Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,755 Year: 4,012/9,624 Month: 883/974 Week: 210/286 Day: 17/109 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Direct and indirect evidence in science
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5949
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 28 of 41 (614820)
05-07-2011 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Medis
05-06-2011 11:20 AM


Re: Update
If people won't accept evidence that the Earth is round (e.g. The Blue Marble photo) then IMO they can't be reasoned with and will never accept any evidence you bring forward.
I remember an article by the late Robert Schadewald, former president of the NCSE and tireless writer on the subject of pseudoscience, including creationism and flat-earthism. According to his Wikipedia article, he drew many parallels in the mental processes of creationists and flat-earthists. He also became friends with the leading flat-earthist and his wife.
In this article, he reported a conversation with his flat-earthist friend. At one point, he showed his friend a photo taken of the earth from space. His friend's expression hardened as he said to Schadewald (remembered from over a decade ago), "I see that you are part of the conspiracy."
That guy (now departed) truly believed in flat-earthism. His reason for that belief was the Bible. He believed that if the earth is actually not flat, then the Bible is not true. In order to defend the truth of the Bible, no evidence of a round earth could ever possibly be admitted to be true, or even credible. No doubt in the truth of the Bible can ever be allowed.
The vast majority of creationists believe that the truth of the Bible depends on creationism being true, or at the very least that evolution is false. In other words, if the evidence is true and the world really is as it is, then the Bible is false and everything they believe in is not true. So they must do absolutely everything they can to deny the evidence, to deny the truth. I do not envy them in the least; they have firmly committed themselves to a losing and indefensible position and they feel that they must hold it no matter what. So their standing operating procedure (SOP) regarding the evidence is that they must deny it. Or else watch their entire faith structure crumble away. I most definitely do not envy them in the least.
Reading the experiences of creationism opponents talking with their creationist opponents off the record, they are surprised to learn that these guys actually believe that stuff! We know that creationism is all lies and deception, but the creationists actually believe that stuff! When a creationist hits you with a flamingly blatant falsehood, you still have a hard time being able to say that that creationist had lied. Even their top-level liars you can't definitely say that they know that they are lying. I've spotted only a few definite cases of lying (eg, Walter Brown about his rattlesnake protein claim and a local pathological liar creationist about the ozone layer), but even then we don't know for sure that they haven't rationalized it completely away, regardless of how impossible that may seem to us.
Of course, in Robert Byers' case, he is so totally clueless about everything that I am truly surprised that he can achieve even minimal functionality on a daily basis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Medis, posted 05-06-2011 11:20 AM Medis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Medis, posted 05-07-2011 1:36 PM dwise1 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