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?
Hovind, like so many of them, have the same tendencies of a cult. He's smitten by his beliefs. What they are able to do (which is more than evident here on EvC) is to convince themselves and their followers that it's a good thing that most people subscribe to evolution. That, in and of itself, details how insane the world has become and how they know these are the End of Days.
The explanation for why that is is that it is playing right in to the hands of Satan. We're all just being swooned by demons. The creationists (Christians) are the hero's; the last bastion of hope in a dying world.
When they are confronted with indisputable evidence that contradicts their claims, what that really testifies to in their mind is the cunning and craftiness of Satan and his legion of demons.
There are also political overtones all throughout Hovind's seminars. He mentions "liberals," as if liberals are synonymous with evolution. I know quite a few evolutionists that politically lean more to the right. But this is his attempt to appealing to a certain base, a certain demographic to drum up support.
Hovind is simply a prototypical young-earth creationist that pushes hard his agendas and spreads his propaganda in fundamental churches. He appeals to their sensibilities by demonizing all the things they already distrust... At least, he did, until he was imprisoned for tax evasion.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal
I think there's undoubtedly a wide spectrum of creationists. Some believe in creation stories because that's how they've been educated or indoctrinated. Many won't have thought deeply or objectively about the subject, they just stick with what they've been told out of ignorance or loyalty.
But it's my subjective feeling that most professional creationists (like that certain mustachioed Kiwi ZenMonkey mentions) know they stand on very thin ice. I think they argue their case just to be perverse to facts and logic. I know that in the past I have often got a strange kick out of arguing for things I didn't consider to be true (I hasten to add not something I do on this site). Sometimes just as an amusing intellectual exercise, and sometimes because it annoys me that people accept things as facts too readily (even if they are right!). I honestly feel many of these professional creationists simply argue their case because they enjoy the debate and the confrontation.
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).
I'd prefer:
bluegenes writes:
It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, delusional or any combination of the above.
I prefer "delusional" to insane because insane seems too strong for what is largely due to cultural (or sub-cultural) delusion, and understandable human emotions/desires.
I also think that "delusional" is the most important of the three adjectives to consider if we're trying to understand creationists.
However, an interesting point about the three adjectives is how they relate to each other. The higher the level of any of the three in an individual, the more likelihood there is of the other two.
On this exchange in the O.P.
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.
I'd emphasize delusion over stupidity, although Adequate could certainly argue that it's "half-witted", or stupid, to be strongly deluded about something.
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.
Here, ZenMonkey has the "amazing level of deception of both self and others" bit right, but I think that the deception of others is just a byproduct of the deception of self, and very rarely done with clear understood intent. So, I disagree that the "nonsense mouthers" know that they are "full of shit" on any conscious level.
Which leads to this:
Dr. Adequate writes:
Very well. I maintain that the vast majority of creationists are sincere, and I shall argue for it. Start a thread.
Which I agree with. Deluded, but certainly sincere.
But it's my subjective feeling that most professional creationists (like that certain mustachioed Kiwi ZenMonkey mentions) know they stand on very thin ice. I think they argue their case just to be perverse to facts and logic.
Wouldn't that require them to be secret evolutionists? Or at least to have a much, much better grasp of what they're talking about than they let on?
But then again we come back to my point (1): they can't all just be trolling, surely? And yet they all look the same from the outside: the same errors of fact, the same errors of reasoning, even the same daft rhetoric. In which case it is more economical to imagine that there is just one kind of creationist than that there are two fundamentally different kinds of creationist both of which look the same from the outside.
Wouldn't that require them to be secret evolutionists? Or at least to have a much, much better grasp of what they're talking about than they let on?
It's my subjective impression, of course, but I've no doubt that creation "scientists" like Ken Ham and his fellow Aussie creationist, John Mackay (Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied) understand evolution very well. I just can't believe that anyone who makes the effort to study the TOE in depth, as they clearly have, could seriously dismiss it. They will know far more about the theory than most ordinary people who readily accept evolution as fact but who have little interest in the subject.
There are other types of professional creationists who do not portray themselves as scientists, but who are really just preachers (like the mustachiod Kiwi).
Then there is the flock who just believe what they want to believe or have been brought up to believe.
But then again we come back to my point (1): they can't all just be trolling, surely? And yet they all look the same from the outside: the same errors of fact, the same errors of reasoning, even the same daft rhetoric. In which case it is more economical to imagine that there is just one kind of creationist than that there are two fundamentally different kinds of creationist both of which look the same from the outside.
It's not surprising at all that they come out with the same crap regarding evolution. They talk to each other and read each other's stuff. And after all, without the religious we wouldn't have the phrase "singing off the same hymn sheet"!
And yet they all look the same from the outside: the same errors of fact, the same errors of reasoning, even the same daft rhetoric.
I wonder if this isn't a side-effect of the auyhoritarian mindset of most/all fundies. They have Holy Writ - the Bible, or the scribblings of Hovind or Ham - to base their beliefs on, and Holy Writ cannot be wrong.
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
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
I prefer "delusional" to insane because insane seems too strong for what is largely due to cultural (or sub-cultural) delusion, and understandable human emotions/desires.
There are also different degrees of delusions here, and you can have deluders and deludees.
So this covers the spectrum from ignorant\mislead to insane\psychotic.
I also think the general ignorance of most people is largely understated, and not just about evolution in specific and science in general, but woefully underprepared in logic and critical thinking.
Being ignorant of the specifics about science\evolution is curable ...
Being deluded by misinformation about the specifics of science\evolution is curable ...
But they need to recognize and understand logical arguments, and they need to know what it means for concepts to be invalidated.
They need to know that confirmation bias is not validation.
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, ...
When you can set them down and corner them they will proclaim that there is no problem with microevolution, or even with speciation.
When you look at the process of evolution and speciation, there can be no conflict with creationist thinking about current life and the life observed in recent history. Speciation forms nested hierarchies of descent, and the only question is where this pattern started -- 3.5 billion years ago with cyanobacteria, or 4,500 years ago with a WWFlood.
The real issue is not what evolution says, not what common descent says, but what the evidence shows.
If this is the case, then what other possibilities are there?
A creationist who has in depth study of the many line of evidence that relate to the theory of evolution (therefore not ignorant), and also is considered an intelligent person who is very well educated (PhD style, therefore not 'stupid') and also shows absolutely no characteristics of mental illness (therefore not insane). And finally, he has renounced some high paying jobs in order to become an active proponent of creationism (therefore most probably not wicked)
In what category does this person fall into ? Could it be that he genuinely thinks the evidence simply does not support the theory of evolution ?
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?
One can simply not think the premise is valid: the theory of evolution isn't really that self-evident.
And I don't want to derail the topic, but of course random mutations+inheritable traits+Natural Selection does not automatically, enable the possibility that microbes can become elephants. Unless your telling me you can't possibly consider a universe where all three components can be found and yet evolution wouldn't be sustainable ?
A creationist who has in depth study of the many line of evidence that relate to the theory of evolution (therefore not ignorant), and also is considered an intelligent person who is very well educated (PhD style, therefore not 'stupid') and also shows absolutely no characteristics of mental illness (therefore not insane). And finally, he has renounced some high paying jobs in order to become an active proponent of creationism (therefore most probably not wicked)
In what category does this person fall into ? Could it be that he genuinely thinks the evidence simply does not support the theory of evolution ?
When one accepts creationism, one is likely to accept that scripture or divine revelation is the highest form of knowledge. There goes the Ph.D., down the drain. The rest is apologetics, not science.
And I don't want to derail the topic, but of course random mutations+inheritable traits+Natural Selection does not automatically, enable the possibility that microbes can become elephants. Unless your telling me you can't possibly consider a universe where all three components can be found and yet evolution wouldn't be sustainable ?
What we are telling you is that the empirical evidence, from many fields of study, strongly suggests that microbes did become elephants and all the other extant critters.
But you are right, those forces do not automatically lead from microbes to elephants. If the dice were rolled again, the odds are that we would have different critters instead of elephants etc. There is a lot of chance in mutations, inheritance, natural selection, genetic drift, founders effect, etc. Maybe next time Neanderthal would have come out on top!
But we have no empirical evidence that some supernatural being has been pulling the strings.
You think the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is unlikely, examine the real evidence supporting supernatural beings. Leave belief out of it, and really examine the evidence. (You can get better "trust me's" from used car salesmen.)
Edited by Coyote, : Grammar
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
And finally, he has renounced some high paying jobs in order to become an active proponent of creationism (therefore most probably not wicked)
I disagree that the renunciation of high paying jobs is evidence of the absence of wickedness. All you have done is rule out one particular species of wickedness. Perhaps the most common, but surely not the only one.
In what category does this person fall into ? Could it be that he genuinely thinks the evidence simply does not support the theory of evolution ?
The closest person I can think of that meets all your criteria is Kurt Wise. He accepts creationism, but honestly explains that he does this strictly on the basis of the bible, and acknowledges that the scientific evidence more strongly supports evolution than creationism. In fact, even Richard Dawkins calls him an honest creationist, one of "a few shining exceptions."
Of course, Dawkins goes on to marvel at the level of "doublethink" that Wise must exercise on a daily basis, comparing it to Winston Smith's efforts to believe under pain of torture that 2 + 2 = 5. The notable difference between the two is that Wise hasn't been tortured.
But in any event, he certainly isn't someone who genuinely believes that the evidence doesn't support evolution. He understands that it does. He rejects it because the bible tells him so. If only all creationists were as honest, there would be no need for this debate.
And I don't want to derail the topic, but of course random mutations+inheritable traits+Natural Selection does not automatically, enable the possibility that microbes can become elephants. Unless your telling me you can't possibly consider a universe where all three components can be found and yet evolution wouldn't be sustainable ?
Well, I suspect that there is one additional requirement for evolution to occur; limited resources. If there is plenty for all, then there will likely not be any selective pressure. Now, perhaps one might argue that limited resources are inherent in the concept of natural selection, and therefore if natural selection is present, this of necessity would mean that there are limited resources. I might agree with such an argument.
But, barring such an argument, I would indeed tell you that in any environment containing random mutation, natural selection, limited resources and heretability, evolution will occur. It is inevitable.
Some organisms in a daughter population will be genetically better suited to compete for limited resources. Those that are better suited will tend to leave behind more progeny than those that are not. Thus, the proportion of the beneficial traits will be higher in the next generation. This process will continue in each subsequent generation.
If you think this will not result in evolution, please explain what would stop it.
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 Jefferson
For 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 Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It 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
And I don't want to derail the topic, but of course random mutations+inheritable traits+Natural Selection does not automatically, enable the possibility that microbes can become elephants.
In a way, it most certainly does.
With some reasonable adjustment in understanding your statement is quite wrong.
There is nothing that negates modern microbes spawning an evolution resulting in some multi-cellular creature that may, in some aspects, resemble an elephant in the next billion years or so, is there? I will agree that it is not automatic but I would argue it is well within the realm of probability. So, yes, random mutation+inheritable traits+Natural Selection does indeed enable such a possibility, though the outcome will certainly not be elephants. That's already been done by some microbes from a billion years ago. The modern kind will have to go make something else.
™ Version 4.2
