Ignorance and Arrogance

Over the years, since I have been engaging in these debates and discussions, I have noticed a pattern among Creationists.I have noticed that the Creationists who are the most uninformed about Biology, Geology, Physics, and Science in general, are often the most arrogant and condescending in their manner and statements.So why is it that these Creationists often accuse scientists of being "know-it-alls"? Is it projection?The study of science has taught me to be quite sure I can back up what I say before I say it. If anything, I realize my limitations and also realize that there is a GREAT deal that I don't know. It has also taught me that I must accept good evidence if it contradicts what I previously thought was true about nature. It has taught me to know what constitutes "good evidence". Lastly, it has taught me that humans are prone to many thought errors and biases which are hard-wired into us, and that the controls of the scientific method are what makes all of science possible.The practice of critical thinking and logic has taught me to think things through, and to not accept anything on face value, but to require evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Over the years, since I have been engaging in these debates and discussions, I have noticed a pattern among Creationists.

​

I have noticed that the Creationists who are the most uninformed about Biology, Geology, Physics, and Science in general, are often the most arrogant and condescending in their manner and statements.

​

---

Couldn't agree more. The best creationist arguments regarding evolution are in the area of molecular biology & are at the edge of science. These debates are at the very least informed, & make interesting reading. Such things as natural selection, positive mutation etc. in combination are not in issue as they have been shown to occur & have been accepted by the arguing creationist.By contrast, you get the high school kids who "know" natural selection, positive inherited mutation etc. CAN'T happen. Will give a point blank refusal to accept the validity of experimental results, even when conclusive. Not only that, they manage to misrepresent the ToE, 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics etc. In such a way, that if straw men made good soldiers, these people would rule the world.This alone wouldn't bother me so much, we were all born with no knowledge, after all. But the way they condescend & assume that their "knowledge" is better than yours, after you have provided arguments backed with sources. They will simply repeat their assertions as if in some way it will be more "right" if they can repeat it many times.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Couldn't agree more. The best creationist arguments regarding evolution are in the area of molecular biology & are at the edge of science. These debates are at the very least informed, & make interesting reading. Such things as natural selection, positive mutation etc. in combination are not in issue as they have been shown to occur & have been accepted by the arguing creationist.

​

By contrast, you get the high school kids who "know" natural selection, positive inherited mutation etc. CAN'T happen. Will give a point blank refusal to accept the validity of experimental results, even when conclusive. Not only that, they manage to misrepresent the ToE, 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics etc. In such a way, that if straw men made good soldiers, these people would rule the world.

​

This alone wouldn't bother me so much, we were all born with no knowledge, after all. But the way they condescend & assume that their "knowledge" is better than yours, after you have provided arguments backed with sources. They will simply repeat their assertions as if in some way it will be more "right" if they can repeat it many times.

​

---

I generally learn the most from the least interesting reading (raw data, stats, curves, old pictures) etc. The interest is in the subject not the topic captially. Take this with the grain if salt then very good.In creation/evolution sensu stricto where "interesting reading" and "two models" are the candy land scape escaping you the source on mastery. As far as the appluse meter I know of know standard by which to judge either sides number of buttoned holes. Please do understand that I am 36 and have the c/e tension in my family environment which I was young able to differentiate from other friends who did not have this "within". The "interesting reading" nature of c/e is due to debate result post-mortems recycled. You do not have to share this opinion but there is a method in the madness etc etc etc.

LOL, gosh, I feel this whole topic is aimed at me. Sorry guys for any of the stupidity I presented before.I'll put it brief, no more Mr. straw men. :-)

RetroCrono,
I saw your recent post, & have to say you have risen greatly in my estimation (not that that should particularly worry you! ). You have firstly admitted your arguments were poor, secondly, increased your knowledge as a result.I look forward to locking horns with you. ------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
RetroCrono,
I saw your recent post, & have to say you have risen greatly in my estimation (not that that should particularly worry you! ). You have firstly admitted your arguments were poor, secondly, increased your knowledge as a result.

​

I look forward to locking horns with you.

---

I couldn't agree more, Mark.Hats off to you, RetroCrono.

Most people will refuse to believe anything that contradicts what they were taught earlier in their life, especially if the knowledge originated from an individual or institution that the person respects greatly. Religion endures because of this (partially). Religion is the vastly popular method of answering obscure or unobvious questions about reality, and people are typically taught about their specific religion very early in their lives, and usually taught by their parents. Parental teaching or reinforcement of ideas is "bottom line" for children, they accept it without question (this is further exacerbated by the parents themselves, who teach their children to universally believe what they tell them). The religious concepts are reinforced by the large majority of the society they encounter as well, thus the belief is strengthened further. And finally, many people confuse their own mental processes as being spiritual, and not psychological. "I have felt God." Statements such as this lead a self-deceiving cycle, and religion is promoted and strengthened within the individual.As others have pointed out elsewhere, science is not adequately taught in public schools. Science carries a stigma in some aspects of culture, as many think of it as something that has historically threatened religion. Scientists themselves are burdened with negative stereotypes. The average person is clueless about what science is, does, and why it is the ONLY method the educated world uses to determine most everything. Thus, when scientific information that contradicts a religious principle is given to a religious person, that person naturally reacts with feelings of hesitance, blind skepticism, and even outrage. Religion is valued as much to some as their own family. It is part of their culture, their heritage, their lives. This area is so sensitive to many people that mere discussion about it can lead them to feel nervous, anxious, and upset.The brain is hardwired to concern itself with preservation. People love to think that they are special, different, and privy to something that others are not. They love to believe that they are right. If a person has been conditioned to believe in a religion, they will usually come to believe it as an immutable truth. When another individual offers anything that might seem different, it is naturally perceived as threatening, and thus incorrect because the person automatically believes that he or she was right to begin with. This isn't a phenomenon isolated to religion. This is a common human behavior. People rarely are willing to hear that they are wrong about anything, be it parenting, financial planning, or whatever.Why is religion so prevalent on a global scale? 95% of the entire human race believes in some form of a "higher power." I think that this reflects roots in biology. Religion is beneficial mentally, and thus it is adaptive in my opinion. Religion provides hope and simple explanations that don't require much mental work. It's obvious that this is a survival advantage for a species capable of objective thought. We are capable of understanding that we will die, but are programmed to avoid death. This creates an extremely foreboding anxiety. But, almost all religions provide a self-assuring answer to this. Religion gives us hope in believing that there exists a place parallel to Earth, and we will move there once we expire here. I know of no religion that claims that THERE IS a final death of the individual, thus the concept of a "soul" has endured along with religion. What a sad cycle of self-deception we have gotten ourselves into. And it can be debilitating in my opinion, because, as many of you have observed, religion can lead people to lose (or never gain) any distinction between scientific reality and the web of self deception we have created. Look at our history. It would seem natural that we are capable of accepting most anything as truth, so long as it's beneficial to us in some way. People still call psychic hotlines hoping that tarot cards can give them insight into their own lives and help them find a better route for survival. I've read that astrology is accepted by something like 50 percent of Americans. There definitely is some sort of problem with our education system...

I apologize for the unprovoked length of my above post. I suppose I got carried away, as they say.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hoostino:

The brain is hardwired to concern itself with preservation. People love to think that they are special, different, and privy to something that others are not. They love to believe that they are right.

---

I find it amazinly hypocritical that this fault in human behavior is only pointed towards Creationists. Obviously, every human has this fault (INCLUDING scientists). Why is it so hard to believe that scientists (with a presumed assumption that evolution is true) wish to prove evolution with interpretation of the facts.

The only problem i have in disput with religios people is:They stick to their truth and their opinion is flexible like a brick.For my self:I think of evelution as a theory and i'll believe in it untill
somebody will give me something better!For example the bending of a ,well, a stick(dont know a better word for it):there was a theorie from gallileo, it was replaced by a theorie from Bernoulli and finally Navier with sig=6Kl/bh^2.....The problem is that some(or most) creationist try to give his "theory"
the status of a law!(i don't even mention the problems i have with the bible as ultimate thruth)mfg
ronin
(since i am out of english lessons too long,i hope you can understand this text despite the many grammar and spelling errors)

[b] [QUOTE] The practice of critical thinking and logic has taught me to think things through, and to not accept anything on face value, but to require evidence.
[/b][/QUOTE]You accept evolution, something that can not be proven. Your fallback is that you believe it's the best scientific explanation. However, that's still accepting something on "face value."This topic really serves as nothing more than a chance for evolutionist to pat themselves on the back. If I wanted to I could start one about arrogance in evolutionist, but I don't see the point. It's really just a position of judgement.

Well, I couldn't agree more with your opinion. I think that the people that dont know much about the subjects involved with Evolution, often feel the need to ACT like they do. It's a very good point, although, I dont quite know how anyone could respond to what they say.( Meaning tell them that they dont know much about Evolution (Its not that easy )). Unless they stumble in their trail, and say something that is completely wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I find it amazinly hypocritical that this fault in human behavior is only pointed towards Creationists. Obviously, every human has this fault (INCLUDING scientists). Why is it so hard to believe that scientists (with a presumed assumption that evolution is true) wish to prove evolution with interpretation of the facts.

---

Here is a perfect example of a lack of understanding of science and how it operates. Information obtained in a truly scientific manner is objective information. It is immune from bias and a wanting to believe in something. The results can be reproduced consistently, regardless of who is doing the research.Many people NEED to believe in a deity. They deceive themselves into thinking that its existence can be rationalized. Many religious persons will look at scientific information and construe it until it is compatible or complementary to their religion. The only bias in science comes when it is interpreted by individuals using it to confirm something else. Sort of like not allowing the facts to speak for themselves. True scientists, on the other hand, adhere to a tool of ascertaining completely unbiased information -- the scientific method. Science is the best method at our disposal for collecting things we can safely deem as "fact." Plain and simple.Evolution is not anti-creationist or sacriligious in any way. It only becomes those things when religious persons view it in that manner. Evolution is merely a scientific observation. The fact that it conflicts with religious dogma is purely coincidental. Evolution doesn't deny the existence of a deity, which is a very common misconception (and a reason why evolution is so harshly stigmatized).For some people, it's not very settling to believe in something that the majority of their peers do not. And, a belief in evolution doesn't offer a person the hope and peace of mind that many religious beliefs do. This is another reason why religion endures, despite the wide prevalence and acceptance of science.

​

[This message has been edited by hoostino, 01-18-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b] You accept evolution, something that can not be proven.
[/QUOTE]I noticed on another thread you claiming that evolution cannot be proven, and responded there. But here it is again: [QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b]Of course I'm bias against evolution. Evolution has destroyed many christians faith. And it isn't even provable. The christians whose faith was destroyed by evolution werent even aware that evolution isnt provable.[/QUOTE]You ask for absolute 'proof' of evolution, but first understand that absolute proof is unattainable outside of mathematics. Do you believe that you are reading these words from a computer screen? Why? Because your brain is receiving empirical evidence that suggests you are reading from a computer screen (i.e. your eyes are submitting physical information to your brain). But you cannot offer absolute proof that you are indeed reading from a computer monitor. Evolution (and all scientific theory) is parallel to this concept, as it has empirical evidence supporting it (from a multitude of scientific disciplines in the case of evolution), but people such as you do not accept the evidence (and in turn, the theory) because they carry a bias (usually rooted in religion) that urges them to ignore the data available (empirical evidence). You believe you are reading from a computer screen, right? There is no social nor religious pressure preventing you from believing that you're reading from a computer screen. But evolution carries such a stigma, and thus, you do not believe it. Others like you support their disbelief by construing science to mean what they want it to mean. Introducing bias such as this corrupts the data, resulting in no scientific information whatsoever. In my opinion, this fallacy is at the core of most creationism. The bias certainly can exist on both sides of the fence (and does), however (most) scientists adhere to the purest form of objectivity -- the scientific method. Science does not attempt to confirm any dogma with observable data, it is designed to form observable, consistent, and unbiased evidence in order to explain and understand our reality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hoostino:
Here is a perfect example of a lack of understanding of science and how it operates. Information obtained in a truly scientific manner is objective information. It is immune from bias and a wanting to believe in something. The results can be reproduced consistently, regardless of who is doing the research.

​

[This message has been edited by hoostino, 01-18-2002]

---

I perfectly understand how SHOULD work, however, that has nothing to do with what I am suggesting.You adequately describe how perfect science SHOULD operate. But I seriously doubt if perfect science is ever performed.