Reasons for Creationist Persistence

Percy, I'm sorry but is there a question you wished me to address from message 79?If you're asking me to comment on the cause of the persistence of creationists, then i've already stated that (speaking for myself, at any rate) scientific skepticism is present independent of religious skepticism. The two may be parallel, but they are indepdendent nonetheless. These may be some creationist's motives; they're not mine. Putting the shoe on the other foot, some evolutionists (see Dawkins) unfounded attacks on religion are no less manipulative of factual reality than those creationists who persist in conscientiously asserting known falsehoods to "disprove" evolution. Both are unacceptable. I do not condone the deliberate manipulation of reality by anyone for any purpose...

A question? No. This is a debate, not a question/answer session. You stated one position, I rebutted it, and so the traditional next step for you is to address my rebuttal, unless I've carried the day on that particular point.Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in Message 79, so let me rephrase it.You started this digression by complaining that Crash was painting creationists using a broad brush, and then you attempted to redefine creationist as someone who approaches scientific discovery from a skeptical vantage point. I replied that that isn't the definition of creationist. A creationist is someone who rejects scientific positions not for scientific reasons but for religious ones.The only reasons you could have for not replying are that I've convinced you and you now understand that Crash's criticism was fair and that he wasn't painting creationism with a broad brush, or that you don't see the point worth pursuing anymore.--Percy

Or perhaps that I didn't understand what you wanted me to reply to???? You reposted a previous post and I was unclear what you wanted me to respond to. Now, I'm sorry I bothering asking since it clearly pains you so much to condescend to my ignorance...My only point has been that my experience with creationists (of whom I am one) is not consistent (and in fact opposes) the characterization that Crash made of, and that evos consistently apply to, creationists.The concensus opinion regarding creationists is exactly how you have phrased it. I spoke up to point out that there are creationists who dissent from evolution based not on theology (after all, as so many here are eager to point out, the christianity is not incompatible with evolution, right?) but on scientific skepticism.So in direct response to your final sentence: What are you talking about? What haven't I replied to? Or do I not get to find out because I should already know?

Double PostEdited by mjfloresta, : Double Post

Based on what, though? You keep talking about these scientific concerns, but you've never said what they are. I see it as a very likely possibility that a creationist would deliberately misconstrue his theological objections to evolution as scientific ones. That would be particularly easy if he or she never specifically stated those concerns, but rather merely said "I have scientific concerns", and then relied on (perhaps) their credibility as a scientist, engineer, or doctor to prevent more detailed inquiry.As far as I'm aware, the last truly scientific objection to evolution came around 1904, with the rediscovery of Mendelian inheritance. You can read one scientist's thoughts on the issue here: Page not found | ScienceBlogsAnd those concerns were abundantly addressed, and discrete models of inheritance were quickly folded in to Darwin's original theory (the "Neo-Darwinian Synthesis", as it came to be called.) Darwin's model explained one set of observations, Mendel's another; quickly, a model was developed that explained both sets, simultaneously.I guess what I'm saying is, there aren't at this point any scientific criticisms that would cast doubt on the whole of evolutionary theory, so your assertion that your buddies have all these "scientific concerns" really doesn't feel convincing to me. I think what's happening is that they have the same ideological concerns as all the other creationists, they're just trying to appropriate the credibility of their expertise and of science in general to make those concerns seem more valid.

Just so we're clear; What I'm not trying to do is pretend that I or any other creationist is sitting on a treasure trove of data that would overturn evolution in a twinkling. All I'm trying to do is shine the spotlight on those creationists (who are also scientists) who have skepticisms of ToE in contrast to to the creationist at large who, not caring/understanding science and being propelled solely by religious motivations mis-construes/denies/distorts the data in defense of his proposition.Perhaps the clearest way to communicate my intent would be to refer to Michael Denton. If you've read his first book (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, you know that he (at the time) had severe scientific skepticism over the ToE. Michael Denton was and is not religous nor motivated by relgious adherence, and has in fact more recently subscribed to ToE. Michael Denton, circa his first book, is representative of the type of skeptic I am trying to spotlight, whether creationist or not.

Jesus died, layed around for a few days, then got up and starte walking around.And now this. Yet more proof that Jesus is, in fact, a zombie./ end OT post.

And if he bites you, then you become a zombie too.

Denton's a pretty poor example, as he's since admitted that most of his criticisms were based on unfamiliarity with the material (as well as being misled by people like Phillip Johnson.) None of the criticisms he raised in his book were scientific in nature; they were all rhetorical claims.And I guess, upon research, I'm not convinced that Denton isn't religious. Do you have some evidence of that?I think you're going to have a very hard time proving that any of your friends have genuinely scientific objections, not just religious objections they're dressing up with science. I mean isn't it just a little too much to ask for us to accept as coincidence the fact that their supposedly "scientific" concerns lead them to the precise conclusion their religion tells them is true?

Just his own word...read the last page of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". Denton categorically denies the veracity of the Christian, Judaic, and Muslim "mythologies".. Are you saying that Christianity is only compatible with YEC? A constant mantra of many here is that Christianity does not conflict with evolution nor does it mandate creationism.

This all depends on whose version of Christianity you are talking about. There is Christianity from the degree of simply accepting Jesus Christ as the Son and Embodiment of God, all the way to believing every word of the Bible is a literal account of world history.Which one do you mean?Jon

The question isn't which one I mean. It's which one does Crash mean. Because Crash asserted that "their religion" - by which I infer Christianity - leads them to accept their scientific (or so-called anti-scientific) positions. Crash is asserting that Christianity (unless I'm wrong to take "their religion" as being Christianity) demands a specific belief, regarding evolution.

I would assume that Crash means their personal religious beliefs. Certainly there are Christians who BELEIVE that Christianity mandates a creationist position.I would add that while there might be a few people who are skeptical of evolution on "scientific" grounds (generally these people would be rightly considered cranks) that is not the same as beleiving in creation which is a religious position. Creationists by definition must believe in creation.I must admit that to the best of my knowledge most creationists and anti-evolutionists - even those with scientific qualifications - do seem to adopt the religion first and then appeal to "science" as a rationalisation. Jonathan Wells, andJohn Baumgardner are clear examples. Moreover all creationists and ID organisations that I know of seem to be essentially religious in nature (even the supposedly non-religious IDEA clubs began with a rule that only Christians could be officers of the clubs !).

I'm sure. I was merely making a partially ironic/partially humorous observation that Crash seemed to be linking Christians to Creationism. Whoa! Scientific dissenter (one who dissents based on scientific skepticism) = crank? Talk about putting up a hedge of protection around the current theory...As to your second point of that paragraph, it seems you are agreeing with me that there is a distinction between skepticism of ToE due to religious motivation and skepticism of ToE due to scientific dissent - not merely a distinction; they are independent causes.It seems to be the concensus opinion that if someone is both a scientist and a creationist, their default basis for rejecting ToE must be religious, and can't be scientific, which I disagree with as being patently untrue. True..I'll have to adress this part later...

quote:

---

Whoa! Scientific dissenter (one who dissents based on scientific skepticism) = crank? Talk about putting up a hedge of protection around the current theory...

---

That would be a valid objection if it were put up as a presupposition. As it is a conclusion based on experience you're really quite wrong.

quote:

---

As to your second point of that paragraph, it seems you are agreeing with me that there is a distinction between skepticism of ToE due to religious motivation and skepticism of ToE due to scientific dissent - not merely a distinction; they are independent causes.

---

They CAN be. But when the religious commitment comes before the "scientific" objections - and when the objections aren't truly scientific it's pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that the real objections are religious.