The Top Three Mistakes Of Creationists?

[Sunstone]

We've all seen creationists come onboard and repeat again and again the same mistakes. But if you had to rank the typical mistakes of creationists, which ones would you rank as the top three? Why those three?

Why do creationists make the same mistakes over and over again?

 

[Fluffy]

I'm going to assume that when you say Creationists, you are talking about those people who wish creationism to be accepted as scientific fact or at least scientifically viable. I do not think that those creationists who feel that creationism is a matter of faith have made any mistakes.

1) Irreducible Complexity
2) Christian bias/motivation
3) Reliance on philosophical rather than scientific ideas to support their alternative to evolution.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm going to assume that when you say Creationists, you are talking about those people who wish creationism to be accepted as scientific fact or at least scientifically viable. I do not think that those creationists who feel that creationism is a matter of faith have made any mistakes.

Yes. Your assumption is sound, Fluffy. I didn't mean to include those creationists who feel it's a matter of faith. But then again, I haven't seen too many of them in the creation threads making any mistakes in logic or fact.

 

[standing_alone]

Well, as Fluffy already stated, irreducible complexity is one of them. Also, when they try to use "science" to make their points when their whole idea is pseudoscience (by acknowlegding a supernatural deity already violates making a simple, conservative hypothesis, also science only deals with natural evidence). Another thing that I see so often is the either-or fallacy - where they believe that if there is something wrong with evolution, that automatically means creationism must be true. The either-or fallacy is the one that gets on my nerves the most.

As to why they make these mistakes again and again, I don't know, though I bet the desperation to want to believe that this world is so much more and that there is some creator that cared enough to make us and the world is a motivating factor. They want their religions to be "proven" true, despite the fact that they cannot.

 

[d.]

i see the 'the evolution theory says something about the creation of life' and 'the evolution theory is just that, a theory' as if that meant that it's just some random fantasy dreamt up by darwin, a lot.

and of course, the most obvious one : looking for specific answers and not investigating or questioning one's a priori assumptions.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

1) Using the Bible as a science book
2) Refusal to make naturalistic assumptions in interpreting naturalistic evidence
3) Insistence that revealed truth is the same as empirical data

 

[Buttercup]

1. Using the argument that God created the earth to "look" old.
2. The whole Intelligent Design idea and wanting to add it to science classes
3. Refusing to acknowledge natural evidence for what it is...

 

[Fluffy]

The top three mistakes of scientists in refuting creationists:
1) Starting from the premise that creationism is pseudoscience. You will never defeat your opponent in a debate if you assume they are wrong from the start.
2) Largely arrogant and dismissive attiude. If you believe you are right then you are blessed with the intelligence and maturity to overcome such petty failings.
3) Presenting evolution as fact rather than as the most reasonable, likely explanation.

 

[Opethian]

The top three mistakes of scientists in refuting creationists:
1) Starting from the premise that creationism is pseudoscience. You will never defeat your opponent in a debate if you assume they are wrong from the start.

Euhm, it's not just an assumption scientists make, it's just the only thing that creationism is about: misinterpreting science, deceiving by drawing things out of context, making blatant scientifical and logical errors, and drawing philosophy into their reasoning. If this is not pseudoscience I do not know what is.

2) Largely arrogant and dismissive attiude. If you believe you are right then you are blessed with the intelligence and maturity to overcome such petty failings.

So if something is wrong scientists cannot just dismiss it? As for the arrogant part, could you give me some examples? This reminds me of Ted Haggart calling Richard Dawkins arrogant in that debate of theirs, very ironic.

3) Presenting evolution as fact rather than as the most reasonable, likely explanation.

Evolution IS a fact. The evolution theory is the most reasonable, likely explanation.

 

[Halcyon]

Euhm, it's not just an assumption scientists make, it's just the only thing that creationism is about: misinterpreting science, deceiving by drawing things out of context, making blatant scientifical and logical errors, and drawing philosophy into their reasoning. If this is not pseudoscience I do not know what is.

You can't take this attitude if you want a reasonable debate.

So if something is wrong scientists cannot just dismiss it? As for the arrogant part, could you give me some examples? This reminds me of Ted Haggart calling Richard Dawkins arrogant in that debate of theirs, very ironic.

Richard Dawkins is arrogant. He's closed minded and foolish in his style of debate. Being arrogant gets you nowhere.

Evolution IS a fact. The evolution theory is the most reasonable, likely explanation.

Evolution is NOT fact. As a staunch evolutionist it really bugs me when people say this.

It's the best theory as it takes into account all the avaliable evidence, and it is very VERY likely that it is true. However, it is not the only possibility and as such it is not a fact.

 

[Opethian]

You can't take this attitude if you want a reasonable debate.

I don't want a reasonable debate with creationists because having a reasonable debate with a creationist is impossible and useless.

Richard Dawkins is arrogant. He's closed minded and foolish in his style of debate. Being arrogant gets you nowhere.

If close minded means shutting out impossibilities. I understand being arrogant gets nobody anywhere, but I'd really like to see some examples at what you think is arrogance displayed by scientists.

Evolution is NOT fact. As a staunch evolutionist it really bugs me when people say this.

Ok this can be added to the list of blatant errors people make regarding evolution. You see, there is a difference between evolution and evolution theory. Evolution is the changing of allele frequencies in a population of organisms, and IS a fact. The theory however is not a fact, but as close to a fact as most theories will ever be.

 

[MaddLlama]

Assuming that if one part of evolutionary theory doesn't pan out, the whole thing is meaningless
Refusing to learn anything about how evolutionary science and science in general actually works
Thinking that the Bible is better science than science.

 

[d.]

Richard Dawkins is arrogant.

even though i very often agree with dawkins, i totally agree. his arrogance sometimes even borders on logical fallacy and feels very UNscientific.

i wish i had a source i could quote, but i largely base this opinion on statements he made on a documentary on religion which i can't find online at the moment.

 

[Fluffy]

Euhm, it's not just an assumption scientists make, it's just the only thing that creationism is about: misinterpreting science, deceiving by drawing things out of context, making blatant scientifical and logical errors, and drawing philosophy into their reasoning. If this is not pseudoscience I do not know what is.

I disagree. Unless you first justify something, you are assuming it. Unless you have indubitable proof, you are making an assumption.

To go into a debate with somebody with a different view then you cannot simply state that there view is false. The reason for this is that it renders the debate pointless since no progress shall be made. For example, if I were to have replied to your statement with "No you are wrong", it would have been pointless.

The 2 main ways to get around this is to justify your response and to illustrate it with examples, both of which, you will notice, I have done in my response.

So if something is wrong scientists cannot just dismiss it? As for the arrogant part, could you give me some examples? This reminds me of Ted Haggart calling Richard Dawkins arrogant in that debate of theirs, very ironic.

I believe Richard Dawkins to be the embodiment of arrogant evolutionists. The arrogance of his opponents by no means excuses his arrogance. If someone murders my brother, I am not justified in murdering his brother since, apart from anything else, this reduces me to his level. I alluded to the fact that scientists are generally very intelligent people and they should therefore be intelligent enough not to allow themselves to be reduced in such a way. If they do this is their failing and, moreso, it fails their side of the argument.

Dismissing that which is not fact stems from the very misunderstanding of the term "fact" which I go on to discuss below.

Evolution IS a fact. The evolution theory is the most reasonable, likely explanation.

Yes it is the most reasonable likely explanation. And you have defined "fact" to mean "the most reasonable likely explanation". However, this ignores the fact that to the vast majority of people "fact" does not mean "the most reasonable likely explanation" but something akin to indubitable metaphysical truth or the word of god. I believe that scientists should be doing more to show that science is about showing conditional truth, not absolute truth.

Since scientific truth is conditional, scientists may not reject that which they have decided is not conditionally true. They may provisionally reject it for practical purposes, for example saying that it may not be taught at school since only the most reasonable, likely explanation should be taught at school.

Evolution is NOT fact. As a staunch evolutionist it really bugs me when people say this.

It's the best theory as it takes into account all the avaliable evidence, and it is very VERY likely that it is true. However, it is not the only possibility and as such it is not a fact.

I disagree. Under the definition of scientific truth and under the definition of fact, evolution is clearly fact. There can only be one most reasonable, most likely explanation to a given problem and I know of no other than comes closer to explaning this particular problem than evolution. Therefore evolution is a fact.

Again I believe this view stems from a lack of progress on the part of scientists dispelling the myths surrounding concepts such as fact.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I don't want a reasonable debate with creationists because having a reasonable debate with a creationist is impossible and useless.

No doubt due to your debating skills?

 

[Halcyon]

I disagree. Under the definition of scientific truth and under the definition of fact, evolution is clearly fact. There can only be one most reasonable, most likely explanation to a given problem and I know of no other than comes closer to explaning this particular problem than evolution. Therefore evolution is a fact.

Again I believe this view stems from a lack of progress on the part of scientists dispelling the myths surrounding concepts such as fact.

fact ([FONT=verdana, sans-serif] P [/FONT]) Pronunciation Key (f

kt)
n.

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2. 1. <LI type=a>Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact. <LI type=a>A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
   2. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

Only definition 2c. equates with your concept of evolutionary fact here Fluffy. And the same definition can be applied to the Bible.

Ok this can be added to the list of blatant errors people make regarding evolution. You see, there is a difference between evolution and evolution theory. Evolution is the changing of allele frequencies in a population of organisms, and IS a fact. The theory however is not a fact, but as close to a fact as most theories will ever be.

No.
You know very well that in the common use the term Evolution applies to the whole of evolutionary theory, and that this is the context in which i used the word.
What you are describing is a mix of natural selection and genetic drift; micro-evolution commonly called adaptation.

Evolution is "any change in gene frequency in a population over time". "Over time" being key here. Macro-evolution is not fact as it has not been observed and cannot be verified under laboratory conditions.
Adaptation can be, but the assumption that adaptation equates with macro-evolution is what creationists disagree with.

Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory - adaptation is a fact and forms part of the scientific evidence in support of that theory.

 

[Opethian]

No.
You know very well that in the common use the term Evolution applies to the whole of evolutionary theory, and that this is the context in which i used the word.
What you are describing is a mix of natural selection and genetic drift; micro-evolution commonly called adaptation.

The term evolution applies to evolution. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are just bad definitions for the results of the very same process, which is evolution, which is the changing of allele frequency in a population over time, and which IS a fact. We're talking definitions here, not common usage of words. Maybe we can add that to the list of mistakes made while debating scientific issues?

Evolution is "any change in gene frequency in a population over time". "Over time" being key here. Macro-evolution is not fact as it has not been observed and cannot be verified under laboratory conditions.

Macro-evolution can be observed all over the world, through many mediums of evidence. It's the grossly distorted creationist interpretation of macro-evolution that has not been observed (It wouldn't suprise me if the evidence to satisfy some of them would be a picture of an urang utang giving birth to a dressed human, or a fish giving birth to an crocodile). Lack of scientifical understanding leads to not seeing evidence for evolution where there are mountains of it.

Adaptation can be, but the assumption that adaptation equates with macro-evolution is what creationists disagree with.

There is no need for a term called macro-evolution. There is only evolution and its results. Evolution is a fact. The theory that describes how it occurs is not.

Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory - adaptation is a fact and forms part of the scientific evidence in support of that theory.

You couldn't be more wrong, for the reasons stated above.

Anyhow, I'm in the middle of my exams atm so I won't post here anymore for a while, or keep my posts short and fast like this one. My exams end around 29 june, so I'll probably be back around that time.

 

[rocketman]

I don't want a reasonable debate with creationists because having a reasonable debate with a creationist is impossible and useless.

You're no fun!

Seriously, what you said is also how some of the creationists view the mainstream scientific crowd too. Science, like religion, has 'all sorts'.

I hope you don't think all creationists are unreasonable. There are those who leave religion out of the argument [despite their motivations], and who actually agree on the evidence, they just disagree on the interpretation of it. Now, don't get me wrong, I know how extremely frustrating it must be for a logical thinker to struggle with someone who just doesn't 'get' evolution. But that's got nuthin' on people like myself who cringe when a fellow believer drags out some bizzare and whacky psuedoscience. [The one about God 'made it to look old' embarrasses me no end..].

There is so much that has been observed, such as natural selection, mutations etc, and it pains me that people blindly dismiss it without investigation. On the other hand, I don't think it's wrong to question the idea that this has been going on for a long time. Let's be honest about the theory of evolution - there are observations, and, there are inferences. I'm not looking for a debate about gaps in the fossil-record, dating methods etc, but I feel I have to point out that these and other areas contain such sufficient uncertainties that a great many scientists have put forward alternate ideas to try give a better explanation, [and those ideas are not always accepted]. No one really does that for the stuff that has been observed, just for he stuff that has been inferred. Think about it. If there are questions about the long term stuff, then there is still room for debate, regardless of which side you take. I don't like the terms 'micro' and 'macro', I prefer 'observed' and 'inferred'. Is that not reasonable? I think there is room for a debate that is both healthy and scientific, and it needn't include religion, despite the fact that it might be motivating one side.

Here are my three biggest mistakes for creationists, and they should know better:

1) Disrespecting the intellect and personal feelings of evolutionists.
2) Assuming all evolutionists are deliberately/conspiratorily immoral.
3) Praying to win arguments when they should be praying for the welfare of evolutionists.

While I'm at it, here are my three biggest mistakes for scientists which get on the nerves of people like myself who try hard to keep things in the scientific realm. [don't take it personally anyone!]

1) [Bias] Failing to admit that new observations are automatically placed, however crudely, into the existing overall evolutionary framework without stopping to check if the observation might actually go against the framework.
2) [Arrogance] Assuming they know the exact nature of a creationist's question before it has been fully asked, and/or, assuming the creationists idea did not come from mainstream scientific literature.
3) [Messiah complex] And lastly, my favourite: Saying that science will disappear without evolution.
[lol - the concept of 'change over time' always has and always will be a principle of science, regardless of where the specific biological version of it ends up.]

I know that not all scientists fall into these catagories, but neither do all creationists fall into the categories listed in this thread.

Peace.

 

[michel]

Evolution is NOT fact. As a staunch evolutionist it really bugs me when people say this.

It's the best theory as it takes into account all the avaliable evidence, and it is very VERY likely that it is true. However, it is not the only possibility and as such it is not a fact.

I may not be"Fact"; But hasn't the discovery and observance of the adaptation of very similar creatures in different parts of the world (to make them suit the habitat) imply that it is more than 'the most likely' solution ?

To answer the OP, I think one of the mistakes is in burying one's religious head in the sand.

I can see that the idea of evolution must be quite a challenge to people's faith in their respected religions. To stick with Genesis is 'comfortable'. To query Scripture may well be seen as the pathway to disbelief in God.

 

[Halcyon]

The term evolution applies to evolution. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are just bad definitions for the results of the very same process, which is evolution, which is the changing of allele frequency in a population over time, and which IS a fact. We're talking definitions here, not common usage of words. Maybe we can add that to the list of mistakes made while debating scientific issues?

*sigh* Bad definitions? Maybe you should go back and do some more reading before those exams of yours. They are debated, but widely accepted nonetheless.
Yes, they are the same thing - but the difference you seem unable to understand, is that macroevolution is not testable or observable and micro-evolution is. This is whats important.

Observing a bacteria adapting to antibiotics and observing the population of a moth change from mostly white in colour to mostly black are microevolution. They are still bacteria and they are still moths.
The same processes caused fish to eventually become amphibious and amphibians to become reptilian yada yada yada, we both know this. To repeat myself again, this is not scientifically testable in a laboratory environment, thus it is not provable fact that amphibians evolved from fish, it is theorised from the avaliable historical evidence that they did just that. Do you understand yet?

Although you don't think it is important to make this distinction, it is, it's good science.

Macro-evolution can be observed all over the world, through many mediums of evidence.

Geologically historical evidence, yes. Observable and testable scientific evidence, no. The difference is important.

It's the grossly distorted creationist interpretation of macro-evolution that has not been observed (It wouldn't suprise me if the evidence to satisfy some of them would be a picture of an urang utang giving birth to a dressed human, or a fish giving birth to an crocodile). Lack of scientifical understanding leads to not seeing evidence for evolution where there are mountains of it.

Here is something we can agree on.

There is no need for a term called macro-evolution. There is only evolution and its results. Evolution is a fact. The theory that describes how it occurs is not.

You couldn't be more wrong, for the reasons stated above.

You need to know your subject better if you ever want to stand a chance against a creationist. Adaptation is a fact, evolution theory is the logical expansion of this fact to take into account paleontological evidence, and thus give us an explaination for how life arrived to its current multiplicity of forms.

Anyhow, I'm in the middle of my exams atm so I won't post here anymore for a while, or keep my posts short and fast like this one. My exams end around 29 june, so I'll probably be back around that time.

Good luck!

I'll continue debating using the knowledge that already earned me my Zoology degree.