Examples of Dishonesty

quote:

---

I suggest that dishonest is not the same as a mistake. Nor is it ignorance. For this reason I don't think many of those posting creationist "facts" here are dishonest. It is those that have published them and have had a chance to correct them that are dishonest.

---

Totally agree with you Ned. It is the willful ingorance, or rather the continuing dishonesty in the face of contradictory evidence, among self titled creation scientists that I find dishonest. Somehow having a degree in computer science gives them the right to throw out or ignore data collected by reputable and well studied biologists. I am not saying that only trained biologists can have an opinion within biology, but it may behoove some to take a step back and understand their limitations.I might also add that people incapable of understanding contradictory evidence due to their limited background in the sciences are also not being dishonest, just dogmatic (which is a problem unto its own).

quote:

---

Would avoiding to answer certain questions or refuse to admit genuine evidence count as dishonesty or just being dogmatic?
  —Lam

---

Avoiding questions is annoying, especially those that get to the heart of the matter. IMO, people in general don't want to answer questions that might cast them in a bad light, or show weakness. This isn't just creationists, but just people in general. It might be a fine line, but you can honestly answer questions or be openly honest. That is, the questions you do answer you do so honestly compared to a person who openly and honestly answers every question. I wouldn't call the former dishonest, just selective in what they answer.What I think it comes down to is that some people think science can never tell them what they should believe about the natural world. If someone believes in something strongly enough, it has to be true by the force of their faith alone. Some call it a flaw, other's call it blind faith, and still others call it holiness. Anything that may seem to contradict their belief has to be wrong, and therefore they may not answer since the real answer lies in their faith. Of course, psychoanalysis via internet is hardly a proven science, but for the most part this what I see on most evo vs creo sites.Added in edit: You may want to check out an article/post titled "Glenn Morton's Demon". It is written by a guy who was once a creationist but then realized his folly. He describes how he never let evidence supporting evolution cross his mental barriers. He compares this to Maxwell's Demon, who only let high energy particles through a gate creating a temperature differential (ie energy created for free). Interesting read. Another person whose opinion I would like on this topic is Truthlover, a poster here on EvC. He has also made the journey from young earth creationism to evolution.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-28-2004]

quote:

---

They might not say it in a journal, but scientists certainly do say "ridiculous" things like that, especially evolutionary scientists are far more liberal in wordusage and theoretical constructs then people in other sciences as far as I can tell. Do you really believe the reporter made up this saying all on his own, without any help from Stringer?
  —Syamsu

---

If I were to venture a guess, the misrepresentation on the part of the reporter may have stemmed from the graph below: The chimp mitDNA was used for a comparison, or more accurately as an outgroup. This graph is not trying to show that neanderthals are "half way between chimps and humans", only that the number of differences between neader and human DNA is less than that between humans and chimps. I have often wondered why people insist on taking the general media's conclusions over those of the scientists doing the actual work. Perhaps it is dishonest to take the media's opinion over that of the actual scientist who better understand's the data?