Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?)

quote:

---

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)

---

Do you have anybody in mind ? Because making up the characteristics of hypothetical person who would not exactly fit the description is not much of an argument. (And you haven't quite managed to do that, even).As far as I know the closest would be somebody like Kurt Wise, who did NOT renounce a high-paying job and admits that his creationism is founded in his religious beliefs rather than the science. If you can find only a few rare individuals who don't quite fit the description it would seem that Dawkins has a point.

Delusional.That's just a semantic quibble I have with Dawkins, or rather, with those who take him too literally (because his prose style isn't meant to be taken as precisely literal, as in "selfish gene", for example). So, delusional is better than the strong "insane" if we're going to be precise, as I suggested in Message 18.But I want to emphasise your phrase "absolutely no characteristics of mental illness". Firstly, there's probably no such person who has absolutely none of these. Secondly, delusions are right up there with hallucinations as positive symptoms of mental illness.However, something like schizophrenia would not be diagnosed on one or two symptoms alone (we've all got some of them at least some of the time!). Thinks? No. Because it does. Your hypothetical character has done an "in depth study of the many lines of evidence that relate to the theory of evolution", remember, and you're describing him as intelligent. He would have to consider the modern theory to be at least a strong theory, if not very strong. He certainly wouldn't have to consider it to be complete. No person with any good understanding of biology does.What about genuinely believes the evidence simply does not support the theory of evolution? Yes, sure, but that's because of the delusions and desires, which will be religious.It may be hard for you, as a religious person, to perceive your beliefs as involving delusion, but the easiest way to sort it out is to think of religions/sects/cults that you definitely do not believe in, but which are believed in very strongly by others.

Non-existent? You are right so far as that goes: for the theory of evolution would operate in a universe in which fiat creation had taken place 6000 years ago just as it would in a universe of common descent.But the facts of evolution are not a deduction merely from the theory of evolution, but also from the evidence for evolution.

That pretty much characterizes somebody who is an old earth creationist and theistic evolutionist.

They almost certainly fall into the category of being someone who has a great deal of faith in their religious beliefs which they feel are contradicted by evolution.It seems no matter how well educated or intelligent some people just hold faith above all else.

I witnessed this first hand with my ex-girlfriend. She's an extremely intelligent person (not a college grad, but a med-tech). It wasn't until I was with her for a few years that I learned she was a light-creationist who called me "an occultist", called my agnosticism a "thing" (that agnostic crap you believe in), called science a religion and called the ToE a "load of shit". Now, mind you, she likes science-y type stuff. She takes the kids to museums and zoos and whatnot. She enjoys looking at stars for their cosmological value. She just turns her mind off when it comes to "the beginning".

---

That sounds like a contradiction in terms but I do have some sympathy with that general sentiment with regard to agnosticism I think lots of people do.

It IS a contradiction. It goes to show her capacity to respect, acknowledge, or know anything about, any belief (especially a lack thereof) that is not jesus christ.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

Look, you know that I hold you in the highest esteem of all creationists except perhaps wumpini.But let's look at your own behavior, shall we? Ignorant?OK, let's talk about the post-anal gut thing again.We were discussing embryology, and you brought up the post-anal gut as something that evolution couldn't explain.(1) With a little research on the internet, I showed you how the post-anal gut fitted perfectly with evolutionary biology. You could have done that yourself, but you didn't.(2) You admitted that you got your ideas about the post-anal gut and evolution from a creationist propagandist website. You could have looked at the actual facts revealed by scientists. But you didn't.(3) As our discussion progressed, you revealed that you didn't even know what the post-anal gut is. You asked me to explain it and I drew you a diagram. And that, I think, is the most damning thing of all. You were reciting an argument that you'd found on the internet about the post-anal gut --- without spending a few minutes of your time even finding out what the post-anal gut is. That was something that you needed an evolutionist to explain to you. Ignorant? You needed me to tell you what we were talking about. When it was you who brought the subject up. Insane?Insanity is actually a legal term with no medical basis. A person is "insane" when they are so mentally disturbed that they can't be held legally responsible for their actions. So in that sense, you're not insane.Nonetheless, you might be a little bit crazy, in the informal sense. I mean no personal offense here, I'm just calling it how I see it.You see, every time you come with some creationist argument --- a creationist argument of your own choosing --- it turns out to be bogus. Every time you've pitched me a creationist curveball, I've swung my big bat of facts and hit it out of the park. Sodium deposition; the post-anal gut; the anatomy of Archaeopteryx; what Kimura said --- well, haven't you always been wrong?And yet you still go on believing that you're fundamentally right, even though you turn out to be wrong about everything in particular.This does seem a bit crazy to me. The facts show that I am right in every detail, that you are wrong in every detail, and yet you still think that it is you who sees the "big picture".Someone once said: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". (This quote is often attributed to Einstein, but until someone cites the source, I don't believe that he said it.) But you can see how it applies to you, I hope. You go on reciting stuff that some creationist website has said, and you're proved wrong every time.So yes, you're a little bit crazy.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hi Slev!Let's see what we have here. This isn't anyone I've ever heard of.There are innumerable creationists who claim to have studied evolution, but at best they soon reaveal, in the most favorable case, a shallow understanding of what evolution really is and how it fits in to the rest of biology. More commonly, they are profoundly ignorant of what scientists and the scientifically literate really say about evolution. As has been pointed out many times, the evolutionary theory that creationists refuse to accept isn't evolutionary theory at all - it's a figment of their imaginations, made up of willful misunderstandings, decades-old untruths, and religious non-sequitors.The problem is what happens when a creationist finally has the facts explained to him. Sadly, the result is usually that cognitive dissonance wins, and he'll continue to repeat the same factually erroneous claims ad infinitum. It's as if you had to keep explaining over and over that Christians aren't really cannibals just because they refer to communion as the body and blood of Christ. A PhD doesn't necessarily mean much. Someone can have a PhD in English Literature and know everything that there is to know about Chaucer, but still not know enough math to be able to calculate the area of a rug. Sure, they're smart, but that doesn't mean that they're not ignorant. Thus the phenomenon of creationist engineers who think that they know more about evolution (or cosmology, etc.) than biologists (or astronomers, or paleontologists, etc.) who've been experts in their fields for years. Well, insane might be a little strong. I'm fond of Dr Dawkins's rhetoric, but I suspect that in most cases it's more a matter of being irrational rather than outright batshit crazy. And who isn't irrational somewhere? Still, the degree of persistant and ill-founded irrationality that it takes to keep clinging to some of the more entertaining creationist beliefs is sometimes truely breathtaking. Can't say that I find forgoing wealth is the ultimate test of morality. Fervent, self-sacrificing dedication to a cause doesn't make that cause morally right. Besides, the active proponents of creationism (as opposed to the rank and file) are often making quite a tidy sum as a result of their work. (Go look up Ray Comfort's tax returns sometime. He's not a poor preacher.)I think that I speak for many when I say that I really respect you, M. Levesque. One can actually have an intelligent conversation with you. It will be interesting to see how your views might evolve (pun intended) if you continue to hang around here.

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John LydonWhat's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

As a former person on the fence leaning toward creationism, I have to say from my experience, it was based more on what I didn't know rather than what I knew. I was one of those faith people, who had no idea one way or the other, and in matters of faith choose God instead of science. Admidtedly I still do not know much about evolution, but I see the flawed thinking behind creationism, the more I learn, them more it seems evolution is the correct answer.As far as those leading the crusade for creationinsm, those people may be liars, but the majority of us who fell for thier lies are simply ignorant of the information.

To continue the 'intelligent creationists - name one' theme and not wishing to aim this at anyone in particular (more an open comment/invite)..Here's a candidate for slevesque's description.The one that would immediately spring to my mind would have to be Michael Behe.
He is a biochemist with a doctorate (a real one, not a bought one).
He is also, of course, the 'go to' scientist for creationism in general (along with Dembski) and has appeared in court on several occasions - including the Dover trial. He took no paycut but does work for the Discovery Institute.Most people will know that Behe is apparently convinced that irreducible complexity demolishes evolution and he has claimed, over the years, to have found several examples of an irreducibly complex structure in an organism - the most famous being the cilia.Clearly the charge of ignorance is not going to stick easily. So here is, I think, a fairly clear-cut example. He is either honestly wrong, dishonest, or delusional. I can see no other alternatives (well there are several but all would come under dishonest).
I cannot see anything other than dishonesty. He has always been deliberately vague about the 'designer' and avoids calling it God. The only reason I can imagine for that is to preserve a distance between the Discovery Institute and the most rapid religious members of his movement. He has published numerous claims of irreducible complexity which have all been very comprehensively demolished, and he constantly seeks to change the goalposts - he has previously claimed to accept common descent and natural selection but his recent line (cf The Edge of Evolution - 2007) is that evolution is the mechanism but it is 'guided' rather than driven by random mutation.Can anyone actually make the case that he isn't dishonest?Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

OK Artemis, I accept what you say. I presume you also live in a community where evolution is not the normal topic of debate ? :-)
I can totally see that people can honestly buy into creationism when everyone around them believes it without question, their whole social and religious life is built on the premiss and the general attitude to evolution and scientists in general is one of distrust. I do say that there is still some personal weakness involved in being unwilling to stand against the crowd, but hey, if I start accusing people of that then we would need a very long piece of paper to complete the list and my name would be on it as well.Can I encourage you to do some more reading on evolution? You owe it to yourself to try to be convinced, rather than simply accept. Obviously we have to take much on faith since non of us can be at the cutting edge in physics, biology, chemistry, cosmology etc (although it was still possible until fairly recently) but there is still an onus on the individual to try to inform themself where possible.
I can suggest some excellent materials - as I'm sure others can - if you give me an indication of the sort of level to pitch it at (ie how is your general literacy - ranging from struggles to post-grad level, how is your basic maths and what level would you like to study at - have you got examples from other areas of the sort of reading/authors you like?)

Maybe they just don't want to believe?Maybe they are just incapable of understanding evolution and thus have a hard time believing it can be true?This does seem to be the fault that many people have. That if they're incapable of understand a topic then it just can't be true, or if they can't see it.What's wrong with not believing in evolution?You don't have to be religious in order to not believe in evolution.

Because it's not a belief.Not accepting a particular theory is one thing. To blindly assert that it is absolutely false, fight against it, all the while not properly refuting it, is wrong. Ignoring facts when they go against your actual beliefs, is wrong. That is where the ignorant/insane/stupid labels are applied. If you don't understand something, learn about it. Don't just deny that it is factual because you don't want to learn.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

Your god believes in Unicorns