a way for people develop the ability of dealing with others... whoever those others may be. And this ability has come extremely quickly.
What's that saying in science? Something about nobody ever really shifting paradigms, but it's just the younger generation that grows up with the acceptance of the new system and eventually the old stubborn guys just die off?
I think that something similar to the extreme of Newton -> Einstein in physics is happening to "the social world." It's only going to happen once, it's going to be a massive shift, and there's nothing that can stop it now, it's simply just a matter of time as soon as the old stubborn guys just die off.
In a mere 50, 75... maybe 100 years from now... I think the world will be dominated by people who are open to taking in and analyzing new information in a way that the social world has never seen before. Evidence driven decision making will become "normal social etiquette." Can you imagine the governmental system if it was dominated by evidence-driven decision making? It really makes me wish I could live for 300 years just to see what happens...
Then again, I'll also admit I can sometimes be a faithful optimist. But the hope is there, anyway...
What's that saying in science? Something about nobody ever really shifting paradigms, but it's just the younger generation that grows up with the acceptance of the new system and eventually the old stubborn guys just die off?
quote:"a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."--Max Planck (quoted in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn)
In a mere 50, 75... maybe 100 years from now... I think the world will be dominated by people who are open to taking in and analyzing new information in a way that the social world has never seen before. Evidence driven decision making will become "normal social etiquette." Can you imagine the governmental system if it was dominated by evidence-driven decision making? It really makes me wish I could live for 300 years just to see what happens...
Sorta like the Enlightenment, eh?
Then again, I'll also admit I can sometimes be a faithful optimist.
We'll get there. Well, not us...
"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
In a mere 50, 75... maybe 100 years from now... I think the world will be dominated by people who are open to taking in and analyzing new information in a way that the social world has never seen before. Evidence driven decision making will become "normal social etiquette."
Like today's social media driven world?
Who has the larger audience, Fox News or PBS?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
I like your analysis of the episode. I agree that Phil is very much a bully and a jerk. I find interesting his projection of his own antagonistic, bullying behavior onto the director at 36:20 in the video.
If you think that Phil is just a misguided bible thumper you are wrong. In actuality he is the chairman of a prominent creationism organization in Northern Ireland as shown here: Creation Evangelism » Creation Outreach Ministries . I guess you could say he is the Ken Ham of Northern Ireland. It shows in the video he is a complete ignoramus on even basic science even though holds a Bachelors and Master’s degree. I believe somewhere it mentioned that he a glorified PT teacher. It shows how immersed in the video how immersed he is in this ridiculous world view and how much he wants to drag everyone down into it.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
In a mere 50, 75... maybe 100 years from now... I think the world will be dominated by people who are open to taking in and analyzing new information in a way that the social world has never seen before. Evidence driven decision making will become "normal social etiquette." Can you imagine the governmental system if it was dominated by evidence-driven decision making? It really makes me wish I could live for 300 years just to see what happens...
I hope it doesn't take that long. The one thing about the internet though is that it also provides a larger platform and megaphone for the quacks to spread their nonsense. It works both ways unfortunately. The question is whose voice will be more influental and which worldview will people more readily be attracted to and adopt.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
Well, this is pretty typical mainstream science and pop communities habit of revealing only the message they want to reveal. Here's what they did, they took a group of the most extreme kind of believers, people who believe in Noah's ark, or only in the extreme literalism of the bible, and the BBC decided that if they could win the argument over Noah's ark, then see, haven't we done a great job of dismissing creationism.
The narrator even points out that in America at least 50% of the population believes in some form of creationism-but of course we have only included people who believe the earth is 6000 years old, because that is really the only way the evolutionists camp can argue their points and act superior in authority. Why was the BBC so chicken to not allow scientifically educated intelligent design proponents along?
The answer is simple, because the easy target is to take the most extreme believers, ridicule them, and then claim you have actually shown something valid in the evolutionists-creationist debate.
There are 1000 questions that Jerry Coyne deserves to be asked by the BBC; like explain why the neo-Darwinian concepts like point mutations on single genes leading to a slow build-up of new phenotypes could have ever created a fast switching epigenetic system of life development, which is what recent scientific developments have shown, rather than the one gene equals one trait concept they preached for so many years? Or why hasn't science been able to show the evolution of bacteria into other life forms, even though they have studied billions upon billions of generations?
So why didn't the BBC take a more honest approach the the full scientific debate, instead of just looking at religious fundamentalism, and then pretending that is a debate on evolution?
I would say the answer to that is the same reason this site exists, because you can debate an extreme position, thus protecting yourself from answering the tough questions. Its how the science community has been hijacking and censoring the truth for decades. Pure propaganda handbook nonsense
Pretty sophomoric stuff from a place like the BBC if you ask me.
It is going to take agreement to dissuade the ignorant to accept where their knowledge stops. But the problem is, even the non-ignorant will find they commit the very same evil when choosing their belief.
The truth is most likely that science is correct in a lot of data, and wrong in some interpretation. It is most probable that wise living was recorded and taught via the governments available in earlier centuries, in which there was not a separation of church and state.
Now most honest and intelligent scientists, from my research, have shown that their religious and scientific opinion of God is simply "I Don't know." and more or less take on the position that organized religion is mostly false, but yet do hold some truths and valuable lessons in religious text in many cases.
My personal take on this video, is that it is heavily skewed, that it is a reflection of a few, mostly far right within the bounds of being labeled extremism. But with anyone who has been taught from children to believe under all circumstances, lest your souls die, to not forsake the teachings of their fathers and mothers and religious leaders, the path to acceptance that today’s knowledge is greater than that of the past, is not an easy take. For some, it is impossible to even suggest.
Therefore the opening of the minds of the far right and the far left to accept where their knowledge stops, and to speak with reason, without malice or agenda, but simply truth concerning spirit and the birth of existing for the sole purpose of mankind’s survival and success: will not be easy for either side.
Only with patience and honest debate, without the targeted attacks that debates draw, nor the ambition to win for the sake of winning, and abolishing the use of sophistry for a poorly examined belief that people desire to exemplify, could the species as a whole have any hope of drawing others with any great success of numbers: to realize their beliefs are poorly examined.
The truth will be unacceptable to some on both sides, but do not focus your energies there. Focus them on those who think, who listen, who research, and who care.
Whether you read my post and have religion, or read as a scientist who accepts no certainties: my plea is for true examination of what we can know. That we all come to an acceptance of philosophies concerning those areas; and an agreement as to what is necessary to create a world worth living in for the human race.
For us, and our children, the stakes have never been higher. Agreements on the global warming front have some saying the earth could lose 75% of its life by 2300 if current trends continue. That’s reason enough for us to quit bickering about what we do not agree on, and start finding the solutions within what we do agree on.
All will find an area to disagree concerning any matter that is debatable. But the solutions to our problems in society will rest on the areas that we agree.
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
Well, this is pretty typical mainstream science and pop communities habit of revealing only the message they want to reveal. Here's what they did, they took a group of the most extreme kind of believers, people who believe in Noah's ark, or only in the extreme literalism of the bible, and the BBC decided that if they could win the argument over Noah's ark, then see, haven't we done a great job of dismissing creationism.
The narrator even points out that in America at least 50% of the population believes in some form of creationism-but of course we have only included people who believe the earth is 6000 years old, because that is really the only way the evolutionists camp can argue their points and act superior in authority. Why was the BBC so chicken to not allow scientifically educated intelligent design proponents along?
Probably because there are so few people out there that could intelligently talk about 'intelligent design'. However, they did invite Phillip Robinson, a chairman for the Northern Ireland 'Creation Outreach Ministries'. Surely he would know something about intelligent design.
However, the reality show is about extremist views. As much as I disagree with the methodology of intelligent design pushers like Dembski and Michael Behe, discussing the 'intelligent design' is probably not as entertaining as playing whack-it-mole with hard and true, literal seven day, 4000 year old Young Earthers. Besides, the average Christian out there has a very poor understanding of the tenants of 'intelligent design' and the pseudoscientific propaganda that it peddles.
The show is a reality show not a Nova documentary.
The answer is simple, because the easy target is to take the most extreme believers, ridicule them, and then claim you have actually shown something valid in the evolutionists-creationist debate.
I think the show was more of a psychological journey into the mind of Young Earthers than anything else. I don't think anyone including the director and producer were expecting a conversion of Young Earth Creationists into evolution believing 'Darwinists'.
There are 1000 questions that Jerry Coyne deserves to be asked by the BBC; like explain why the neo-Darwinian concepts like point mutations on single genes leading to a slow build-up of new phenotypes could have ever created a fast switching epigenetic system of life development, which is what recent scientific developments have shown, rather than the one gene equals one trait concept they preached for so many years? Or why hasn't science been able to show the evolution of bacteria into other life forms, even though they have studied billions upon billions of generations?
Again, it is a reality show not a science documentary.
So why didn't the BBC take a more honest approach the the full scientific debate, instead of just looking at religious fundamentalism, and then pretending that is a debate on evolution?
They were pitting these dyed-in-the-wool creationists against scientists and authorities in their fields of expertise to see if they can help bring some amount of logic and reason into these creationists world view. It was not about having a debate between experts in creationism and experts in evolution. That has been done ad nauseam.
I would say the answer to that is the same reason this site exists, because you can debate an extreme position, thus protecting yourself from answering the tough questions. Its how the science community has been hijacking and censoring the truth for decades. Pure propaganda handbook nonsense
Bullshit. Hard questions and intelligent answers have been asked and answered over and over on this site. Stop being ignorant.
Pretty sophomoric stuff from a place like the BBC if you ask me.
Again, you missed the entire jest of the show. It wasn't about debating the evidence for creationism vs. evolution; it was about whether these peoples world views held water or was it purely a religious house of cards.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
Fox News. That is because most people recognize soviet style propaganda even if it is cloaked in soft, classical music and milquetoast tones of voice. They also have no where else to turn if they don't want to hear progressive, collectivist, anti-traditional american values propaganda.
Sorry, there is no such thing. Most ID proponents know nothing of science, and those very few who do know something of science are forced to deny major parts of it.
So why didn't the BBC take a more honest approach the the full scientific debate, instead of just looking at religious fundamentalism, and then pretending that is a debate on evolution?
The scientific debate has already occurred, in the proper place: peer reviewed scientific journals. ID has not been shown to be of any value at all in those journals.
And by the way, religious fundamentalism is the exact opposite of science. It does not follow evidence to conclusions, but rather accepts conclusions in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
