Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.

Isn't it possible that it is? I mean, look around this forum and gauge the general level of scientific expertise among the prominent creationists and then gauge it among their evolutionist counterparts.I mean, on one hand we have you, whose knowledge of science is at a junior high level at best, and then there's me, a senior undergraduate biochemistry major. There's Buzsaw, who has no formal science training any of us have been able to discern, and the cranky Minnemooseus, a geology professor at the University of Minnesota.I'm not cherry-picking examples except to pick individuals whose biography I can remember offhand. If you'd like to do a more formal survey I think you'd find the pattern holds, though. The Discovery Institute's famous lists of "scientists" who "doubt evolution" rarely contains any actual biologists, its invariably engineers and doctors (who aren't really scientists at all.) You're right. There's been two centuries of scientific advancement since Darwin and his theory of evolution by natural selection has had to expand in order to account for new observations (not least of which, the entire science of genetics.) But it's a testament to the robustness of the original theory that evolution by natural selection and random mutation has been able to account for all biological observation. Liberation from what? Religion has never posed any obstacle to people's political and sexual desires. Catholics are still strong liberal voters. Ted Haggard had no trouble preaching sexual "morality" while engaging in meth-fueled trysts with gay prostitutes. The highest rates of divorce in America are in the highly-religious southern states.Revolutionizing the science of biology just to get some space to get your jollies off - you can't really expect us to believe that's how it works, do you? How can that seem reasonable to you? Darwin labored over "On the Origin of Species" for over ten years. That's a bit far to go just for some kinky sex, isn't it? Especially since there's no indication that Darwin was anything but a devoted family man? Why do all that work just for "sexual liberation" and then not take advantage of it? The friskiest teenagers in the country, by rate of STD transmission and extramarital pregnancy, are the conservative, Creationist teens. How does that square with your notion of evolution as a means of sexual liberation? The points have been comprehensively addressed. Since by your own admission creationists have no new evidence, what's left to do but point them to the archive and ridicule them as they go? When our opponents - such as yourself - insist on offering risible notions (like that of a scientific conspiracy dedicated to the murder of creationists) why isn't derision a reasonable response? And enjoys the benefits. But you're the one claiming that it's "an instrument of liberation, a philosophy of meaninglessness."

Hi, Marc. Marc, I want to lodge two complaints about this statement.

1. I have learned a great deal about atheists from this website. Atheists only rarely think of the world as meaningless: they often perceive a meaning for the world and for their lives that is as profound and as deep as any meaning that you and I, as religious folks, perceive.
   ​
   This is another example of a creationist not understanding how an evolutionist thinks.
   ​
2. I am a family man. I have a son who is almost three years old, and my wife is five months pregnant with my first daughter. I am content and happy with my family life, and have no interest in looking for sex anywhere else. In fact, I would be perfectly happy if I underwent andropause right now. I seek no sexual liberation.
   ​
   In addition, I don’t really pay much attention to politics. I have voted Democrat more often recently, simply because I greatly prize education, and Democrats are friendlier to education. But, my general political philosophy is to not rock the boat too much and not ask for too many favors from people. I seek no political liberation either.

My interest in evolution stems only from what I feel are its logical merits. I do not view the question of meaning as having anything to do with my acceptance of evolution. I am currently in the midst of a major religious crisis because I have never been able to glean any success from a faith-based approach to life, and am struggling to understand why a being like God would place such high importance on faith, anyway.Your comments seem to be written through Christian-tinted glasses. I understand what it feels like to perceive the world from a Christian perspective, because I was as fundamentalist as any Christian ever was up until a couple years ago. I still cannot understand fully atheistic perspectives on life, and I can’t grasp the concept of myself without having some sort of inner soul, but I think I understand enough to at least accept that they are sincere and that their view is not the same as mine.Since I acknowledge that I am no the most reliable source of information, I consequently also acknowledge that I may have no idea how stupid my perspective is. I think the world would be a much better place if everybody also acknowledged this, and approached every conversation as if they acknowledged this.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

I applaud you on your attitude, and couldn't agree more with your idea of what would make the world a better place. The unfortunate thing is that those who most need to understand what you acknowledge are those who are least likely to.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Hi Marc, Well of the shoe fits... Fact is that many, if not all creationists I have encountered are deeply ignorant of science. They demonstrate that on a daily basis. It's not an evolutionist who cited the "Second Law of Thermal Documents".It is also worth noting that there is a difference between telling someone what and how they think and correcting someone when they voice obvious errors. Yes. Do any of them claim the the ToE is true simply because Darwin says it is? No they do not. But Huxley isn't talking about evolution or the Theory of Evolution, nor is he making an argument from authority. Can you find me an evolution proponent arguing that the ToE is true because Darwin says it is or can't you? I make absolutely no connection between my politics and the ToE. They are two separate issues. You are welcome to conflate them if you wish, but I do not.The ToE does not inform my politics, sexual or otherwise.My politics had no bearing upon my acceptance of the ToE. Please document where the ToE was cited in the Schiavo case. If you cannot, there is no relevance in this. Merely mentioning "people with scientific credentials" does not count. Please back this up with some kind of evidence. Of course, you may find that tricky, 'cos it's a lot of old rot... Try to get some perspective Marc. Try, please try, even if only for a minute, to realise that not everyone thinks like you.I'm English. I live in the UK. I have no particular animus toward the constitution of a foreign country. Nor is it of any amazingly special interest to me. Nonetheless, insofar as I do care about the US Constitution, I am an admirer of it, contrary to your ignorant assumptions. One thing is for sure though; the US constitution has absolutely no relevance to my views on evolution. Only a creationist would make that connection. Yes, it's a thing called "progress". Sorry if you find it distressing. I know that you Evangelical chaps value very old books, but I'm pleased to say that not everyone thinks like that. Some of us prefer new books, full of newer and more accurate information, just one of the many differences between the evo and creo "mindsets". I'm curious; by whom? It is not my fault or Dennet's fault if traditional concepts are flawed.I also notice that Dennet is not making the foolish argument from authority that you accused evo's of making. Are you ever going to back that up? Or withdraw it? It's comments like the above that make me wonder if you are even following what I'm saying. I agree that The Origin is both profound and applicable to the subject of evolution. Where we disagree is over your claim that evolutionists believe the ToE for the same reasons that you believe the Bible; Remember that? Are you going to show me any evolutionists claiming to believe the ToE simply because they read it in The Origin? Or not?I do not believe in the ToE because I read Darwin. Indeed, I haven't even read more than a couple of chapters of The Origin. There's no need; it has been superseded. Right. So you understand that a person can hold separate motivations for their beliefs, that not all of a person's beliefs need share the same motivations or thought processes. But then you say this... ...once again conflating politics and evolution in the mids of others.How many times must I tell you before you start to believe me; I do not link politics with the ToE. I have no inkling how that would even work. You link the two, I do not. Got it? Oh look, another quote where an evolutionist doesn't argue the point you claimed we argue. These don't help your case. What would help your case would be if you found a quote that actually backed up your claims, y'know, one where an evo claims to believe the ToE just because they read it in Darwin. Like you claimed... No, the subject of this thread is "Creationists Think Evolutionists Think Like Creationists". You continue to do a bang-up job of proving this thesis right. Yes I do. But they are not informed by the ToE, nor do my political opinions inform my views on science.You do realise that a political belief is of a rather different nature to an objective claim about the physical world, right? Nice fantasy. Here in the real world of course there are hundreds of thousands of theists who accept the ToE. Compare and contrast with creationists, who are always fundamentalist religious believers of some stripe. Where does the OP assert that? I cannot see it. As can lies. Behe misled the court, telling it that little work had been conducted on the evolution of the mammalian blood clotting system. This was shown to be false. Whether he lied or was merely ignorant of his own field of study, only he knows. Bill Buckingham, another ID proponent actually told flat-out lies whilst under oath. Again, what reaction do you expect? Nice. So you accept that I do not believe the ToE simply because Darwin said so? Great!Given that you have not shown any evidence that any atheist does think this way, might it not be an idea to extend this courtesy to atheists as a whole? And again and again, evolutionists are telling you that you are mistaken. We do not have any problem with the world having meaning. We just differ over the source and nature of that meaning. Why do you keep doing this? Why do you insist upon telling us what we think rather than asking? If I offend you, I regret that, it is not my intent. You are the one though, who said this; Given that you ascribe divine inspiration to the Bible, I think the phrase "magic book" is a fair one, if less than wholly respectful. I am only going on what you write. Total nonsense. From Wiki;

quote:

---

Nature's chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. The highest percentage of belief was found among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

---

No, once again, the thread is about whether "Creationists Think Evolutionists Think Like Creationists". You would seem to have proved this beyond all reasonable doubt. Of course, if you want to prove that "Evolutionists Think Like Creationists" you could always provide us with some evo quotes that make the silly argument from authority that you accused us of making. But we both know you can't do that.Mutate and Survive

If he would have said more clearly, that 90% of NAS scientists are either atheist or agnostic, would you have still called this nonsense?And would you have also said that since 90+ percent of the NAS scientists ARE agnostic or atheist, and a full 94% of the biologists at NAS do not believe in a GOD, that if any particular scientists came to the conclusion based on their research that life is in fact influenced by a higher power, that that individual would have a reasonable chance of being accepted into the NAS or of getting support by scientific institutions?

Summary:Evolutionists (and other scientists) follow the evidence where it leads. That is the definition of a scientist.There are a few folks out there with scientific backgrounds who have accepted the bible or scripture as the highest form of knowledge, and in doing so can be said to think like creationists. They have turned their backs on science and can no longer be considered scientists.So no, evolutionists don't think like creationists.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi, Bolder-dash. I think showing an ability to distinguish between atheists and agnostics would go a long way toward demonstrating that one can understand how they think.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

That would be fine, if the scientific community allowed a scientist to conclude that a non-material explanation is the most likely for a said phenomenon.But that is not what the scientific community allows. Instead they specifically say that such a conclusion is absolutely unacceptable, even if that's where the evidence points. So they do not truly believe in following the evidence where it leads.

But can material evidence truly point toward a non-material explanation? It might sometimes not agree with specific materialistic theories, but I would argue that actually finding scientific evidence that points to a non-materialistic theory would be impossible. What would constitute such evidence?Respectfully,-Meldinoor

So if this be the case, give me an example of such.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Because there's never been any evidence that made a non-material explanation more likely. And every time non-material explanations have been suggested, they've been proven to be false.So naturally scientists lean against non-material explanations. They're more likely to be correct if they stick to material explanations.

OK, let's add methodological naturalism to the list of things you don't understand.

Drawing such a conclusion entails that an unlimited number of non-material "explanations" are equally likely for the given phenomenon, because there can be no objective and verifiable (i.e. material) basis for assessing the relative merits of all the possible non-material accounts that could be made up as "explanations".That's why the scientific community doesn't allow this. It doesn't yield any substantive progress toward a better understanding of any given phenomenon; instead, it leads to a potential morass of irreconcilable alternatives with no rational path to a valid resolution.The worst thing about such an idea is that if science allowed it, then secular courts of law would be inclined to allow it as well, because science and secular jurisprudence use the same principles of evidence and explanation. The result would be the end of secular jurisprudence, because some particular religious dogma would inexorably step in to assume authority in those cases where "a non-material explanation" could be deemed the most likely for some collection of evidence. There would be no basis, beyond a judge's own chosen bias, for selecting among the "possible" non-material explanations...No, thank you. That won't do at all. No one with a decent amount of common sense would want to go there.Edited by Otto Tellick, : grammar tweak

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

See, so you are saying science doesn't allow this. Even if all of the evidence was pointing exactly to that conclusion.That is why it is false to say that science only goes where the evidence points. Because sometimes the evidence points to the super-natural.So if you are saying the scientific community has made a conscience effort to not allow this, because it is not practical for their desired result, they are not really conducting science.

Of course science could point towards a non-material explanation, if we only looked at the evidence. There is no law that prevents this conclusion.Take for example a study of near-death experiences. Or experiments of psychic powers. Or if an experiment proved that a new type of cell appeared from nothing, instantly.You can't just throw a blanket over everything that is possible and say-nope, we can't allow non-materialism-instead if that's what it looks like we must either deny it or bury our heads in the sand.