Reasons for Creationist Persistence

It's important to understand why there even is a creation/evolution debate. Evangelical Christians perceive evolution as a threat to both faith and morality, and so they will always oppose evolution. They're not going away, and the pressures they exert to diminish treatments of evolution in public schools will not go away, either. And as long as they create the impression in the public mind of a legitimate scientific controversy that is yet unsettled, they will continue to have a great deal of success. My own guess is that the movement will in the near term attempt to maintain a low profile so as not to call itself to the attention of the courts. When they don't pass laws or remove evolution from the curriculum, when all that happens is that teachers spend less and less time on evolution, then though they're not getting what they want, they're pretty much getting everything they need.We must recognize that Creationism is in the midst of another tactical shift. Young Earth Creationism a la Henry Morris and Duane Gish of ICR was overturned in federal district court in Arkansas in 1981, and at the Supreme Court concerning a Louisiana law in 1986. This caused creationism to switch to a strictly grass-roots approach of lobbying state and local school boards as well as text book publishers.But the flaws in this approach were readily apparent to the younger generation of creationists, and aware at some level of the flimsiness of the scientific support for the campaign against evolution they embarked in a different direction based upon an older tradition, best epitomized by Paley's watch though the tradition goes back further. And so Intelligent Design was born, and for a few years it was successful at portraying the creation/evolution struggle as a scientific controversy. Dover changed all that, and now creationism is once again floundering about for a new tactic. What that tactic will be is anyone's guess. In the short term the Discovery Institute appears to be increasing efforts at actual scientific research, but that can only be a stopgap measure since their research can at best merely explore avenues that science long ago discovered were dead ends. Discovery Institute's long term goal is the overturning of naturalism in science, by which they mean that it should be acceptable for scientists to conclude, "We cannot see how this could have happened naturally, so these experimental results reveal the hand of God."But Dover places creationism again at a crossroads, and what the next tactic will be is anyone's guess. The movement is not uniform. Organizations like ICR want the focus to return to Young Earth Creationism, while organizations like the Discovery Institute still want to change the nature of science itself. These are two opposing approaches, by the way, since, for example, ID has no objection to an ancient earth.--Percy

You want more precision? I think I'm long-winded enough already! If there are really people out there who don't know that not all evangelical Christians are creationists, then your post corrected that impression.We have to be aware of the success with which the evangelical community has promoted the public impression that evolution is a theory in trouble. This impressive success is the answer to Jon's question, why creationists don't just give up. Why would they give up in the midst of such success. Sure, they're not convincing scientists or anyone familiar with science, but they're succeeding where it counts, in public school classrooms and with the American public that votes for school board members. Convincing scientists is unnecessary once they've been isolated and neutralized, which is what happens as the public begins suspecting that scientists might really be what creationists say they are, ivory tower iconoclasts with an anti-religious agenda.--Percy

Crash's reply already posed the right question, but just in case, let me reemphasize by asking it again in a specific way. Are you really saying that you have friends and acquaintances who work in any of the biological sciences while rejecting the unifying theory of all of biology? Or who work in any of the geological sciences while rejecting all geological evidence of an ancient earth? Or who work in any of the astronomical sciences while rejecting all cosmological evidence of an ancient universe?*AND*...(and this is the most important part)...who also believe that the earth was created just a few thousand years ago and experienced a world wide flood around 4000 years ago that wiped out almost all life?I agree with whoever made the comment about engineers, which includes software engineers. For some reason I've never been able to figure out, and it perplexes me a great deal since I am a software engineer (a programmer, in other words), engineers are particularly susceptible to the creationist viewpoint. Maybe it's because there's nothing in the Bible that contradicts electrical, mechanical, civil, chemical or software engineering.Anyway, if your answer to those questions is "yes", then send your friends and acquaintances here, please!!! We'd love to meet them!--Percy

I see I must have been posting my repeat of Crash's question at the same time you were posting an answer, so let me now reply to your answer.We need more detail. Do you actually have friends and acquaintances who accept a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation stories (these would be YEC's) *and* who work in scientific fields that contradict these stories?Concerning your OEC friends and acquaintances, isn't an OEC stance even more problematic for them? Aren't they picking and choosing which which parts of Genesis they accept? In fact, isn't Genesis a heck of a lot more clear about recent origins than about evolution?Anyway, the bottom line is that however many billions of practicing scientist-creationists there are out there, the creationists who come here are woefully uninformed about science. So if you have friends and acquaintances who are working in scientific fields and so are familiar and perhaps even in love with science, they would be a most welcome addition here.Allow me to suggest a screening question for your friends and acquaintances. You can ask them this question before deciding whether to refer them here. Say to them, "Evolution is false because you'll never get a cat from a dog, right?" If they respond, "Yes, of course," then don't mention EvC Forum to them.--Percy

Okay, so allow me to keep the focus narrow by asking about just the friends/family in the biological sciences. What do they do?--Percy

Whoa, whoa, whoa! We started this side-discussion because you took issue with painting all creationists with a broad brush, but you've lost sight of what a creationist is. A creationist is someone who rejects science (evolution most of all) because of religious beliefs. A creationist is definitely not someone who takes a skeptical but scientific approach. The proper term for that type of person is "scientist".In other words, a creationist is not someone who rejects an ancient earth because he is skeptical of the evidence. A creationist is someone who rejects an ancient earth because of a literal interpretation of Genesis.If you have friends and acquaintances who reject evolution and an ancient earth for scientific reasons, we'd sure love to meet them!About my "cat from a dog" comment, it wasn't meant to be insulting. Try actually asking it, I think you'll be surprised how many of your friends and acquaintances actually understand evolution on just that level. I venture to guess that a fair number of my friends and acquaintances only understand evolution on that level, and they're not even creationists. In other words, they accept evolution but don't really understand it.--Percy

Most words have more than one definition, more than one meaning. Which meaning is intended is usually apparent from context. In the context of the creation/evolution debate, the intended meaning of "creationist" is quite clear. The discussion about the co-option of the term "creationist" by fundamentalists should be taken to the appropriate thread.--Percy

How about addressing this from my Message 79: The question this thread poses is why creationists are so persistent after being on the losing side of the scientific debate time and again at sites like this one. The most significant reason is that being wrong about science isn't what matters. What matters to creationists is reducing the treatment given evolution in public schools, and in that creationists are succeeding very well by creating doubt about evolution in the public mind.--Percy

A question? No. This is a debate, not a question/answer session. You stated one position, I rebutted it, and so the traditional next step for you is to address my rebuttal, unless I've carried the day on that particular point.Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in Message 79, so let me rephrase it.You started this digression by complaining that Crash was painting creationists using a broad brush, and then you attempted to redefine creationist as someone who approaches scientific discovery from a skeptical vantage point. I replied that that isn't the definition of creationist. A creationist is someone who rejects scientific positions not for scientific reasons but for religious ones.The only reasons you could have for not replying are that I've convinced you and you now understand that Crash's criticism was fair and that he wasn't painting creationism with a broad brush, or that you don't see the point worth pursuing anymore.--Percy

Denton doesn't make any categorical denials such as MJ claims. The words "Christian", "Judaic" and "Muslim" don't even appear on any of the book's last three pages.Here's a couple excerpts from the last page or so that may be what MJ is thinking of: But whether Denton's doubts about evolution were driven by religious beliefs is irrelevant. MJ claims that he has friends and acquantances who have scientific reasons for being skeptical of evolution. It is time for him to produce the people so that they may provide their reasons, or for him to produce their reasons here, or for him to drop the claim. Appeals to anonymous information is a debate tactic to be avoided.--Percy

I sometimes tend to speak euphemistically. This is what I meant when I said "produce the people". Either they come here and say, "These are my views...", or MJ attempts to replicate their views here (which is usually unsatisfactory, but you takes what you can get), or MJ drops it. Agreed. If he's not interested in supporting his assertion in a way consistent with the Forum Guidelines, then he should drop the point.--Percy

Perhaps I can interest you in starting with Rob. (click on the link for a list of threads in which he is participating) I understand what you're saying, put placing it in the context of this thread's topic, creationists don't persist in advocating the teaching of creationism at school board meetings or the passing of laws requiring some treatment of creationism in public schools because they're treated poorly by evolutionists at discussion boards. It must stem from something else.Laws affecting the teaching of evolution have been struck down in federal court several times, most recently in Dover, Pa., but advocacy for creationism before school boards, text book publishers and legislatures continues. This persistence isn't because of ill treatment by evolutionists, who wouldn't even give creationism a second thought were it not for these efforts. I don't think it matters much to most evolutionists what religious beliefs others might happen to hold. What they care about are misrepresentations of science, and they care even more about efforts to actually teach our children these misrepresentations. Creationists engage in these efforts not because of evolutionist misbehavior but because science contradicts evangelical religious beliefs and so is viewed as a threat to faith which must be confronted, and so that is what creationists do.Where you could probably make the greatest contribution is by explaining how you reconcile your religious beliefs with your scientific understanding, but even great lights like Francis Collins (he of the Human Genome Project) have attempted this and fallen considerably short. Wikipedia includes a summary of his book (The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief), and it all makes perfect scientific sense until you arrive at point 6 ("But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature.") This has no supporting scientific evidence whatsoever and leaves us wondering where the reconciliation is. Perhaps you could take us through your own reconciliation.If it helps, I'm a deist myself, of the Martin Gardener variety. While I believe in a deity (I even know what he looks like, his picture's on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel), I also understand I have no scientific support for that belief. I believe on faith, which by definition means not having reasons for what you believe. I believe, I don't know why, I know it makes no rational sense, but I believe nonetheless, and that is that.Oh, and I'm also an engineer! --Percy

I see that your post has initiated speculation that ignorance is a significant reason for creationist persistence in the face of rejection by both science and the courts. Just to get an accurate handle on this, let me briefly summarize the errors contained in your two messages:

1. Natural laws and science render evolution impossible.
2. No lab experiment has ever demonstrated the creation of new genetic information.
3. Molecules gaining information goes against the laws of nature.
4. Evolution isn't possible.
5. Evolutionists claim viruses evolve resistance to antibiotics.
6. Viruses never mutate for the better.
7. Virus genomes never gain information through mutation.
8. A more lethal virus is not a "better" virus.
9. Virus mutation means slowly turning into a fish.
10. Evolution claims to be a theory of existence.
11. Evolution contradicts itself.
12. Evolution is accepted only because the true facts about it are kept hidden.
13. Evolution mocks the laws of nature and science.
14. Evolution only takes place through degeneration and loss of information.
15. Science opposes the possibility that a virus could slowly become a better species.
16. Disorder can only increase, never decrease.
17. Genetics is a major flaw in evolutionary theory.

Breathtaking!We don't want to turn this thread into discussions of these topics. There are plenty of threads already discussing them, and you can propose new threads if you wish. This thread is exploring the reasons why creationists persist in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution, and in the face of consistent court rulings that creationism is religion.Your own position is likely to be that the 17 items listed above are actually correct statements, and that you're not ignorant at all. Convincing you that you're wrong would require actually discussing these topics, which we can't do in this thread, so we're left asking more general questions, such as where you're getting your information, and why you think science invalidates a theory widely accepted by the people who know science best, namely scientists.--Percy

On average, lack of knowledge and expertise is extremely common at the grass roots level, for everyone, not just creationists, and because they're not really capable of studying the issues themselves they have to rely on what outside sources tell them. But this lack of ability to objectively study and analyze issues seems to persist right up the creationist chain of command. Most grass-roots creationists don't realize that there's an entire multi-million dollar industry led by people as misinformed as they are and that is dedicated to spreading the misinformed beliefs of their leaders just as widely as possible. Just the Discovery Institute's budget alone is greater than $5 million/year, while by comparison the National Center for Science Education (headed by Eugenie Scott) has a budget of less than a million.I watched Flock of Dodos last night (airing at various times on Showtime this week), and it was very enlightening to hear dedicated and sincere creationists like Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells passionately advocate for their positions. I think they truly believe what they say. Filmmaker Randy Olson characterized their thinking as an idea which originated in the gut, like many scientific ideas, but which took up residence in the heart instead of the mind, explaining why their ideas generate no testable hypotheses.Some ID positions, like "Teach the Controversy", are arguably purposeful lies, since knowledgeable IDists all realize there is no debate within scientific circles. I think it is blatant misstatements of fact like this, and like the the ever-so-common, "More and more scientists are recognizing the bankruptcy of evolution and joining the ranks of scientists in the intelligent design movement," that cause many scientists to dismiss the ID movement, since these are so obviously bald-faced lies, but the fact of the matter is that they are lies that are finding wide acceptance among the lay public.A scientist near the end of the film had this suggestion: to ID's demands to teach their invented controversy we should simply respond, "Teach the science."--Percy

Except for the part about whether existence is real, this is the way science looks at things. Everything is questioned. An idea is questioned until evidence is observed or collected that verifies the idea. The idea is still questioned until others replicate the results. And even after that the idea can still be questioned. For example, some scientists still question relativity. But in general, the more an idea is successfully tested, the more widely it is accepted within the scientific community and the less it is questioned.But I've got to agree pretty much with the responses you've received about questioning whether or not we exist. The argument might be made, "We don't even know for sure if we exist, so how can we know how old the earth is?" I agree with the portrayals of this argument as incredibly stupid. You may as well say, "We don't even know for sure if we exist, so how can we know we'll die if we jump off the top of the Empire State Building?" It can even be asked, "We don't even know for sure if we exist, so how can we know that Jesus ever existed?" In other words, the argument can be used to question absolutely anything and is in reality not an argument at all.It is the nature of human beings to select evidence that confirms their beliefs, but scientific evidence supportive of creationist beliefs is lacking and so it is no wonder that we see arguments from creationists that encourage ignoring evidence. Which I suppose is valid as a faith-based approach, but it isn't science.--Percy