The Willful Ignorance of Creationism

[Audie]

The funny thing is, Chick Tracts were among my favorite things in our church. I loved it when a new one came out! The drawing style fascinated me.

Going by your avatar, I'd never guess.

If you change it, go to R Crumb.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's exactly what happened to me. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian environment and went to a high school that barely glossed over the subject of evolution, so by the time I was a freshman undergrad, most of what I knew about evolutionary biology was from the creationist material our church handed out.

After a week or so of my Intro to Evolutionary Biology course, I went to the professor and asked him a question about transitional fossils. You know what he said? "If you want to be a scientist, you need to learn to think like a scientist. Don't take anyone's word for things. If it's important and you want to know the reality, go look for yourself!" He then told me to go to the science library and read some papers about various fossils. And if I wanted, he could arrange for me to go see some of the fossils for myself.

The following month changed my life. Not because of anything to do with evolution, but because of the long-term effect it had on my thinking processes. Basically, I've incorporated the "go look for yourself" approach into as many aspects of my life as I can.

One fascinating realization I had was how "go look for yourself" was a direct contrast to the "you shouldn't be looking at that" mindset that our church was teaching.

I love this post. This is exactly what I was getting at! This is pretty much how it happened with me too. And I had professors just like that; who encouraged scientific-minded type of thinking and exploration. Plus I enrolled in some critical thinking courses and that opened up many new doors for me and my thinking processes.

Keep in mind that Jehovah's Witnesses are discouraged from pursuing higher education (fewer than 10% of JWs have college degrees). It's not forbidden outright, but members are taught that college is dangerous (you might be swayed away from the faith) and a waste of time (the end times are coming). I've also heard JWs say that getting a college degree is just feeding one's ego.

I find this really sad and disappointing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The funny thing is, Chick Tracts were among my favorite things in our church. I loved it when a new one came out! The drawing style fascinated me.

I love the rather juvenile humor of Hugo and Make when they reenact those tracts.

 

[Jose Fly]

I love this post. This is exactly what I was getting at! This is pretty much how it happened with me too. And I had professors just like that; who encouraged scientific-minded type of thinking and exploration. Plus I enrolled in some critical thinking courses and that opened up many new doors for me and my thinking processes.

Exactly! Unlike Deeje's ignorant depiction of professors berating students and demanding compliance when they ask questions, reality is more like what we experienced....being encouraged to look, explore, and learn for ourselves.

I find this really sad and disappointing.

It's why Jehovah's Witnesses are among the most poorly educated and lowest-earners of any religious group.

 

[Jose Fly]

I love the rather juvenile humor of Hugo and Make when they reenact those tracts.

I actually still have a few of them. As twisted and sick as they are, there is a certain campiness to them that's hard to not laugh at.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I actually still have a few of them. As twisted and sick as they are, there is a certain campiness to them that's hard to not laugh at.

a special present just for you, but you have probably seen it already:

 

[siti]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

This is an opinion piece in a medical journal written by a chap who used to edit the journal but has now retired to write a book - about problems with peer review process - so basically they're letting him use a few column inches to sell his book. Anyway - is that it? Is that the only response you have to the important points I raised? Is it not actually true to state that your creationism is indeed "informed" by religiously enforced "wilful ignorance" (in your case, the WT Society's active discouragement of investigating the actual evidence) - just as the OP suggests?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is an opinion piece in a medical journal written by a chap who used to edit the journal but has now retired to write a book - about problems with peer review process - so basically they're letting him use a few column inches to sell his book. Anyway - is that it? Is that the only response you have to the important points I raised? Is it not actually true to state that your creationism is indeed "informed" by religiously enforced "wilful ignorance" (in your case, the WT Society's active discouragement of investigating the actual evidence) - just as the OP suggests?

No one on the science side has ever claimed that peer review is perfect. It is the minimum standard that must be met. When a concept cannot even pass that it is almost always wrong.

 

[Deeje]

You said first that 'people will accept the truth of evolution without any real education about it'.

No I didn't. It was Jerry Coyne who said that...not me.

Now that I have pointed out that the people who have the best education about evolution (i.e. professional biologists) are also those who are most convinced of its validity, you have changed your argument and are saying that these well-educated people have been indoctrinated to believe in evolution.

What does it take to convince someone of the validity of anything? PROOF. But since the evolutionists always tell me that "there is no proof in science" we can only come to the conclusion that their belief is as the result of accepting the suggestions scientists make about their "evidence". There can be no facts without proof. Science has none.

Which argument do you want to stick with, the argument that people accept evolution without having had any real education about it, or the argument that people accept evolution because schools and universities have indoctrinated them to believe in it?

I believe Jerry Coyne when he said that "people accept evolution without having had any real education about it" because kids are indoctrinated at school and have their science education reinforced at university. If they are not exposed to any other evidence or interpretation, then that makes Jerry Coyne's statement quite accurate. They just accept blindly, trusting their teachers and their credentials. I am not so trusting of the science that cannot be proven.

If you refuse to read books by Jerry Coyne and other evolutionists, you are no better than the people who '"believe" in evolution without knowing what it is'; you are simply rejecting evolution without knowing what it is. This, if anything, implies that you, and other creationists, do not really believe in creationism; if you believed it, you would examine the scientific data in the conviction that they would provide evidence for creationism. That you refuse to do this suggests that you know that the facts are against you.

You assume that we have not checked out the science...but I assure you we have.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/was-life-created/

why do you think that being 'barraged with diagrams and scientific papers' is a wrong approach to providing real evidence for evolution, and that the evolution-denier would be right to reject the facts and conclusions provided by these scientific media?

Because diagrams and scientific papers do not constitute real evidence to anyone but scientists....they are merely reporting about "evidence" in their opinion. Those reports are drawn up by interpreted by scientists who already believe in evolution. Can we expect an objective view from them? I have see how their pre-conceived ideas often lead them to interpret the evidence to suit their theory, rather than the other way around.

 

[Deeje]

What belief system do people who accept evolution adhere to? Do people who accept gravity also adhere to some specific belief system? How about those who accept germ theory?

Oh good grief

How many times has this tired old chestnut been rolled out?

Is gravity provable? All I have to do is jump off a building and there it is! "What goes up, must come down" Not rocket science is it.

Germs? Can scientists see germs under a microscope? Is there evidence through epidemics that germs can be transmitted from one person to another....spreading the disease carried by these germs to other people by various means?

Can scientists show us with real evidence that single celled organisms can morph themselves into dinosaurs?

I think humans with even a modicum of intelligence can see the difference in these "theories"....don't you?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh good grief

How many times has this tired old chestnut been rolled out?

Is gravity provable? All I have to do is jump off a building and there it is! "What goes up, must come down" Not rocket science is it.

So you think all the theory of gravity amounts to is "what goes up must come down"? You don't think it's alleged to play any role in the movements of planets, the bending of space-time or the formation of black holes?

Germs? Can scientists see germs under a microscope? Is there evidence through epidemics that germs can be transmitted from one person to another....spreading the disease carried by these germs to other people by various means?

Once again, germ theory of disease deals with a lot more than just what is directly observed. It deals with predictions and hypotheses of how germs spread, and how to treat them. These the the parts that provide the "theory" behind "germ theory", in much the same way that evolution can be directly observed, and from those observations - and other assorted evidence - we can derive tentative conclusions about the causes and extent of the process (theory).

Can scientists show us with real evidence that single celled organisms can morph themselves into dinosaurs?

Evolution has been directly observed.

I think humans with even a modicum of intelligence can see the difference in these "theories"....don't you?

Humans with a modicum of intelligence know the difference between direct observation and the theories applied to and used to explain those observations. They also probably know that gravity amounts to a lot more than "what goes up must come down".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What does it take to convince someone of the validity of anything? PROOF. But since the evolutionists always tell me that "there is no proof in science" we can only come to the conclusion that their belief is as the result of accepting the suggestions scientists make about their "evidence". There can be no facts without proof. Science has none.

Deeje, now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

"Evidence" is defined as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". Evidence IS facts, but scientists are intelligent enough to know that conclusions DRAWN FROM evidence may not necessarily be factual, hence why "proof" is a unused term in science - because conclusions which are tentative can actually be changed and corrected (or outright refuted) when the evidence (i.e: facts) contradicts them. This is what makes science more reliable, not less. A dishonest system WOULD assert proof when there is none, rather than admitting uncertainty in refusing to use the term "proof".

 

[SkepticThinker]

Exactly! Unlike Deeje's ignorant depiction of professors berating students and demanding compliance when they ask questions, reality is more like what we experienced....being encouraged to look, explore, and learn for ourselves.
It's why Jehovah's Witnesses are among the most poorly educated and lowest-earners of any religious group.

Right! This is the spirit of scientific inquiry and exploration! That's why I made such a big deal out of it. Deeje's depiction is so far removed from anything I've experienced in any post-secondary educational setting, that I find myself wondering if Deeje has had any experience with it at all. Your links have more than helped me out on that one. Thank you.

 

[Audie]

Right! This is the spirit of scientific inquiry and exploration! That's why I made such a big deal out of it. Deeje's depiction is so far removed from anything I've experienced in any post-secondary educational setting, that I find myself wondering if Deeje has had any experience with it at all. Your links have more than helped me out on that one. Thank you.

Far removed, for sure. Her depiction is straight out
of a chick tract. Nobody who knows what they are
talking about would believe such an outlandish
misrepresentation.

To me, if you want to be for or against something,
you ought to at least know what it is.

But I kind of think that is missing what is really going
on.

Its a bit like N Korea. Block out information from
outside the cult, any way you can, and invent
"enemies" against which one must make hard his face.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh good grief

How many times has this tired old chestnut been rolled out?

Hey, you brought it up. I agree that it’s silly.

Is gravity provable? All I have to do is jump off a building and there it is! "What goes up, must come down" Not rocket science is it.

That's all there is to gravity, eh? No calculations and theories involved whatsoever, right Deeje? Just a line up of scientists jumping off a building? You don't really think that's all there is to gravity, do you?

The fact that someone falls off a building is merely “proof” that things can fall off buildings. It tells us nothing about how the thing we call “gravity” operates, or what it is. You could posit that the reason things appear to fall back to the earth is because Thor is bonking them back down to Earth with his hammer, or maybe invisible pixies are pulling the things down from below. The part about how gravity operates requires evidence.

But gravity is "just a theory!" Just like evolution. And just like evolution, what you will find in discussions about gravitational and germ theory, is the same "supposition" and "preconceived ideas" that you often balk at when you're talking about evolution. Why? Because that is the language of science. It's all the same - whether it's evolution, medicine, gravity, germs, whatever. Science is done the same regardless of what topic we’re talking about. Any scientific article you read will use the type of language you have so much disdain for. If you read such language in a scientific paper on gravity, would you suddenly stop believing gravity exists? I doubt it.

Germs? Can scientists see germs under a microscope? Is there evidence through epidemics that germs can be transmitted from one person to another....spreading the disease carried by these germs to other people by various means?

There's much more to germ theory than "germs exist." What are they? How do they operate? What mechanisms are involved in how they spread? How do we know that thing we see in the microscope is the thing that makes people sick?

The things I am talking about here are evidence of course, and, not proof. Yes, you can see a germ under a microscope, but you must also be able to show that it actually causes illness when transmitted from one organism to another, among a ton of other information. If it were as easy as “germs can be transmitted from one person to another,” millions of people probably wouldn’t have died from the various forms of plague that ravaged us over the centuries.

You know what the Church blamed the Plague on? Germs? Nope. It was sin.

Can scientists show us with real evidence that single celled organisms can morph themselves into dinosaurs?

They can demonstrate that the heritable characteristics of biological populations change over successive generations. That’s what evolution is. Go have a baby and you will find that it is not an exact genetic clone of yourself.

All existing evidence points to the fact that all living things on earth are related, and all descend from earlier forms of life. If you have evidence that falsifies evolution, go ahead and present it to the scientific community, and I bet there’s a Nobel Prize in it for you. Don’t you ever ask yourself why, if the evidence for evolution is so flimsy, that nobody on earth has thus far managed to present evidence to falsify it? All it would take would be “fossil rabbits in the Precambrian,” in the famous words of J.B.S. Haldane.

I think humans with even a modicum of intelligence can see the difference in these "theories"....don't you?

I guess if you think the extent of scientific inquiry is to post pretty pictures of nature, sure you might look at it that way.

In actuality, all scientific theories are arrived at by the following the exact same scientific method.[/QUOTE]