Why Won't Creationists Learn?

You have entirely missed my point -If we want to argue about the mysteries of God and the spiritual messages of the bible - you have a point.If I want to argue that the bible says that Jesus was a one-legged black man from harlem and I knew this from reading just a couple of pages of the bible, then you can would quite clearly think I was off my rocker. If I kept arguing this (and refuse to actually find out anymore about the bible) even when you pointed out in detail where I was wrong, then we have a real problem and it's clearly on my side.The problem we have here is that an unwritten law that it's ok for creationists to talk nonsense in regards to the sciences because if we did not - we would be talk to ourselves..Let's not tell lies to each other, That is the heart of the debate.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-Aug-2005 03:56 PM

While I do appreciate the participation I feel that discussing the "flipside" is not appripriate for this thread.In your situation you would require skeptics of the Bible to become Christians in order to be effective critics. In my case all we would need is for creationists to educate themselves with objective knowledge that does not require an emotional or otherwise investment.All I am talking about here is knowledge. Knowledge of what the thing is that they are criticizing. It is terribly evident that they do not have this knowledge when they say things that amount to nothing more than academically worded gibberish. There is use of terminology without proper definition, and theory without proper understanding of what it really is.Moreover, if they know this, why do they feel they are continually justified in their criticism?

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

oops - correct post below.This message has been edited by Rahvin, 08-11-2005 04:01 PM

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

It's certainly true that a crisis of faith is not fun. Fear of finding out that the book you base your life on isn't literally true could shake up someone's world entirely. I know I had a problem for a brief while when I realized that there really isn't a whole lot of evidence that Jesus ever existed.I found my feet again, so to speak, when I realized that the question of whether the events in the Bible happened or not was irrelevant - all that matters is the message, and it holds true.I think, though, that it's a deeper problem than that for some of the more rabid fundies. It's a loyalty issue. If they admit that the Bible isn't literally true, they feel like thay are calling God a liar. They feel that the only way to remain loyal to God is to take on faith that the Bible is literally true. Even if by some miracle of science we were able to actually go back in time and show that there was no Flood, that evolution does happen, and that we really do descend from apes, they would still take on blind faith that the Bible is true and the images were either false, or God rewrote history after the fact.Because of this string determination that the Bible is ALWAYS right, regardless of evidence, even if it says up is down and black is white, they don't find it necessary to do research into science. If the Bible says it's wrong, it's wrong - and any evidence to the contrary is either a test of faith from God, the work of the Devil, or "fallen man" trying to interpret things he can't possibly understand. Or maybe all 3. In any case, research is irrelevant if the Bible is assumed to be always true by default.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

OK...good point. Point taken

[going to make some big generalisations and oversimplifications now..]It always kinda reminds me of the whole history of how science came into existence (or rather, was lacking before it came into existence). Before the 1500's - 1600's, people were just as intelligent as we are. Still, it didn't produce anything much of progress or worthwhile knowledge because some ingredients seemed to be missing. Somehow, there was this idea that the Bible was... "enough". The concept that something could be learned about natural phenomenons/objects by observing them (questioning them, like by doing experiments) seemed to be in a "judo hold" by a reigning absolute trust in Divine Revelation. It was not a case of scientific endeavour being beyond their mental capacities. But more a matter of, if we talk in terms related to your question, not acknowledging the need or possibility to learn.This seems to be mimicked on a personal level by (certain types of) religious fundamentalists. They have the Bible. That is simply enough to them, and they certainly can do WITHOUT anything that threatens the very reason why they can get along with a limited, simplistic (easily to overlook and therefore consoling) concept of reality.I also always feel like these kind of people have no concept of how fallible we intrinsically are; skepticism and science go hand in hand, and the scientific method I'm sure is partly the result of recognising human's unlimited capacity to self-delude. Only if you recognise that weakness, you understand that somekind of methodology that helps to eliminate this as much as possible, is necessary. And to be preferred over "intuition" (at least generally ;-) ),"predictive dreams" and "Divine Revelations". Extreme naivety in that department seems to be widespread in certain fundamentalist circles...

kesa gatame! well, see, i've kind of gotten the impression that we are heading for another dark age. and don't get me wrong, i'm not just speaking of religious attitude.in my own area of interest, i've been made aware of the decline of modern art. art is becoming increasingly craft oriented, and less about actual artistic techniques. they favor symbols (though abstract) and concept/meaning. similar to dark age art: no real likenesses to speak of, and no discernable style.

---

אָרַח

Hi, I just finished reading through the thread, and I think there are some great observations. Charles Knight is esp. acute in his psychological observations about the fear of existential consequences: maintaining an honest ignorance in the face of immensity is stern stuff.Another consideration is the broader streak of anti-intellectualism: from the parodic absent-minded professor to the science geek cliche (smart but he doesn't get laid--pre dot.com boom, anyway ); from "an expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing" to "street smarts beat book smarts." An intelligence in the higher percentiles is necessary to do professional science, and by definition this leaves most people out.A related issue is class resentment--the feeling that they could have mastered all this, too, if they had gotten an even break (true, often enough). Much of the passion of fundamentalism comes from the poor and dispossessed: they are the folks who need the comfort of a better world to come. So their religion becomes their "this thing of ours," of grim necessity superior. It is only human to devalue what one cannot have.Another angle is that fundamentalists, even if they enjoy a good mind and reasonably good education, don't attempt to learn the basics because they know they can't catch up. The fundamentalist will never level the playing field with the physicist. That is an accurate perception. So why should they bother: this is, after all, not "their" passion--it is "yours." So the fundamentalists are easy prey to the jargon-laden propaganda of "creation scientists" and ID evangelists: sounds as much like science as real science does to the believing fundamentalist. So even quite intelligent people like Faith cut-and-paste material from ID web sites: they truly believe these are the authoritative rebuttals to evolution(ists). They soon sound like broken records because they cannot synthesize the ID/creationist positions or apply them to novel scenarios: you have to have some notion of the truth to be a liar, and a pretty sharp notion of the truth to be a good liar (e.g., "institute fellow").To me, political opportunism fuels much of the alarming growth in creationism and ID. Like the Republican Party in the 70s realizing that the race card was just the thing to bust up the Dixie Democrats' electoral lock on the South, or Bush supporters realizing that gay bashing would win over black and Hispanic votes in 2004, socially conservative politicans use the resentments and insecurities mentioned above, and those cited here by others: religion has always been a power base. If life is a grind, and your faith is all you've got, it isn't very difficult to rev up your rage at anyone who threatens it and to demonize their other political stands. So opposition to the Iraq calamity becomes not only treason but heresy.Besides, lady scientists are so sexy in that coolly superior way: fundamentalists hate that!This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 08-11-2005 09:44 PMThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 08-11-2005 09:45 PM

Actually kata gatame locks them up tighter. Dunno if it is apocryphal or no, but I read once of a conversation between a mullah/imam and his student regarding reading books other than the Holy Book. "If it`s in the Quran, other books are superfluous.If it`s not in the Quran, other books are superfluous'.

Wrong. Let's not tell lies to ourselves.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

i dropped out at orange belt.however, my father (apart from being a relatively well-known graph theorist) teaches judo and jui jitsu for and founded one of the largest clubs in the country.you know that old parent-tugging-the-ear-thing? imagine that with armbars and pressure points.

---

אָרַח

Hmmm... Yes, some people or groups of people certainly show that tendency. The irony is that, while in the Dark Ages it was caused by a simple lack of alternatives, it seems to be caused now by somekind of "overload". I really think some people just can't take the rate of change our current world goes through. I guess it's a combination of how education (even very good education) can't possibly hold up with everything, while at the same time there are more other information sources available (or even imposing themselves) than ever before. Just 30-40 years ago, the "information-filtering" was done by others. Now we have to do our filtering all by ourselves, while the choice is so much bigger and diverse. From totally unbiased, skeptic and accurate to the biggest nonsense, it's all out there. Without a proper basis, it becomes impossible to find signal through all the noise.

Hi, Arach, know the M.A. parent syndrome well. After teaching my lads judo/ju-jitsu for about five years, I lost them (sigh) to karate. Curse you, Bruce Lee.

Hi,Af,I think there has always been a proportion of the population forging ahead with science. From Egypt through Greece and Islam into the Middle Ages, alchemists seem to have been permitted to experiment and learn. (maybe because of the profit motive to both sides?).
http://www.crystalinks.com/alchemists.html
Alchemy - WikipediaDe Re Metalllica shows that mining was widespread with all the technical and engineering problems that it entails.
AGRICOLA, GEORG (1494 1555)Christian repression seems more concerned with heretical sects until Evolution gave an alternative explanation to the origin of life. Might have something to do with the biblical obsession with blood.

yes. it also seems to be more willing than the dark ages. we've got these wonderful things called search engines now. only they're suddenly no longer useful. there's too much junk on the internet. too many product reviews and sale pitches. this point is totally clear when search for some evolution-related topic. do you have any idea how hard it is to find accurate info on archaeopteryx? loads and loads of pages of creationist drivel and opinion. a few pages of ranting evolutionists. but very, very little paleontologists.

---

אָרַח