Reasons for Creationist Persistence

I am writing in without having read all 11 pages (I got to about 4). I wish to answer the original question from the standpoint of a laymen creationist (ie, not Morris or Ham or anyone on their perspective staffs).I am an evangelical Christian who until very recently did not accept evolution. After a YEC speaker came to my church and did a 12 part series, I decided to investigate for myself the claims of evolution. What I quickly learned was that I had been ignorant of most of the actual evidence for evolution. Having learned predominantly from opponents in the past, I did not actually know what evidence biologists (often Christian biologist) actually believed there was. I am aware of my own limitations in biology, so I still will not make claims on my own understanding of evolution, but I am about 85% convinced now that it did take place.I will now tell my own personal experience as a creationist. While it is antidotal, I think it is normative of at least a sizable population of Christians. We deny evolution because we are ignorant of the facts, and it is very very important to us. "Ignorant" is a word with a lot of negative connotations, but the truth is I am ignorant of about 99% of what there is to know. I don't know anything about celebrities, cars, Latin, Nebraska, or 2nd century Chinese history. But I also don't care about those things. I am (or was) ignorant about real evolutionary biology, but I do care very much that the Bible is true. It is pretty much nonnegotiable for us conservatives.But it doesn't stop there. We have these organizations of scientists who are not ignorant (or so we suppose). AiG, Morris, Johnson, Behe, etc. And they are very good at getting their resources distributed. And much of it is very convincing, especially to us who are untrained to understand a good deal of it, and are ignorant of the expansive literature on the subject. We are told it is a theory in crisis, that "hundreds" of biologists are being persuaded every day that it is false, etc. They are good Christian men, who talk about Jesus; are we are predisposed to believe what they say.So please, don't be too hard on us. We aren't stupid. We aren't even THAT biased (though we are biased of course). We are just not in a good position. And furthermore, we CARE more then the average Joe Shmoo who lives in America, who is more interested in Football than science. So when we show up at their door to argue the point, we have our pamphlets and small fact books in hand, and at that moment we do indeed "know" more then them, even though what we believe might be false. But since they have no answer to our claims, we are all the more encouraged that we are right. I know many hard working, honest, kind, young earth creationist. There problem is not their honestly. The problem is that they usually study theology, not biology, unless it is coming from AiG.For some reason too, we have an over abundance of engineers in our midst. A lot of engineers seem to think they are as competent to do scientific research in another field as an actual scientist in that field. Perhaps because they had to take some science courses (at least a few intro courses such as physics and chemistry). In general, engineers are very intelligent people, just as intelligent as most scientists. We might confuse that with actual knowledge in a field. I am an engineer. I have a master's degree from Stanford University in Electrical Engineering. And yet I will admit that I didn't REALLY understand the scientific method until after I had that degree. I personally don't think education in America teaches students how science works or how to do science very well. Instead it tends to just present the results. Likewise, my last biology course was in high school. I will say this though for us engineers. Most of us must have taken Thermodynamics. I did, and for that reason I never understood the creationist objection to evolution using the second law.Now as an evangelical Christian who accepts evolution I plan on trying to help others who may be struggling with this issue. I don’t expect vast droves of Christians to be persuaded, but I will at least attempt to get them to examine the evidence clearly and help them see it is not just a matter of presuppositions, atheism, or conspiracies. But likewise the evolutionary community needs to be patient with us. Stop all the sarcasm and ridicule and offer your evidence with humility and patience. I recognize that you receive the same treatment from us, and we need to stop as well. Poor treatment from you only reinforces our belief that you are motivated by immorality and a lack of love for God. Poor treatment from us only reinforces for you that we are motivated by ignorance, bigotry, and close mindedness. I think it would do both sides good to be more patient with each other.

Well, I didn't mean to imply it was going to be easy At this point I would like to separate the leaders of the creation movement from everyday believers The laymen simply aren't going to check their facts, they wouldn't know how if they wanted to. Even if they had the time and energy to go to a library and check out scientific journals, they probably wouldn't know what they were reading anyway. But as for the creationist leaders, I agree, they have no excuse for not checking their references and at least responding to refutations to their claims. I agree completely. Hey(!), watch it. I'm an engineer

When you say evangelical leaders, I'm assuming you mean the leaders of the creationist movement itself. When I hear evangelical leaders I'm thinking of the more prominent pastors like John MacArthur, John Piper, maybe even Rick Warren. They might take a hard line on creationism but they will admit it is scriptural and admit ignorance in the science. They themselves will trust that to the creation science leaders.But as for creation science leaders, I must admit being puzzled myself. It would be foolish for me to think that by studying the issue for six months, I now understand evolution better then Ken Ham who has been studying it for decades. Likewise Daune Gish, who has a real Ph.D. in biochemistry from Berkeley. But as for people like Ham and Morris; all I can say is that I don't think they are lying, and I think they truly believe what they are saying. I also think they truly believe they are fighting for the cause of the faith (to bring lost people to Jesus and to bring up our own children in the faith) by defending the Bible, and therefor the creation story. In his book, “Finding Darwin's God” Kenneth Miller relates a conversation he had with Morris the day after a debate with the man. I'm afraid I don't have the text in front of me so I will have to paraphrase the story and quote. Miller thought he had so uprooted Morris's claims the night before, that it must be obvious to Morris that he was wrong. So he asked him if he (Miller asked Morris) REALLY believed this stuff. He was halfway expecting Morris to admit with a wink that it was partly a show for money. Morris replies (and this is really foggy in my mind so don't quote me on this), “you know science can be wrong. . . somethings are just to important to be left to science...” I think this might characterize a lot of the staff at ICR and AiG. I close this by noting that Morris has denied that what he is quoted as saying in the book was actually how the conversation unfolded.Now as for people Daune Gish; after reading some about his methods, and the multiple year long debacle over bullfrog and chicken proteins, I think maybe he is just spreading false information. He certainly doesn't go out of his way to verify his facts. I don't know the man personally, so this is stepping out on a limb, but I think he really enjoys the fame he has among conservative Christians on the lecture and debate circuit. Convincing untrained and ignorant audiences who already agree with you is fairly easy, and that has probably made him very confident over the years.Hovind and Baugh? I hesitate to call anyone a scam artist without solid proof, but with the way they push their materials for sale and promote their phony degrees... All I have to say: lots of ego and little actual training or research.The ID movement people are slightly different, and don't seem to have a consistent party line. It seems to me that most accept an old earth. Likewise, I think many (at least Denton) agree that evolution took place! I read about two thirds of “Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals who find Darwinism unconvincing” and it appeared to me that a good many of the contributing authors agreed that evolution had taken place, they were just attacking the supposed naturalism of it all. While I'm sure with enough training I will find this unconvincing as well, but at this point I had no issue with them. All I have been convinced of is that evolution has taken place, not HOW. Indeed, all I have really been convinced of is that all mammals and reptiles share a common ancestor. I haven't gotten around to studying any evidence for anything previous to this moment in history. We can save the whole naturalism discussion for another time. I think the way Iders set it up is false dichotomy, I think I side more with Kenneth Miller on this point.

I didn't mean to imply they are driven solely by their treatment from evolutionists. I was just saying it wasn't helpful. As I have articulated in replying to a few others above, I think they are truly driven to defend the Bible as it is an important cornerstone in their faith in Jesus Christ. And within their culture, accepting it as literal is the only option.But you bring up a good point about the whole public school thing. In a way, the creationist simply don't fight fair. Instead of trying to dialog with scientists (and yes, they claim the scientist are biased against them and won't print them in peer-review journals), they take a back door through politics and local populations. That must be very frustrating to the scientific community. If quack medicine practicers were to try to push some homemade remedy into our public schools nurse's office, circumnavigating the medical community and using their propaganda on local school boards, I would be irate. But I will say this; I have read a few pages on AiG where they discuss there mission to reach the general population. As silly as this sounds to us, they truly believe mainstream scientists are closed minded and/or protecting their career, and that only the general population will truly be receptive to the TRUTH. If you mean whether I can prove God via science or elsewhere, then you are right that I can't and I thank you for giving me the out with Collins even before you finished your sentence If great minds like his, or indeed, all the great minds throughout history have failed then I have nothing to offer. Personally, I still have faith (not just a belief in; but a trust in) Jesus to save me from my sins. And as far as God's existence, beginning to believe in evolution did not change my belief in God at all. I have no philosophical hang-ups over God creating me from slime (as so many creationists like to ridicule). Its a more exciting story to unravel anyway. I would agree with you that I have no real scientific support for my faith, though I wouldn't go as far as to say it is completely without evidence. My evidence for believing in Jesus is not only from my own relationship with him, but from the changed lives of people around me who come to know Jesus. Attitudes change, addictions are dropped, tempers are subdued, and in general I see people who after coming to peace with God and likewise with themselves, become loving and at peace with others. Now, Gardener and especially Michael Spencer will take me to task for those statements because I have not actually set up a controlled study on the matter.If your asking how I reconcile my views of science with my views of inerrancy of the Bible...well, if you have seen a few other threads I have started such as “How Literal is Genesis” in the Faith and Belief forum; you can see I haven't arrived at that yet. It has only been a handful of months since I started concerning myself with it.Edited by Pete OS, : No reason given.

I should have clarified that statement. I meant to say that from our perspective at the time, they are good Christian men. Without sites like Talk.Origins and this fine site, we might never realize their claims are disputed. As far as whether they are good Christian men, I think they are all probably different, with some truly believing what they say, and some in it for the fame or money. In a few of the replies above I tried to discuss my own opinions on a few of the leaders though I must qualify they I don't know any of these men personally.

I think AiG makes at least some attempt to remove unreliable information, correct the references, and occasionally admit when they have been in error. I'm sure not to the satisfaction of others though. The quality goes sharply down hill after them.I agree that they should make a stronger statement then "Hovind is unreliable". I'm guessing it is important for them not to create too much stir since they don't want to make it look like creation science is undecided among itself. That is one of their very attacks on main stream science! I have seen letters which they have posted where they get criticized for having any criticism whatsoever of another creation scientist. That people believe in a literal genesis is much more important to them then why they do. It would be more fitting if they clearly spelled out Hovind's errors, and honestly I thought I once saw a page where they did, though I can't find it at the moment.