Creationist dishonesty: the case of RS Scadding

[Subduction Zone]

When I bring up the examination of the age of fossils, it seems I must go to someone more knowledgeable than you and those on these boards about that to explain it thoroughly. Perhaps I will. Thanks for the thought.

You probably will not have any luck since you have repeatedly shown that you do not want to learn. Ask serious questions, genuinely try to learn,and quite a few will help you here.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The creationist are clearly in the realm of Agnotology. The study of wilful acts to spread confusion and deceit.Dr. Robert Proctor of Stanford U. says it best: "the deliberate creation of ignorance propagated under the guise of balance debate when in fact there is no debate. We live in a world of radical ignorance.

This, of course, dangerously assumes their ignorance is wilful and they deliberately set out to deceive people. That is just not the case.

 

[Audie]

This, of course, dangerously assumes their ignorance is wilful and they deliberately set out to deceive people. That is just not the case.

Oh? Looks quite the opposite to me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh? Looks quite the opposite to me.

In what ways? Spreading false information is not necessarily done so with purposeful intent and with the intent to deceive people. That describes more a lie, whereas Creationists are misinformed through poor understandings of science, rigid world views and filters they view the world through, their sub-culture tends to be very insular, and they do actually believe the things they say and claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In what ways? Spreading false information is not necessarily done so with purposeful intent and with the intent to deceive people. That describes more a lie, whereas Creationists are misinformed through poor understandings of science, rigid world views and filters they view the world through, their sub-culture tends to be very insular, and they do actually believe the things they say and claim.

I would say that it is a mixture There are creationists that know that they are lying. There are also many creationists that should know better. One cannot honestly debate the topic for very long. Those on internet forums have to know that they are lying. They seem to think that there is a "lying for Jesus" exception to their faith.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I would say that it is a mixture There are creationists that know that they are lying. There are also many creationists that should know better. One cannot honestly debate the topic for very long. Those on internet forums have to know that they are lying. They seem to think that there is a "lying for Jesus" exception to their faith.

What do you think they did before internet forums? We still had literature, videos, lectures, and so on. I left it before the world wide web became heavily relied on by just about everyone, so I don't know what it looks like today, but I doubt even today they are lying. One thing you have to keep in mind in they do believe counter evidence is planted by the devil in order to lead people away from god. They do fully and truly believe it all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you think they did before internet forums? We still had literature, videos, lectures, and so on. I left it before the world wide web became heavily relied on by just about everyone, so I don't know what it looks like today, but I doubt even today they are lying. One thing you have to keep in mind in they do believe counter evidence is planted by the devil in order to lead people away from god. They do fully and truly believe it all.

Before there was the internet the debates were limited to those that openly lied. I saw Duane Gish live doing his infamous Gish Gallop I knew that he was lying at the time, I also knew that with the debate format that his opponent did not have time to debunk all of the lies.

Perhaps they are not openly lying. It could be an extreme attack of cognitive dissonance. That still really is not an excuse.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What do you think they did before internet forums? We still had literature, videos, lectures, and so on. I left it before the world wide web became heavily relied on by just about everyone, so I don't know what it looks like today, but I doubt even today they are lying. One thing you have to keep in mind in they do believe counter evidence is planted by the devil in order to lead people away from god. They do fully and truly believe it all.

I think, as other have said, there is a mixture, but I also don't necessarily think you're wrong either. Partly because it's possible to genuinely believe something while simultaneously lying in order to support that proposition. But I think the pathology goes deeper than simply believing vs. lying.

I won't name the poster, but there is a member of this forum who provides a good example of genuine belief that is mixed with what I can only really describe as a pathological inability to acknowledge their own falsehoods. They are a poster who keeps asserting that evolution claims "organisms produce something other than what they are", and I have explained to this person more than a dozen times that it claims no such thing, and yet I am guaranteed that no matter how many times I explain this, they will continue to claim it. At this stage, it cannot be just ignorance at play - it is a deliberate and willful ignoring of what I explain. I'm not sure if I can call out outright dishonesty, though, since I believe that their brain simply won't allow them to retain the information, as it would require them to give up ground on an issue that, to them, is something that they cannot afford to give up ground on. It's less willful dishonesty and more a self-imposed mental block.

Another example would be a quote that the same poster - we will call them Creationist A - kept attributing to "evolutionists", that they kept claiming was something that they had been told numerous times. Out of curiosity, I did a quick post search of the evolution forums to find every single instance of that claim being written. Bizarrely, what I found was that the only person who had EVER written this claim was Creationist A themselves! Literally, no other poster had EVER said those words, and yet Creationist A was insistent that they heard it from evolutionists constantly. When I pointed this out, their response genuinely left me shocked. Creationist A simply acted as if I had somehow PROVEN what they had claimed.

I have no idea whether I can call that dishonesty, but I can't call it honesty, either.

 

[Audie]

In what ways? Spreading false information is not necessarily done so with purposeful intent and with the intent to deceive people. That describes more a lie, whereas Creationists are misinformed through poor understandings of science, rigid world views and filters they view the world through, their sub-culture tends to be very insular, and they do actually believe the things they say and claim.

"Not necessarily". Sure. Some creationists are innocent
enough in those regards, some are not.

Let s look at concepts like due diligence, and
negligence.

Both involve the a burden of care, the exercise
of reasonable care.

Is negligence deliberate? Certainly we have
"culpable negligence" to cover situations that
are. "Reckless disregard", etc.

Diligence involves reasonable steps taken by a
a person

Can any creationist of normal intelligence be said
to have taken reasonable care in establishing
his stance?

This can also be looked at as a matter of
intellectual honesty. I hold
that it is impossible to be an informed
creationist and be intellectually honest.

One who chooses a conclusion prior to
diligent consideration of facts is certainly
not being honest.

Those who avoid any information that does
not suit them are not being honest.

There are those, of course, who labour under
such handicap as to be blameless for their
mistakes. The rest have fewer excuses.

The reasons you give for people being creos is
accurate enough. It is an explanation, but it is
not an excuse, no more than if a person commits
some ritual murder as part of a cult requirement .

A dear friend grew up in rural Philippines, and
when I first met her, she was very naive in many ways.

She just accepted the noahs ark story etc, because
it is what she was told.

That did not last long, when she had a chance
to know better.

That is the difference between willful ignorance,
and intellectual honesty.

If it is the case that all creationists are under
a handicap of some sort, ranging from incapacity
to be reasonable / think rationally, through denial
of access to information etc, then I suppose they
are all blameless.

I dont think that is the case.

 

[Polymath257]

I think, as other have said, there is a mixture, but I also don't necessarily think you're wrong either. Partly because it's possible to genuinely believe something while simultaneously lying in order to support that proposition. But I think the pathology goes deeper than simply believing vs. lying.

I won't name the poster, but there is a member of this forum who provides a good example of genuine belief that is mixed with what I can only really describe as a pathological inability to acknowledge their own falsehoods. They are a poster who keeps asserting that evolution claims "organisms produce something other than what they are", and I have explained to this person more than a dozen times that it claims no such thing, and yet I am guaranteed that no matter how many times I explain this, they will continue to claim it. At this stage, it cannot be just ignorance at play - it is a deliberate and willful ignoring of what I explain. I'm not sure if I can call out outright dishonesty, though, since I believe that their brain simply won't allow them to retain the information, as it would require them to give up ground on an issue that, to them, is something that they cannot afford to give up ground on. It's less willful dishonesty and more a self-imposed mental block.

Another example would be a quote that the same poster - we will call them Creationist A - kept attributing to "evolutionists", that they kept claiming was something that they had been told numerous times. Out of curiosity, I did a quick post search of the evolution forums to find every single instance of that claim being written. Bizarrely, what I found was that the only person who had EVER written this claim was Creationist A themselves! Literally, no other poster had EVER said those words, and yet Creationist A was insistent that they heard it from evolutionists constantly. When I pointed this out, their response genuinely left me shocked. Creationist A simply acted as if I had somehow PROVEN what they had claimed.

I have no idea whether I can call that dishonesty, but I can't call it honesty, either.

One aspect is that they don't accept people on internet forums as authoritative. of course, they also don't accept the scientists as authoritative.

So, when you offer your explanation, they can say to themselves that you don't *really* know what you are talking about. And that means they can disregard it and proceed to use the 'authoritative' statements that they were using before.

It isn't *exactly* dishonesty. It *is* a form of intellectual laziness and lack of curiosity, as well as disbelief in 'authorities' who don't believe their religious positions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Not necessarily". Sure. Some creationists are innocent
enough in those regards, some are not.

Let s look at concepts like due diligence, and
negligence.

Both involve the a burden of care, the exercise
of reasonable care.

Is negligence deliberate? Certainly we have
"culpable negligence" to cover situations that
are. "Reckless disregard", etc.

Diligence involves reasonable steps taken by a
a person

Can any creationist of normal intelligence be said
to have taken reasonable care in establishing
his stance?

This can also be looked at as a matter of
intellectual honesty. I hold
that it is impossible to be an informed
creationist and be intellectually honest.

One who chooses a conclusion prior to
diligent consideration of facts is certainly
not being honest.

Those who avoid any information that does
not suit them are not being honest.

There are those, of course, who labour under
such handicap as to be blameless for their
mistakes. The rest have fewer excuses.

The reasons you give for people being creos is
accurate enough. It is an explanation, but it is
not an excuse, no more than if a person commits
some ritual murder as part of a cult requirement .

A dear friend grew up in rural Philippines, and
when I first met her, she was very naive in many ways.

She just accepted the noahs ark story etc, because
it is what she was told.

That did not last long, when she had a chance
to know better.

That is the difference between willful ignorance,
and intellectual honesty.

If it is the case that all creationists are under
a handicap of some sort, ranging from incapacity
to be reasonable / think rationally, through denial
of access to information etc, then I suppose they
are all blameless.

I dont think that is the case.

You're seeing an awful lot that just isn't there. Or you don't comprehend how deeply held their beliefs really are. They do alot to attempt to work in creationism while casting doubt upon evolution, but intentional deception, blatant lies, those things arent going on.
And, the sources you take in and consider, what you do or don't do with information, that doesn't have anything to do worry the definition or concept of honesty.

 

[Audie]

One aspect is that they don't accept people on internet forums as authoritative. of course, they also don't accept the scientists as authoritative.

So, when you offer your explanation, they can say to themselves that you don't *really* know what you are talking about. And that means they can disregard it and proceed to use the 'authoritative' statements that they were using before.

It isn't *exactly* dishonesty. It *is* a form of intellectual laziness and lack of curiosity, as well as disbelief in 'authorities' who don't believe their religious positions.

Say I dont know I dont know what I am talking about?
Who would fall back on that shabby dodge?


Not exactly dishonest? I suppose its every shade of
grey. Laziness is the nicest version.

Our friend Dr. K Wise, yec paleontologist and his
famous quote, that if all the evidence in the universe
turned against yec, he would still be yec as that is
what the bible seems to say.

THAT would do as an encyclopedia entry on
intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Audie]

You're seeing an awful lot that just isn't there. Or you don't comprehend how deeply held their beliefs really are. They do alot to attempt to work in creationism while casting doubt upon evolution, but intentional deception, blatant lies, those things arent going on.
And, the sources you take in and consider, what you do or don't do with information, that doesn't have anything to do worry the definition or concept of honesty.

I will let @Subduction Zone educate you on deliberate deception
and blatant creo-lies, and let that one item exemplify how far off
the rails you've gone in defense of the indefensible.

Subzie likes to expose the creoliars for what they are.

Your last sentence is just sad.

ETA: And, the sources you take in and consider, what you do or don't do with information, that doesn't have anything to do worry the definition or concept of honesty

I am sure you have something in mind here. Sources may
have little to do with honest in the sense of like not stealing,
or cheating at poker. It has everything to do with intellectual
honesty.

If one is not honest, they what are they?

as per wiki-

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways:

• One's personal faith, beliefs, or politics do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
• Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
• Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
• References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.

Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception".[1]

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will let @Subduction Zone educate you on deliberate deception
and blatant creo-lies, and let that one item exemplify how far off
the rails you've gone in defense of the indefensible.

Subzie likes to expose the creoliars for what they are.

Your last sentence is just sad.

And sometimes I get in trouble for it.

 

[Audie]

And sometimes I get in trouble for it.

Let me down and I will hate you.

 

[Audie]

Funny is it. You will find out about that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're seeing an awful lot that just isn't there. Or you don't comprehend how deeply held their beliefs really are. They do alot to attempt to work in creationism while casting doubt upon evolution, but intentional deception, blatant lies, those things arent going on.
And, the sources you take in and consider, what you do or don't do with information, that doesn't have anything to do worry the definition or concept of honesty.

For @Audie I guess I have to respond to this. I have yet to see a creationist that debates this that does not sooner or later openly lie. For example one of the favorites is to claim that there is no evidence for the theory of evolution. Now this is either a blatant lie or they have no clue as to what is and what is not evidence. At this point I usually offer to go over the concept of evidence with them. Almost all of them run and hide at that point. To me this shows that they know that they are lying but re trying to keep themselves ignorant about evidence so they can at least fool themselves. So not only do they lie about evidence, they lie to themselves to convince them that they are not lying.

If you don't believe me try to discuss the relatively simple concept of scientific evidence with a creationist.

 

[Audie]

For @Audie I guess I have to respond to this. I have yet to see a creationist that debates this that does not sooner or later openly lie. For example one of the favorites is to claim that there is no evidence for the theory of evolution. Now this is either a blatant lie or they have no clue as to what is and what is not evidence. At this point I usually offer to go over the concept of evidence with them. Almost all of them run and hide at that point. To me this shows that they know that they are lying but re trying to keep themselves ignorant about evidence so they can at least fool themselves. So not only do they lie about evidence, they lie to themselves to convince them that they are not lying.

If you don't believe me try to discuss the relatively simple concept of scientific evidence with a creationist.

Then too there is the AIG dishonesty oath

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then too there is the AIG dishonesty oath

And they are not the only ones. Most of not all creationist sites require their workers to take such a pledge. They cannot honestly claim to have scientists working for them when they make their "scientists" swear not to use the scientific method.

 

[Audie]

For @Audie I guess I have to respond to this. I have yet to see a creationist that debates this that does not sooner or later openly lie. For example one of the favorites is to claim that there is no evidence for the theory of evolution. Now this is either a blatant lie or they have no clue as to what is and what is not evidence. At this point I usually offer to go over the concept of evidence with them. Almost all of them run and hide at that point. To me this shows that they know that they are lying but re trying to keep themselves ignorant about evidence so they can at least fool themselves. So not only do they lie about evidence, they lie to themselves to convince them that they are not lying.

If you don't believe me try to discuss the relatively simple concept of scientific evidence with a creationist.

I am curious about that "no evidence" claim.
Your either / or explanation for how anyone could
say that does not satisfy me. There may be
something else going on.

Totally unaware of the data?
Aware,but of the belief that it is all of the devil?
SEDI? "same evidence, different interpretation"?

Next time someone makes that extraordinary
statement, instead of repeating the "concept of
evidence" thing that never has and never will
work, maybe try to find out their basis for
saying it.