Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?)
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 1 of 89 (548307)
02-26-2010 5:44 PM


Richard Dawkins writes:
It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
Over in the How do scientists explain the cause of the Ice Age(s)? thread, among numerous digressions, Dr Adequate and I had a friendly disagreement about just what is going on in some creationists' minds, beginning with Message 15.
Dr Adequate writes:
I myself prefer the belief that creationists are halfwits, and will defend this view against the proposition that creationists are deliberate liars in despite of anyone who prefers that opinion.
ZenMonkey writes:
I'll accept that debate challenge. Before I came here I spent a year visiting the blog of a certain mustachioed Kiwi charlatan. Having witnessed the amazing level of deception of both self and others on display there, I assert that very few people could mouth the utter nonesense of creationism and not know on some level that they were full of shit.
Dr Adequate writes:
Very well. I maintain that the vast majority of creationists are sincere, and I shall argue for it. Start a thread.
And so here we are.
If we follow Dr Dawkins's schema above, it appears that Dr Adequate is arguing for ignorant and/or stupid, while I appear to be arguing for the unsavory choice of wicked. Insane is up for grabs.
We'll take for granted the most of what creationists accept is, to be charitable, not supported by the evidence. It could be that they simply haven't been exposed to evidence (ignorant), fail to grasp it if it is presented to them (stupid), or in my view, deliberately choose not to understand it (wicked/liars). I'd go so far as to say that on some level they really do know that what they're saying is simply not true, but will not accept it for reasons of their own.
Exhibit 1, "Dr" Kent Hovind.
Looking into "Dr" Hovind's glassy eyes, do we think that he really believes this stuff? Does he just not know any better? Or one way or another, does he know perfectly well (or at least suspect) that what he's saying is simply not true? While only Jesus knows what's really in his heart, what does the available evidence tell us?
Edited by ZenMonkey, : Clarity (always needed).
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add the "(ZenMonkey and Dr Adequate only)" to the topic title.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Take the "(ZenMonkey and Dr Adequate only)" out of the topic title.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-26-2010 9:32 PM ZenMonkey has replied
 Message 13 by hotjer, posted 05-24-2010 4:46 AM ZenMonkey has not replied
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-24-2010 7:29 AM ZenMonkey has not replied
 Message 18 by bluegenes, posted 05-24-2010 9:55 AM ZenMonkey has not replied
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-24-2010 10:24 AM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 3 of 89 (548329)
02-26-2010 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
02-26-2010 9:32 PM


Re: A 1 on 1 debate with Dr Adequate?
My own preference would be to throw it wide open, perhaps as a Free For All. I suspect that the Dr and I would agree far more than we'd differ. Also, he'd quite likely whup me in a mano-a-mano. But since the topic originated in the form of a debate, I'd agree to that, too. Dunno what Dr Adequate would most enjoy.
This should be fun, regardless.
Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-26-2010 9:32 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-26-2010 11:16 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 6 of 89 (548624)
02-28-2010 5:50 PM


Calling the Dr - shall we play a game?
I'd rather not see this conversation die, as I still appreciate its potential for entertainment.
I'm not sure if I'm following Great Debate protocol exactly, but I'll start with a couple of observations, and then see if Dr Adequate is interested.
I contend that each of us has our own positive claims to support. On Dr Adequate's side, he'll have to offer evidence that outright stupidity is a dominant trait among creationists, and that they are indeed creationists just because they can't grasp even simple concepts when they are presented with them.
Basic ignorance is only the starting place, and as far as I'm concerned, it isn't that significant a factor. Creationists, like anyone else, may just not be very educated. They may have passed through the public school system or been homeschooled, but either way, it's common enough for high school graduates and even college students to be deprived of huge chunks of real learning. It's what they do when they are presented with the facts of the Theory of Evolution that matters.
Dr Adequate should show that creationists' dimwittedness is not selective. In other words, they have to be dumb in more areas than just science. If they can't understand math or English grammar either, then lack of intelligence may indeed be factor in their insistence on substituting belief in simple stories for facts.
I have a somewhat more difficult position to defend. I have to show that creationists are indeed capable of understanding Evolution, but that they choose not too. Further, I think that I'll have to show that they not only flee opportunities to learn, but that they commonly repeat falsehoods even when they've been shown many times over why they're wrong. That counts as lying as far as I'm concerned.
We might want to draw a distinction between active promoters of creationist nonsense and those who simply repeat what they're told. Take Ray Comfort. (Please.) It would be a slam dunk for me to make a substantial list of the lies that he spews out over the course of just one week of his blog. Of course, he's also a demonstrable dim bulb, but still. He's a liar, through and through.
Maybe we could take a recent example as a starting place. I'm thinking of herebedragons and his latest post, Are mutations truly random or are they guided?. He's what I think of as a typical creationist. He's come out with a fairly standard creationist position, been told that his assumptions and/or understanding are faulty, and most importantly, he's been told why he's wrong and where to go if he actually wants to learn something about natural selection's role in evolution. Now let's see what he does. So far his only post in the thread has been the OP. Will he actually go read something factual? Will he return with nothing to offer but restatements of his original position? Or will he just run away? Let's see.
Next?

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 9 of 89 (561857)
05-23-2010 10:49 PM


Any takers?
In light of some of the recent conversations with various creationists here, is this topic worth taking up? I really do wonder what's going on in some people's heads.
Edited by ZenMonkey, : Eliminated unnecessary redundancy.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by slevesque, posted 05-24-2010 12:36 AM ZenMonkey has replied
 Message 12 by nwr, posted 05-24-2010 1:09 AM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 23 of 89 (561937)
05-24-2010 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by slevesque
05-24-2010 12:36 AM


Re: Any takers?
slevesque writes:
Unfortunately, in order for this thread to take some pace other atheists with a similar approach to creationists to Dawkins will have to join him.
Because of course, for a creationist his quote is simply a false dilemna.
If this is the case, then what other possibilities are there?
Dawkins's premise is that ToE is so self-evident that to understand it is to accept it, if not in every detail than it least in all the fundamentals. I agree with him. We've seen various evolution deniers in this forum accepting each part of ToE when taken individually, but then still rejecting the theory when viewed as a whole. The parts are undeniable: random genetic variation, inheritable traits, and adaptation to the local environment being rewarded with reproductive success. If no part of ToE can be invalidated, and the whole is sufficient to explain both the variety of life forms and their relationships, then what alternatives are there?

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by slevesque, posted 05-24-2010 12:36 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by slevesque, posted 05-24-2010 11:08 PM ZenMonkey has replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 24 of 89 (561944)
05-24-2010 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by slevesque
05-24-2010 12:36 AM


Also...
It occurs to me that creationists who have given some thought the matter, rather than those who are just regurgitating what they've been told, aren't objecting to ToE itself. Instead, they object to an implication of the theory, namely that it makes God unnecessary to the whole process. Theistic evolutionists or deists fudge this, I think. Some may think that God isn't necessary for life to develop, but is probably necessary in some other way, perhaps by simply creating the universe to begin with, or perhaps by taking a hand now and then to direct the process in the right direction. Or some might say that God's will is beyond human understanding, and so what seems purposeless to us is really part of his master plan.
For now, I'll take the most parsimonious approach, and assume that a universe that increasingly appears to be purposeless really is purposeless, and that processes that can be explained without the addition of a supernatural element don't gain anything by adding the supernatural on anyway.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by slevesque, posted 05-24-2010 12:36 AM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 05-24-2010 9:58 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 40 of 89 (562232)
05-26-2010 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by slevesque
05-24-2010 11:08 PM


Re: Any takers?
Hi Slev!
Let's see what we have here.
slevesque writes:
A creationist who has in depth study of the many line of evidence that relate to the theory of evolution (therefore not ignorant)...
This isn't anyone I've ever heard of.
There are innumerable creationists who claim to have studied evolution, but at best they soon reaveal, in the most favorable case, a shallow understanding of what evolution really is and how it fits in to the rest of biology. More commonly, they are profoundly ignorant of what scientists and the scientifically literate really say about evolution. As has been pointed out many times, the evolutionary theory that creationists refuse to accept isn't evolutionary theory at all - it's a figment of their imaginations, made up of willful misunderstandings, decades-old untruths, and religious non-sequitors.
The problem is what happens when a creationist finally has the facts explained to him. Sadly, the result is usually that cognitive dissonance wins, and he'll continue to repeat the same factually erroneous claims ad infinitum. It's as if you had to keep explaining over and over that Christians aren't really cannibals just because they refer to communion as the body and blood of Christ.
slevesque writes:
...and also is considered an intelligent person who is very well educated (PhD style, therefore not 'stupid')...
A PhD doesn't necessarily mean much. Someone can have a PhD in English Literature and know everything that there is to know about Chaucer, but still not know enough math to be able to calculate the area of a rug. Sure, they're smart, but that doesn't mean that they're not ignorant. Thus the phenomenon of creationist engineers who think that they know more about evolution (or cosmology, etc.) than biologists (or astronomers, or paleontologists, etc.) who've been experts in their fields for years.
slevesque writes:
...and also shows absolutely no characteristics of mental illness (therefore not insane).
Well, insane might be a little strong. I'm fond of Dr Dawkins's rhetoric, but I suspect that in most cases it's more a matter of being irrational rather than outright batshit crazy. And who isn't irrational somewhere? Still, the degree of persistant and ill-founded irrationality that it takes to keep clinging to some of the more entertaining creationist beliefs is sometimes truely breathtaking.
slevesque writes:
And finally, he has renounced some high paying jobs in order to become an active proponent of creationism (therefore most probably not wicked).
Can't say that I find forgoing wealth is the ultimate test of morality. Fervent, self-sacrificing dedication to a cause doesn't make that cause morally right. Besides, the active proponents of creationism (as opposed to the rank and file) are often making quite a tidy sum as a result of their work. (Go look up Ray Comfort's tax returns sometime. He's not a poor preacher.)
I think that I speak for many when I say that I really respect you, M. Levesque. One can actually have an intelligent conversation with you. It will be interesting to see how your views might evolve (pun intended) if you continue to hang around here.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by slevesque, posted 05-24-2010 11:08 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024