Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
107 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 104 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,057 Year: 5,169/6,534 Month: 12/577 Week: 0/80 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Creationists' Willful Ignorance?
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 3697 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 46 of 182 (628822)
08-13-2011 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by hooah212002
08-12-2011 11:53 AM


Re: I think I see his point
Sorry for the confusion Hooah,

I was replying to the comment itself, not to your original post.

I did not mean it to look like I was putting words on your mouth.

My bad, should have clipped the comment.

To Catholic Scientist,

Like we "helped" the Native Americans? What's wrong with just letting them have their culture and ignorance?

I have this discussion occasionally with some friends with regards to Australias colonisation. When the British arrived, the indigneous people were stone age people. It is too soon to really tell if they will benefit in the long run for their leap forward through time.

I wonder how people would view the British if they had seen the people, then chose to leave them as they were. Would the other nations of the world have done the same? What would have happened in WW2? Who would have protected them against other powers? Would the natural resources in Australia be left alone? These questions probably apply to the native Americans also.

As a hypothetical situation, resources are getting quite scarce. Lets say the Chinese decide that they want the resources in Australia. The people of Australia, being without any central government, any armed forces, any treaties and no knowledge of the value of their resources would certainly fare poorly.

If an advanced form of alien life came to Earth, and we could see that they had technology that could double our lifespan as well many other things, would you want them to give it too us?

I do know the Prime Directive. It is a good idea when applied to pre warp civilisations. I dont know how well it would work in real life.

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by hooah212002, posted 08-12-2011 11:53 AM hooah212002 has seen this message

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3881
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.0


(3)
Message 47 of 182 (628826)
08-13-2011 10:00 AM


Willful ignorance beyond things creationism
I don't recall noticing this aspect mentioned earlier in this thread.

Willful ignorance by creationists concerning things relating to creationisms doesn't in itself concern me that much. Sure, we need to resist their efforts to weaken science education, but they have the major problem of the 1st amendment - Anything creationism is never going to fly in public schools.

What I find more troubling is that the willfully ignorant creationists seem to be to a large degree the same people that are willfully ignorant etc. concerning other issues. They seem to be prominent in global warming denialism and, in general, denialism of man's adverse environmental impacts.

And I must wonder what proportion of the Tea Party are also hard core creationists.

Hard core creationism is just a symptom of a larger mindset of reality denialism. These are people we don't want in our government or influencing our government.

Or something like that.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Coragyps, posted 08-13-2011 3:13 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2011 10:38 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 10 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 48 of 182 (628872)
08-13-2011 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Minnemooseus
08-13-2011 10:00 AM


Re: Willful ignorance beyond things creationism
Tied in with willful or just old-fashioned dumb ignorance, I think, is an inability to recognize satire. I just ran across an article about a school district in Missouri (NOT Texas, mind you - for once)that has banned Slaughterhouse-Five from its campuses.

http://www.theatlantic.com/...ban-slaughterhouse-five/243525

I grew up a hundred miles or so from Republic, and I am very confident that the school board is loaded with the denialists you are speaking of. And I will bet the rent none of them have read any Vonnegut at all, and are proud of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-13-2011 10:00 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 182 (628914)
08-13-2011 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Minnemooseus
08-13-2011 10:00 AM


Re: Willful ignorance beyond things creationism
What I find more troubling is that the willfully ignorant creationists seem to be to a large degree the same people that are willfully ignorant etc. concerning other issues. They seem to be prominent in global warming denialism and, in general, denialism of man's adverse environmental impacts.

I agree with you about the alarming correlation with denialism, but I don't think willful ignorance is the issue. Coming to an informed opinion on climate change, for example, based on a personal review of the evidence is pretty difficult for laypeople, even technically trained ones. There are plenty of "experts" on both sides of the issue, so most people decide what to believe using unscientific means. Not surprisingly, most laypeople form a decision that is pretty much aligned with their other beliefs. For some people the fact that Al Gore won a Nobel Prize is enough to convince them that there ain't no man-made climate change.

But yeah, the denial trifecta, (denying HIV/AIDs, evolution, and global warming while believing in global conspiracy theories surrounding all three) is pretty common, and disturbing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-13-2011 10:00 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1314
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 50 of 182 (628956)
08-14-2011 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dwise1
08-07-2011 11:03 PM


I am in the process of bringing my site back up after having been taken down a few years ago by my provider suddenly going out of the business. I am now bringing it back up at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/.

On my index page, I am endeavoring to summarize my position. Part of that is the question of why creationists persist in keeping themselves ignorant of evolution and the associated sciences. I will prsent here what I have posted and open it up to discussion and criticism. I am particularly concerned with my assessment #2, pertaining to the goals of creationist/fundamentalist education.

Your assessment #2 is about "education", and "what learning entails", and that is not a scientific subject, any more than is math, history, etc. It doesn’t make much sense to criticize someone (or group) for disagreeing with you on something that is a completely different subject than what you are criticizing them for.

2. Another possible explanation may lie in their misunderstanding of what learning entails. According to the 1990 Science Framework for California Public Schools Kindergarten through Grade Twelve:

So a small committee of people, at one time and in one place (California), determine for themselves and their state what they believe learning entails, and you accept it without question 21 years later, for all 50 states, or the whole world? Do you also assume that the entire scientific community in the other 49 states or the rest of the world accept it without question?

quote:
We repeat here the fundamental conviction of this framework: Education does not compel belief; it seeks to encourage understanding. Nothing in science, or in any other field, should be taught dogmatically. But teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth. In science, there is no truth. There is only knowledge that tests itself and build on itself constantly. This is the message that students should take away with them.

Is everyone supposed to accept this paragraph without question? Suppose someone at NASA, or the medical profession, took exception to the statement “In science, there is no truth”. Suppose they cited some accomplishments in their field, built on truths that were learned in science. Would they be wrong?

“Teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth”? Really? Students are supposed to understand that as they’re taught math, history etc, that it may not actually be true, but they have to learn it anyway? That’s what education is – to learn things that may be false?

What does a discussion about these things have to do with evolution?

Is my assessment of conservative/evangelical/fundamentalist/extreme-sectarian Christian education accurate?

Must be, you’ve inspired a 4 page creationist bashing thread. And now I’ve probably prolonged it by at least another 4 pages.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dwise1, posted 08-07-2011 11:03 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Panda, posted 08-14-2011 7:55 PM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 52 by dwise1, posted 08-14-2011 11:20 PM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 53 by Nuggin, posted 08-15-2011 2:16 AM marc9000 has taken no action

Panda
Member (Idle past 2988 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 51 of 182 (628963)
08-14-2011 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by marc9000
08-14-2011 6:53 PM


marc9000 writes:

That’s what education is – to learn things that may be false?


Do you really think that the answer should be 'no'?

Ah yes - you are a devout believer.
There can be no doubt in what you learn else you have nothing.

Meanwhile, back at the lab:
"Eureka! I have successfully over-turned an established scientific theory !!"
*accepts Nobel Peace Prize*


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by marc9000, posted 08-14-2011 6:53 PM marc9000 has taken no action

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5113
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 52 of 182 (628973)
08-14-2011 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by marc9000
08-14-2011 6:53 PM


Your assessment #2 is about "education", and "what learning entails", and that is not a scientific subject, any more than is math, history, etc. It doesn’t make much sense to criticize someone (or group) for disagreeing with you on something that is a completely different subject than what you are criticizing them for.

Well, nothing like leading with a non sequitur. No idea what that's supposed to have to do with the topic.

So a small committee of people, at one time and in one place (California), determine for themselves and their state what they believe learning entails, and you accept it without question 21 years later, for all 50 states, or the whole world? Do you also assume that the entire scientific community in the other 49 states or the rest of the world accept it without question?

It's a policy statement adopted by a state board of education. By professional educators with degrees in education, which would mean that they should have been up-to-date on what the profession considers education and its means and goals should be. We should have no reason to expect all members of the board to have only been educated in California and, what with accredidation standards, there shouldn't be much reason to expect California to be that much different from the rest of the nation.

Of course, if you know of other states with radically different policy statements than was quoted, such as expressing the need for strict indoctrination and ensuring that the students end up holding specific beliefs, then do please cite those policy statements and provide quotes from them to that effect, plus links for us to be able to go directly to the source and verify them for ourselves.

Otherwise, that makes your second non sequitur in one message.

Is everyone supposed to accept this paragraph without question?

And there's a third non sequitur!

The purpose of an educational framework is to define at the state level what they plan the curricula to be for teaching these subjects in the different grade levels.

“Teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth”? Really? Students are supposed to understand that as they’re taught math, history etc, that it may not actually be true, but they have to learn it anyway? That’s what education is – to learn things that may be false?

quote:
Education does not compel belief; it seeks to encourage understanding. Nothing in science, or in any other field, should be taught dogmatically. But teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth.

As they teach the history of the development of ideas in science, they do indeed teach about old ideas that are no longer accepted, such as Lamarckian evolution, spontaneous generation, antiquated ideas about the nature of heat and of electricity, social Darwinism, the Divine Right of Kings, flat earth, etc. The goal is for the students to understand those ideas, but not to accept them as true. In the middle of the Cold War, USAF Communications Command NCO Leadership School taught us Communism. Do you expect that they wanted us to accept and believe in Communism? Or that they wanted us to understand something about the enemy? In comparative religions class, we learned about several different religions. Do you really expect that the students should have been required to accept and believe in all those religions?

Now, may I interpret your response as agreeing with my assessment that to Christians of the various stripes that embrace "creation science" view education as requiring the indoctrination of the students to adopt specific beliefs? And that that is quite different from the public school view of education as expressed in official state board of education frameworks and policy statements.

I'll take that as a "yes".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by marc9000, posted 08-14-2011 6:53 PM marc9000 has taken no action

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1768 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 53 of 182 (628978)
08-15-2011 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by marc9000
08-14-2011 6:53 PM


Suppose someone at NASA, or the medical profession, took exception to the statement “In science, there is no truth”. Suppose they cited some accomplishments in their field, built on truths that were learned in science. Would they be wrong?

"Truth" is subjective. It belongs in philosophy.
Science is OBJECTIVE. It deals with facts.

There are not "truths" learned in science, only facts. An individual can hold the facts to be true or untrue. It doesn't change the facts.

“Teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth”? Really? Students are supposed to understand that as they’re taught math, history etc, that it may not actually be true, but they have to learn it anyway? That’s what education is – to learn things that may be false?

What does a discussion about these things have to do with evolution?

Again, truth is subjective. You can't really "teach" truth. You can teach ABOUT "truth", but each student will ultimately decide their own truth.

This makes truth a fairly useless subject for education.

The reason this all relates to evolution is the following:
Creationists are upset because their TRUTH disagrees with the facts. They want to replace the facts with their truth.

Creationists don't understand that their truth is irrelevant and that the facts are all education cares about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by marc9000, posted 08-14-2011 6:53 PM marc9000 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 5:43 AM Nuggin has taken no action

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2943 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 54 of 182 (628988)
08-15-2011 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by dwise1
08-07-2011 11:03 PM


quote:
I am endeavoring to summarize my position. Part of that is the question of why creationists persist in keeping themselves ignorant...

Creationism was introduced in the Hebrew bible; the Gospels and Quran do not describe or include this, though they subscribe to it in some form. This says you should refer to the ignorance of the Herew bible or Jews. However, your problem is the Jews are not so ignorant - they have cornered the Nobels in every category by a margin none can plausibly catch up with - notably in the sciences.

quote:

of evolution and the associated sciences.

Its a scientific 'theory'.

quote:

I will prsent here what I have posted and open it up to discussion and criticism. I am particularly concerned with my assessment #2, pertaining to the goals of creationist/fundamentalist education.


Evolution, as a premise as opposed the recent name coinage, was introduced in Genesis, and in its correct protocol and far more comprehensively than Darwin did. Namely, Genesis lists a host of anticipatory factors before life emerged, not mentioned by Darwin - thus more comprehensive. E.g. seperations of light and darkness, day and noght, water from land - life would not emerge without these actions, would they?

You will find the first listing of life form groupings in Genesis' had copy texts. Namely, in categories of terrain and habitat, as opposed skeletal imprints which are subject to errors or may not mean what is concluded of them. The listing by terrain and habitat is the most fundamental mark of life form differences: immobile vegetation; water borne; air borne; land based. The first thing one sees of a life form is not their skeletal forms but whther they abide in the water, air or land, right?

NS and S of the Fittest also come from Genesis: the seed output from the host parents transmits the directive program which fosters and sustains life for its survival. Evolution is merely the wiring which conforms to the data of the translitted seed which acts as a chip in your mobile. Your mobile needs a directive program, right?

Which part is ignorant?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dwise1, posted 08-07-2011 11:03 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Pressie, posted 08-15-2011 6:05 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 132 by dwise1, posted 08-16-2011 4:00 PM IamJoseph has taken no action

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2943 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 55 of 182 (628989)
08-15-2011 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Nuggin
08-15-2011 2:16 AM


quote:
Science is OBJECTIVE. It deals with facts.


Correct. And facts are that which is manifest, observable, repeatable. Read, not subject to eons of years: the difference between Genesis and Darwin's evolution premises. Only one of the latter can be classified as FACT, not subject to unprovable time spans. Its not a fact to say your proof is on another galaxy under a red rock?

Cherry picking FACTS is hardly science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Nuggin, posted 08-15-2011 2:16 AM Nuggin has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Panda, posted 08-15-2011 6:09 AM IamJoseph has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 56 of 182 (628994)
08-15-2011 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by IamJoseph
08-15-2011 5:37 AM


Going through the word salad presented, the following paragraph/ sentence/question stands out
IamJoseph writes:

NS and S of the Fittest also come from Genesis: the seed output from the host parents transmits the directive program which fosters and sustains life for its survival. Evolution is merely the wiring which conforms to the data of the translitted seed which acts as a chip in your mobile. Your mobile needs a directive program, right?

The whole word salad fails at the comparison of ‘seed outputs’,‘directive program’and ‘your mobile’. To put it bluntly; your analogy fails, because mobiles can’t reproduce. Life, however, can and does. Reproduction is the only way for life to ‘foster and sustain life’ that we know of. Mobiles don't do it.

Reasons are: a)My mobile does not reproduce. b)My mobile doesn’t have a ‘seed output’
c)My mobile doesn’t ‘ foster and sustain life for it’s survival’. d) My mobile can work on various ‘directive programs', not only on one.

Could you care to explain what you meant; preferably without the word salad?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 5:37 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 6:14 AM Pressie has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 2988 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 57 of 182 (628995)
08-15-2011 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by IamJoseph
08-15-2011 5:43 AM


IamJoseph writes:

Correct. And facts are that which is manifest, observable, repeatable. Read, not subject to eons of years: the difference between Genesis and Darwin's evolution premises. Only one of the latter can be classified as FACT, not subject to unprovable time spans. Its not a fact to say your proof is on another galaxy under a red rock?


Please post in your native language and then we can use GoogleTranslate to get a better translation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 5:43 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 6:16 AM Panda has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2943 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 58 of 182 (628996)
08-15-2011 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Pressie
08-15-2011 6:05 AM


No word salad. Mobiles do not reproduce because they are not programmed to do so with a directive program. DVD replication programs do - and not because of a thing called evolution.

The seed factor is listed in hard copy text which introduced repro in the first scientific writings - not to be confused by deceptively simple ancient texts designed for all generation's understanding. The seed refers to the output of the host dual parents, a combination of a male sperm and female egg: A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND. Thus zebras reproduce zebras. Try repro without the seed factor - but without the word salad?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Pressie, posted 08-15-2011 6:05 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Pressie, posted 08-15-2011 6:42 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2943 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 59 of 182 (628998)
08-15-2011 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Panda
08-15-2011 6:09 AM


I was just testing your comprehension levels, actually.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Panda, posted 08-15-2011 6:09 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Panda, posted 08-15-2011 6:51 AM IamJoseph has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 60 of 182 (629004)
08-15-2011 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by IamJoseph
08-15-2011 6:14 AM


IamJoeseph writes:

No word salad.

Yip, it was a word salad. I certainly don’t understand what you were saying; just a string of words that don’t make sense.
IamJoeseph writes:

Mobiles do not reproduce because they are not programmed to do so with a directive program.

Listen to yourself. A programme on a mobile certainly won’t let the mobiles to reproduce. Companies producing mobiles would love to hear how they can ‘programme’ a mobile to reproduce.
IamJoeseph writes:

DVD replication programs do - and not because of a thing called evolution.

You don’t understand the first thing about evolution, do you? DVD replication programmes don’t reproduce DVD’s. They produce the same programmes on DVD’s. These DVD’s don’t reproduce themselves.
IamJoeseph writes:

The seed factor is listed in hard copy text which introduced repro in the first scientific writings - not to be confused by deceptively simple ancient texts designed for all generation's understanding.

You love word salads, don’t you?
IamJoeseph writes:

The seed refers to the output of the host dual parents, a combination of a male sperm and female egg: A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND. Thus zebras reproduce zebras. Try repro without the seed factor - but without the word salad?

Try to get a mobile to reproduce. Then you can start your word salads again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 6:14 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 6:49 AM Pressie has taken no action
 Message 64 by Panda, posted 08-15-2011 6:58 AM Pressie has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022