| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"darth_versive" |
| Date: |
08 Feb 2004 01:41:42 PM |
| Object: |
Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
How are we to account for the observation that so many creationists,
when repeatedly confronted with overwhelming evidence in support of
the theory of evolution, seem either to not comprehend this evidence,
or to discount it without serious thought, or with clearly specious
reasoning?
It's much too easy to suppose that they really *do* understand it, and
yet for some cynical, ulterior motives, choose to pretend that they
don't. This explanation just doesn't hold water. Some of the things
they say seem so nonsensical that it's hard to believe that anyone
would willingly invite ridicule for saying such things if they really
understood how silly they were, and that people would deliberately
damage their own cause by such statements.
So how are we to account for such behavior? Is there some
psychological "brick wall" that somehow keeps them from understanding
normal science when that science seems to them to contradict some
theological dogma that they hold fast to? If so, just how does this
"brick wall" operate? Clearly, the proponents of modern science
education have not found a way so far to deal with this brick wall,
since it is seemingly still very much in operation in the minds of
creationists, in spite of all their attempts to break through it.
DV
.
|
|
| User: "\Rev Dr\ Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
12 Feb 2004 06:10:39 PM |
|
|
Will wrote:
Zen?? Do you know anything at all about Buddhist practice
Quite. I'm a mikkyo shugendja shidoshi.
, about their
internal conflicts and warrings sects, about the immensely silly
rituals and nonsense that abound in Buddhism? I know, Zen is
different. Zen is philosophical. Zen is mystical.
No it's not. Zen is, quite literally, nothing. Nothing at all.
In my opinion, Zen
is its own gobbeldygook, and its clergy live by the innocence and
gullibility of its followers. It relies on gurus who preach
sophomorish platitudes that some people deem to be the highest wisdom.
At best, it's a waste of time, as compared to doing something useful.
I think the same thing about pro football. <shrug>
As to the rest, yes, fundamentalists have the strongest Shamans who
have the most direct control. As religions liberalize, they tend to
become less obnoxious, but it's all just a matter of degree. H.L.
Mencken once opined that the quality of a religion depended on just
how much agnosticism it would allow. That's not a bad test, Unitarian
Universalists (or, maybe, Zen) on one of the spectrum with Primitive
Baptists and whatever on the other. All religion, however, depends on
Shamans (whether they're called monks, priests, parsons, ministers,
witch doctors, gurus, or whatever), all religions are involved in the
control of the individual's behavior to some degree, and virtually all
religions demands money and often services from their members. Is that
a generalization? Yes. Is it true? Yes.
Uh, how does one go about becoming a "member" of a Zen "church"?
And why do all the Buddhist priests I know walk everywhere they go and
live in various people's garages? They don't, uh, seem to me to be
lving very high on the hog . . . . . .
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brenda Nelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
11 Feb 2004 03:56:54 PM |
|
|
(darth_versive) wrote in message news:<8e0e3045.0402081143.3cd4b563@posting.google.com>...
How are we to account for the observation that so many creationists,
when repeatedly confronted with overwhelming evidence in support of
the theory of evolution, seem either to not comprehend this evidence,
or to discount it without serious thought, or with clearly specious
reasoning?
I'm an ex-Christian, Former Fundy, and Recovered Creationist, so I
think I can answer your question.
Creationists are people who are scared shitless of death. The Bible,
as they read it, provides them with a way to get out of being dead -
by going to Heaven. The way they see it is that God provides
salvation to the believer, if said believer follows the formula given
(or perceived) in the Bible. The believer needs salvation because
Adam and Eve ate the apple in the Garden of Eden. If evolution is
factual, then there was no Garden of Eden, no Fall of Man, and
ultimately, no salvation. Therefore, *every* word of the Bible *must*
be taken literally, in order for the "salvation" part to be effective.
No, I'm not kidding.
If you were to come up with some Fundy-proof, irrefutable piece of
eveidence that "proved" evolution (one that you could successfully
pound into their Creationist heads) you'd see some serious mental
breakdowns in the Fundy ranks. They simply can't compute the notion
that some of the Bible might be mere metaphor, even mythic metaphor;
to do so would mean that the salvation equation might *also* be
metaphor, and not a literal Get-Out-of-Death-Free card. They feel
that every word must be true in order for them to be able to "trust"
any of it.
So, in answer to the question posed in your subject line, the short
answer is "yes."
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
Chief Wrangler and Ramrod Emeritus
(and Professor of Feline Thermometrics)
EAC Equine Transportation Command/Carne Seca Division
in the prefecture of Baja, Arizona
.
|
|
|
| User: "darth_versive" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
12 Feb 2004 03:10:40 PM |
|
|
(Brenda Nelson) wrote in message news:<311596a5.0402111357.6d7c7d4d@posting.google.com>...
darth_versive@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote in message news:<8e0e3045.0402081143.3cd4b563@posting.google.com>...
How are we to account for the observation that so many creationists,
when repeatedly confronted with overwhelming evidence in support of
the theory of evolution, seem either to not comprehend this evidence,
or to discount it without serious thought, or with clearly specious
reasoning?
I'm an ex-Christian, Former Fundy, and Recovered Creationist, so I
think I can answer your question.
Creationists are people who are scared shitless of death. The Bible,
as they read it, provides them with a way to get out of being dead -
by going to Heaven. The way they see it is that God provides
salvation to the believer, if said believer follows the formula given
(or perceived) in the Bible. The believer needs salvation because
Adam and Eve ate the apple in the Garden of Eden. If evolution is
factual, then there was no Garden of Eden, no Fall of Man, and
ultimately, no salvation. Therefore, *every* word of the Bible *must*
be taken literally, in order for the "salvation" part to be effective.
No, I'm not kidding.
If you were to come up with some Fundy-proof, irrefutable piece of
eveidence that "proved" evolution (one that you could successfully
pound into their Creationist heads) you'd see some serious mental
breakdowns in the Fundy ranks. They simply can't compute the notion
that some of the Bible might be mere metaphor, even mythic metaphor;
to do so would mean that the salvation equation might *also* be
metaphor, and not a literal Get-Out-of-Death-Free card. They feel
that every word must be true in order for them to be able to "trust"
any of it.
So, in answer to the question posed in your subject line, the short
answer is "yes."
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
Chief Wrangler and Ramrod Emeritus
(and Professor of Feline Thermometrics)
EAC Equine Transportation Command/Carne Seca Division
in the prefecture of Baja, Arizona
Yes. This is fine so far.
But the question was not just "do they have brick walls?" (the yes or
no question). It was also "If so, just how does this 'brick wall'
operate?" (the more detailed scientific question, which, in my view,
requires the development of a better theoretical model of the mind
than the ones we have now).
So thanks for your comments on your own experiences. They do fit in
quite well with the experiences of many others. If you're curious
about the latter question--about the nature of the mind which gives
rise to such brick walls--please look over the various sections of
this thread where I have been discussing this subject at greater
length. And there is also a related thread: "Is evolution science or
philosophy: How to view the arguments?"
Because if we merely acknowledge the *existence* of these brick walls,
but don't make an effort to *understand* them in social and behavioral
science terms, it really doesn't do us much good.
DV
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
11 Feb 2004 05:19:31 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:56:54 +0000 (UTC),
(Brenda Nelson) wrote:
darth_versive@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote in message news:<8e0e3045.0402081143.3cd4b563@posting.google.com>...
How are we to account for the observation that so many creationists,
when repeatedly confronted with overwhelming evidence in support of
the theory of evolution, seem either to not comprehend this evidence,
or to discount it without serious thought, or with clearly specious
reasoning?
I'm an ex-Christian, Former Fundy, and Recovered Creationist, so I
think I can answer your question.
Creationists are people who are scared shitless of death. The Bible,
as they read it, provides them with a way to get out of being dead -
by going to Heaven. The way they see it is that God provides
salvation to the believer, if said believer follows the formula given
(or perceived) in the Bible. The believer needs salvation because
Adam and Eve ate the apple in the Garden of Eden. If evolution is
factual, then there was no Garden of Eden, no Fall of Man, and
ultimately, no salvation. Therefore, *every* word of the Bible *must*
be taken literally, in order for the "salvation" part to be effective.
No, I'm not kidding.
Good observation 'from within'.
If you were to come up with some Fundy-proof, irrefutable piece of
eveidence that "proved" evolution (one that you could successfully
pound into their Creationist heads) you'd see some serious mental
breakdowns in the Fundy ranks. They simply can't compute the notion
But you *CAN* come up with absolute proof of evolution!
You can make creatures evovle, yourself.
Fundies have, for example, been breeding characteristics into dogs for
ages.
If you want to, you can evolve fruit flies to select for a set of
desired characters, even to the point where two separate populations
will not interbreed.
This *IS* evolution.
You don't have to take anyone else's word for it.
You can make it happen in front of your own senses.
Is that not proof enough for anyone that evolution is real?
(We'll leave the false dichotomy between creationism and evolution
aside for the while)
that some of the Bible might be mere metaphor, even mythic metaphor;
to do so would mean that the salvation equation might *also* be
metaphor, and not a literal Get-Out-of-Death-Free card. They feel
that every word must be true in order for them to be able to "trust"
any of it.
So, in answer to the question posed in your subject line, the short
answer is "yes."
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
Chief Wrangler and Ramrod Emeritus
(and Professor of Feline Thermometrics)
EAC Equine Transportation Command/Carne Seca Division
in the prefecture of Baja, Arizona
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brenda Nelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
12 Feb 2004 03:10:07 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message news:<dmdl20hi6maheuppa2oot3kaumj5v1s7ti@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:56:54 +0000 (UTC),
(Brenda Nelson) wrote:
darth_versive@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote in message news:<8e0e3045.0402081143.3cd4b563@posting.google.com>...
How are we to account for the observation that so many creationists,
when repeatedly confronted with overwhelming evidence in support of
the theory of evolution, seem either to not comprehend this evidence,
or to discount it without serious thought, or with clearly specious
reasoning?
I'm an ex-Christian, Former Fundy, and Recovered Creationist, so I
think I can answer your question.
Creationists are people who are scared shitless of death. The Bible,
as they read it, provides them with a way to get out of being dead -
by going to Heaven. The way they see it is that God provides
salvation to the believer, if said believer follows the formula given
(or perceived) in the Bible. The believer needs salvation because
Adam and Eve ate the apple in the Garden of Eden. If evolution is
factual, then there was no Garden of Eden, no Fall of Man, and
ultimately, no salvation. Therefore, *every* word of the Bible *must*
be taken literally, in order for the "salvation" part to be effective.
No, I'm not kidding.
Good observation 'from within'.
If you were to come up with some Fundy-proof, irrefutable piece of
eveidence that "proved" evolution (one that you could successfully
pound into their Creationist heads) you'd see some serious mental
breakdowns in the Fundy ranks. They simply can't compute the notion
But you *CAN* come up with absolute proof of evolution!
You can make creatures evovle, yourself.
Fundies have, for example, been breeding characteristics into dogs for
ages.
If you want to, you can evolve fruit flies to select for a set of
desired characters, even to the point where two separate populations
will not interbreed.
This *IS* evolution.
You don't have to take anyone else's word for it.
You can make it happen in front of your own senses.
Is that not proof enough for anyone that evolution is real?
Well, it is for me, and it obviously is for you - you being a rational
critter and all - but it's apparently *not* enough for the Fundies.
They want something really out there - like a
half-reptile/half-amphibian hatching out of an amphibian's egg. Or
something. My personal belief is that there isn't *anything* that
would "prove" evolution to them, because that would bring their
brittle little belief system crashing down around their ears, and
they'd have to admit that "Heaven" is only a metaphor, and not
someplace you go after you die.
(We'll leave the false dichotomy between creationism and evolution
aside for the while)
Well, it even begs the question of *which* creation story you're going
to use. The Fundies act like there's only one. I can't wait for the
day where, in some Fundy-directed school district, a harried science
teacher uses (fer instance) the Navajo Creation Myth as the
"intelligent design" section of the class. <Giggle> Oh, the wailing
and gnashing of teeth!
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
Chief Wrangler and Ramrod Emeritus
(and Professor of Feline Thermometrics)
EAC Equine Transportation Command/Carne Seca Division
in the Prefecture of Baja, Arizona
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
12 Feb 2004 08:37:02 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:10:07 +0000 (UTC),
(Brenda Nelson) wrote:
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message news:<dmdl20hi6maheuppa2oot3kaumj5v1s7ti@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:56:54 +0000 (UTC),
(Brenda Nelson) wrote:
darth_versive@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote in message news:<8e0e3045.0402081143.3cd4b563@posting.google.com>...
How are we to account for the observation that so many creationists,
when repeatedly confronted with overwhelming evidence in support of
the theory of evolution, seem either to not comprehend this evidence,
or to discount it without serious thought, or with clearly specious
reasoning?
I'm an ex-Christian, Former Fundy, and Recovered Creationist, so I
think I can answer your question.
Creationists are people who are scared shitless of death. The Bible,
as they read it, provides them with a way to get out of being dead -
by going to Heaven. The way they see it is that God provides
salvation to the believer, if said believer follows the formula given
(or perceived) in the Bible. The believer needs salvation because
Adam and Eve ate the apple in the Garden of Eden. If evolution is
factual, then there was no Garden of Eden, no Fall of Man, and
ultimately, no salvation. Therefore, *every* word of the Bible *must*
be taken literally, in order for the "salvation" part to be effective.
No, I'm not kidding.
Good observation 'from within'.
If you were to come up with some Fundy-proof, irrefutable piece of
eveidence that "proved" evolution (one that you could successfully
pound into their Creationist heads) you'd see some serious mental
breakdowns in the Fundy ranks. They simply can't compute the notion
But you *CAN* come up with absolute proof of evolution!
You can make creatures evovle, yourself.
Fundies have, for example, been breeding characteristics into dogs for
ages.
If you want to, you can evolve fruit flies to select for a set of
desired characters, even to the point where two separate populations
will not interbreed.
This *IS* evolution.
You don't have to take anyone else's word for it.
You can make it happen in front of your own senses.
Is that not proof enough for anyone that evolution is real?
Well, it is for me, and it obviously is for you - you being a rational
critter and all - but it's apparently *not* enough for the Fundies.
They want something really out there - like a
half-reptile/half-amphibian hatching out of an amphibian's egg. Or
something. My personal belief is that there isn't *anything* that
would "prove" evolution to them, because that would bring their
brittle little belief system crashing down around their ears, and
they'd have to admit that "Heaven" is only a metaphor, and not
someplace you go after you die.
Then they're NOT talking about evolution.
Pure and simple.
They're talking about something else.
Why then do they call it evolution?
Why don't we think up a name for the impossible concept that they are
referring to?
"Fundilution" ?
"Fraudolution" ?
(We'll leave the false dichotomy between creationism and evolution
aside for the while)
Well, it even begs the question of *which* creation story you're going
to use. The Fundies act like there's only one. I can't wait for the
day where, in some Fundy-directed school district, a harried science
teacher uses (fer instance) the Navajo Creation Myth as the
"intelligent design" section of the class. <Giggle> Oh, the wailing
and gnashing of teeth!
It's quite different here in Australia, thank Cliff.
Yes, it's not easy when you deal with people who demand certain
standards from their opponents, but don't apply those same standards
to themselves.
Their opponents need to provide absolute and irrefutable proof of
every tiny detail that has occured since pre-history, but 'they' can
just wave their hands and spout words, and that makes it absolute
truth.
The disturbing thing is that they can't see the profound outright
intellectual dishonesty in doing that.
It becomes morally criminal when they force that dishonesty on
children.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
Chief Wrangler and Ramrod Emeritus
(and Professor of Feline Thermometrics)
EAC Equine Transportation Command/Carne Seca Division
in the Prefecture of Baja, Arizona
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brenda Nelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
17 Feb 2004 02:43:44 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message news:<tpdo20p6051jou725o4g0u7vd3v7vc92et@4ax.com>...
<Snippage>
But you *CAN* come up with absolute proof of evolution!
You can make creatures evovle, yourself.
Fundies have, for example, been breeding characteristics into dogs for
ages.
If you want to, you can evolve fruit flies to select for a set of
desired characters, even to the point where two separate populations
will not interbreed.
This *IS* evolution.
You don't have to take anyone else's word for it.
You can make it happen in front of your own senses.
Is that not proof enough for anyone that evolution is real?
Well, it is for me, and it obviously is for you - you being a rational
critter and all - but it's apparently *not* enough for the Fundies.
They want something really out there - like a
half-reptile/half-amphibian hatching out of an amphibian's egg. Or
something. My personal belief is that there isn't *anything* that
would "prove" evolution to them, because that would bring their
brittle little belief system crashing down around their ears, and
they'd have to admit that "Heaven" is only a metaphor, and not
someplace you go after you die.
Then they're NOT talking about evolution.
Pure and simple.
I agree with you utterly, Michael. They're *not* talking about
evolution, but they don't know that because none of them have ever
bothered to take a real science class and find out. Their fundy
handlers create strawmen, and then teach the sheep how to argue
against the strawmen. That's why they never actually compute what we
say.
They're talking about something else.
Why then do they call it evolution?
Because that's what they've been taught by their handlers.
The problem is with the formulaic way these people think. They have
artificial information fed to them, and then they're programmed with
the correct formula to refute that bogus information. They're
comfortable thinking this way. Their worldview cannot have the least
speck of uncertainty in it, or their entire construct of the Fall of
Man and subsequent salvation through Jesus' sacrifice dissolves like
cotton candy in a cloudburst.
Why don't we think up a name for the impossible concept that they are
referring to?
"Fundilution" ?
"Fraudolution" ?
I like "Fundilution" myself, but it'll go right over their pointy
little heads.
(We'll leave the false dichotomy between creationism and evolution
aside for the while)
Well, it even begs the question of *which* creation story you're going
to use. The Fundies act like there's only one. I can't wait for the
day where, in some Fundy-directed school district, a harried science
teacher uses (fer instance) the Navajo Creation Myth as the
"intelligent design" section of the class. <Giggle> Oh, the wailing
and gnashing of teeth!
It's quite different here in Australia, thank Cliff.
Yes, it's not easy when you deal with people who demand certain
standards from their opponents, but don't apply those same standards
to themselves.
<Sigh> No kidding.
Their opponents need to provide absolute and irrefutable proof of
every tiny detail that has occured since pre-history, but 'they' can
just wave their hands and spout words, and that makes it absolute
truth.
That's the trouble with believing in absolute truth. It tends to be
so...absolute.
The disturbing thing is that they can't see the profound outright
intellectual dishonesty in doing that.
They don't think about things like "intellectual dishonesty." They
don't have to. They have the Bible.
It becomes morally criminal when they force that dishonesty on
children.
Yup. That it does.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
Chief Wrangler and Ramrod Emeritus
(and Professor of Feline Thermometrics)
EAC Equine Transportation Command/Carne Seca Division
in the Prefecture of Baja, Arizona
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
19 Feb 2004 07:11:04 AM |
|
|
So how are we to account for such behavior? Is there some
psychological "brick wall" that somehow keeps them from understanding
normal science when that science seems to them to contradict some
theological dogma that they hold fast to? If so, just how does this
"brick wall" operate? Clearly, the proponents of modern science
education have not found a way so far to deal with this brick wall,
since it is seemingly still very much in operation in the minds of
creationists, in spite of all their attempts to break through it.
Is it possible that this is analogous to the learning of language? It
is now known that language is largely innate. There is a time-slot for
learning language that is only open in childhood. I believe the theory
is that the area of the brain for language is ready to hard-wire
language but it requires stimuli. A child raised with no exposure to
language will never be able to understand grammar but will be able to
speak in a pidgin fashion if taught as an adult.
So perhaps there is another area of the brain for "beliefs", or "world
view" that is also open for a time-slot during childhood. Many people
are brought up with religious indoctrination, including myself, but
children do necessarily believe everything that is thrown at them
especially if it conflicts with other evidence. Belief in fairies is a
problem for children because it conflicts with other evidence. When I
was 5 years old I had a crisis of belief because I started to doubt
that magic existed. I decided to do some experiments and the results
told me that magic did not exist contrary to what my parents had been
telling me by reading children's stories. I was too young to
understand that magic was fiction so had assumed that it was real. The
result of this early realisation in my belief system was no doubt
important when it came to other beliefs like Santa Claus and God.
If it is true that a belief system is hard-wired at an early age like
language then it seems natural that the brain cannot accept something
that does not fit that belief system. You cannot over-ride the
hard-wiring. A creationist is going to make all evidence fit his
world-view, nothing can change it. I doubt that there is an imprinting
specifically for creationism but more likely an imprinting for an
over-riding belief in the non-physical. Of course, you will notice
that the same will go for an over-riding belief in the physical. If
you are hard-wired to be a 100% believer in the physical world then
any spiritual arguments that anyone puts however logical cannot be
assimilated. I doubt whether it is so black or white in most people.
Anyone exposed to religious indoctrination, or any of the mass of
cultural superstition, is going to have some small part of their brain
that allows them to consider whether there is something apart from the
physical universe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "darth_versive" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
19 Feb 2004 01:31:06 PM |
|
|
(Rick) wrote in message news:<75ab9b03.0402190513.7003dd5a@posting.google.com>...
So how are we to account for such behavior? Is there some
psychological "brick wall" that somehow keeps them from understanding
normal science when that science seems to them to contradict some
theological dogma that they hold fast to? If so, just how does this
"brick wall" operate? Clearly, the proponents of modern science
education have not found a way so far to deal with this brick wall,
since it is seemingly still very much in operation in the minds of
creationists, in spite of all their attempts to break through it.
Is it possible that this is analogous to the learning of language? It
is now known that language is largely innate. There is a time-slot for
learning language that is only open in childhood. I believe the theory
is that the area of the brain for language is ready to hard-wire
language but it requires stimuli. A child raised with no exposure to
language will never be able to understand grammar but will be able to
speak in a pidgin fashion if taught as an adult.
So perhaps there is another area of the brain for "beliefs", or "world
view" that is also open for a time-slot during childhood. Many people
are brought up with religious indoctrination, including myself, but
children do necessarily believe everything that is thrown at them
especially if it conflicts with other evidence. Belief in fairies is a
problem for children because it conflicts with other evidence. When I
was 5 years old I had a crisis of belief because I started to doubt
that magic existed. I decided to do some experiments and the results
told me that magic did not exist contrary to what my parents had been
telling me by reading children's stories. I was too young to
understand that magic was fiction so had assumed that it was real. The
result of this early realisation in my belief system was no doubt
important when it came to other beliefs like Santa Claus and God.
If it is true that a belief system is hard-wired at an early age like
language then it seems natural that the brain cannot accept something
that does not fit that belief system. You cannot over-ride the
hard-wiring. A creationist is going to make all evidence fit his
world-view, nothing can change it. I doubt that there is an imprinting
specifically for creationism but more likely an imprinting for an
over-riding belief in the non-physical. Of course, you will notice
that the same will go for an over-riding belief in the physical. If
you are hard-wired to be a 100% believer in the physical world then
any spiritual arguments that anyone puts however logical cannot be
assimilated. I doubt whether it is so black or white in most people.
Anyone exposed to religious indoctrination, or any of the mass of
cultural superstition, is going to have some small part of their brain
that allows them to consider whether there is something apart from the
physical universe.
Yes. I agree that the comparison with language acquistion is helpful,
in that it's an innate, instinctive capacity. But I would also
observe that it's not just children who are the ones most receptive to
religious or political-ideological indoctrination. Remember that many
adults undergo substantial religious conversions (overcoming their
existing "hard-wiring," as you put it), and that the phenomena of the
Russian Revolution and Soviet State, and of Nazi Germany, al-Qaeda,
etc. shows us that it's not as simple as just "children believing what
they're told."
It's an innate capacity that affects adults just as much as it does
children, although it is manifested in different ways based on age and
existing beliefs and cultural/social environments.
It certainly deserves more attention as a subject of research than
it's currently getting, in my view.
DV
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
21 Feb 2004 03:22:06 PM |
|
|
In article <75ab9b03.0402190513.7003dd5a@posting.google.com>,
(Rick) wrote:
<Snip>
If it is true that a belief system is hard-wired at an early age like
language then it seems natural that the brain cannot accept something
that does not fit that belief system. You cannot over-ride the
hard-wiring. A creationist is going to make all evidence fit his
world-view, nothing can change it.
You are forgetting the presence of time there. With sufficient input a
creationist can change world view, but it is a major upheaval.
I doubt that there is an imprinting
specifically for creationism but more likely an imprinting for an
over-riding belief in the non-physical.
Creationism is a totally physical belief, with a physical god, a
physical resurrection, and a physical heaven. I consider it a form of
ultra materialism.
Of course, you will notice
that the same will go for an over-riding belief in the physical. If
you are hard-wired to be a 100% believer in the physical world then
any spiritual arguments that anyone puts however logical cannot be
assimilated. I doubt whether it is so black or white in most people.
Anyone exposed to religious indoctrination, or any of the mass of
cultural superstition, is going to have some small part of their brain
that allows them to consider whether there is something apart from the
physical universe.
As well as anyone sophisticated enough to deal with counter factuals. In
what sense does the number pi exist. It surely is does not have a
_physical_ existance, in fact the number one has no _physical_
existance. In fact both of us are nothing but reified concepts,
necessary to accept as real to function in society, but have only
transitory existance, _in constant interaction and dependence on the
environment_. In other societies the very concept of self and others is
different.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "NA Sides" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
19 Feb 2004 03:01:57 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:11:04 +0000 (UTC), (Rick)
wrote:
So how are we to account for such behavior? Is there some
psychological "brick wall" that somehow keeps them from understanding
normal science when that science seems to them to contradict some
theological dogma that they hold fast to? If so, just how does this
"brick wall" operate? Clearly, the proponents of modern science
education have not found a way so far to deal with this brick wall,
since it is seemingly still very much in operation in the minds of
creationists, in spite of all their attempts to break through it.
Is it possible that this is analogous to the learning of language? It
is now known that language is largely innate. There is a time-slot for
learning language that is only open in childhood. I believe the theory
is that the area of the brain for language is ready to hard-wire
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that we may possess innate
abilities and behavioral dispositions that operate during a fairly
long sensitive period during childhood and that, if the child is given
certain minimal opportunities, these abilities and dispositions
facilitate language acquisition. But these abilities and dispositions
may indeed be "hard-wired."
language but it requires stimuli. A child raised with no exposure to
language will never be able to understand grammar but will be able to
speak in a pidgin fashion if taught as an adult.
I'm not sure if a child totally unexposed to language during the
sensitive period can ever learn even that much. I may be wrong,
though.
So perhaps there is another area of the brain for "beliefs", or "world
view" that is also open for a time-slot during childhood. Many people
are brought up with religious indoctrination, including myself, but
children do necessarily believe everything that is thrown at them
especially if it conflicts with other evidence. Belief in fairies is a
problem for children because it conflicts with other evidence. When I
was 5 years old I had a crisis of belief because I started to doubt
that magic existed. I decided to do some experiments and the results
told me that magic did not exist contrary to what my parents had been
telling me by reading children's stories. I was too young to
understand that magic was fiction so had assumed that it was real. The
result of this early realisation in my belief system was no doubt
important when it came to other beliefs like Santa Claus and God.
Language acquisition may be more inflexibly tied in with a sensitive
period. Some people clearly do become religious believers late in life
and may acquire a quite rigid fundamentalist mind-set. But every
normal individual constructs a world view, with the process generally
being much influenced by what others believe and how they perceive the
world. It's interesting that people appear disposed to selectively
"tune-in" to a world view similar to those of others with their
"reference groups." This ability may point to the existence of innate
cognitive and psychosocial mechanisms associated with belief
acquisition and world view construction.
If it is true that a belief system is hard-wired at an early age like
language then it seems natural that the brain cannot accept something
that does not fit that belief system. You cannot over-ride the
hard-wiring. A creationist is going to make all evidence fit his
world-view, nothing can change it. I doubt that there is an imprinting
specifically for creationism but more likely an imprinting for an
over-riding belief in the non-physical. Of course, you will notice
that the same will go for an over-riding belief in the physical. If
you are hard-wired to be a 100% believer in the physical world then
any spiritual arguments that anyone puts however logical cannot be
assimilated. I doubt whether it is so black or white in most people.
Anyone exposed to religious indoctrination, or any of the mass of
cultural superstition, is going to have some small part of their brain
that allows them to consider whether there is something apart from the
physical universe.
The claim seems well supported now that both autochthonous and
artificially induced stimulation of certain brain areas, notably in
the temporal region, can induce religious or mystical experiences.
Thus it's no longer all that controversial to suppose that human
beings are in some sense "hard-wired" for religion. I've had such
experiences myself and still don't know what to make of them.
NAS
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SReeseMe" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
08 Feb 2004 06:11:23 PM |
|
|
Subject: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds?
From: (darth_versive)
Date: 02/08/2004 2:41 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <8e0e3045.0402081143.3cd4b563@posting.google.com>
How are we to account for the observation that so many creationists,
when repeatedly confronted with overwhelming evidence in support of
the theory of evolution, seem either to not comprehend this evidence,
or to discount it without serious thought, or with clearly specious
reasoning?
That's the way their fundie leaders program them: Have utter faith in the
fundie leaders and the Bible and utter distrust of anything else.
It's much too easy to suppose that they really *do* understand it, and
yet for some cynical, ulterior motives, choose to pretend that they
don't. This explanation just doesn't hold water.
Not all but some of these folks *do* understand it but pretend they don't.
What percentage of fall into this catagory I have no idea.
Some of the things
they say seem so nonsensical that it's hard to believe that anyone
would willingly invite ridicule for saying such things if they really
understood how silly they were, and that people would deliberately
damage their own cause by such statements.
Maybe its part of a herd mentality? Remember fundies tend to only associate
with other fundies where their weird beliefs are accepted as "normal."
So how are we to account for such behavior? Is there some
psychological "brick wall" that somehow keeps them from understanding
normal science when that science seems to them to contradict some
theological dogma that they hold fast to? If so, just how does this
"brick wall" operate? Clearly, the proponents of modern science
education have not found a way so far to deal with this brick wall,
since it is seemingly still very much in operation in the minds of
creationists, in spite of all their attempts to break through it.
DV
The brick wall reminds me of the idea of "doublethink" in Orwell's novel 1984.
How otherwise sane people dip into this form of insanity is beyond me. Some
creationists are very intelligent, very well read hold jobs as engineers,
chemists, bankers, lawyers, etc, but bring up parts of science that contradicts
their mythology and they suddenly morph into some sort of bible thumping
Forrest Gump.
It's depressing to watch them in action and even more so to pass this insanity
on to their children.
-Stephen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brainfried" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
09 Feb 2004 12:00:56 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:11:23 +0000, SReeseMe wrote:
It's depressing to watch them in action and even more so to pass this insanity
on to their children.
My daugther (7) was talking to me today about ghosts and such. (read
supernatural) I don't know how we got onto that topic. Anyway, she said
that there is no such thing. (I think she's figured out that there's no
Santa Claus either, but keeps her mouth shut to keep getting gifts. hehe)
I started at a young age with her concerning boogiemen and such. I told
her that there was no such thing. There is no reason to be afraid of
the dark. There is no reason to be afraid to look in a closet or under
her bed. I've always worked to develop trust with her. If something
will hurt, I tell her it will. No lies, ever. She continues to thrive,
she continues to be a leader, she organizes the kids in the apartment
complex into various activities. She woke up the other day and
proclaimed, "I've planned out my whole day." My friends always want me to
send her over to play with their kids because she is such a good influence
and has been described as the "smart one" when other people try to
describe her amongst a group of kids. (as if bleach blonde hair and blue
eyes compared to brown hair and brown eyes couldn't do it)
How wonderful it must be to not be afraid to look under her bed. I know I
was because of the ***** programming I received. My childhood wasn't
so great but I know it wasn't nearly as bad as some. I couldn't
wait to grow up and get out on my own. I always tell my daughter
to enjoy being a kid. You only get to be a kid once and you will
eventually grow up, so don't hurry. I want her to have a wonderful
childhood and I know she is. IMHO, supernatural programming is abusive.
My daugher knows I don't believe in gawd. Her mother (basically now a
fundie who lied, cheated, and married the other man) does and takes her to
church when she has her. I'm sure that some day we will discuss gawd when
I can show her some things in a Bible that she will be able to understand,
but in the meantime, I'll keep working to keep the supernatural
programming to a minimum.
I strongly believe that my daughter is so wonderful because I am HONEST
with her and don't fill her head full of *****. (yeah, Santa Claus and
the Easter Bunny are the exceptions and are considered fun, benevolent
things that children eventually learn the truth about with no real harm
done) Gawd and monsters are mean and cruel.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brainfried" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
09 Feb 2004 12:30:06 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:00:56 +0000, Brainfried wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:11:23 +0000, SReeseMe wrote:
It's depressing to watch them in action and even more so to pass this insanity
on to their children.
My daugther (7) was talking to me today about ghosts and such. (read
supernatural) I don't know how we got onto that topic. Anyway, she said
that there is no such thing. (I think she's figured out that there's no
Santa Claus either, but keeps her mouth shut to keep getting gifts. hehe)
I started at a young age with her concerning boogiemen and such. I told
her that there was no such thing. There is no reason to be afraid of
the dark. There is no reason to be afraid to look in a closet or under
her bed. I've always worked to develop trust with her. If something
will hurt, I tell her it will. No lies, ever. She continues to thrive,
she continues to be a leader, she organizes the kids in the apartment
complex into various activities. She woke up the other day and
proclaimed, "I've planned out my whole day." My friends always want me to
send her over to play with their kids because she is such a good influence
and has been described as the "smart one" when other people try to
describe her amongst a group of kids. (as if bleach blonde hair and blue
eyes compared to brown hair and brown eyes couldn't do it)
How wonderful it must be to not be afraid to look under her bed. I know I
was because of the ***** programming I received. My childhood wasn't
so great but I know it wasn't nearly as bad as some. I couldn't
wait to grow up and get out on my own. I always tell my daughter
to enjoy being a kid. You only get to be a kid once and you will
eventually grow up, so don't hurry. I want her to have a wonderful
childhood and I know she is. IMHO, supernatural programming is abusive.
My daugher knows I don't believe in gawd. Her mother (basically now a
fundie who lied, cheated, and married the other man) does and takes her to
church when she has her. I'm sure that some day we will discuss gawd when
I can show her some things in a Bible that she will be able to understand,
but in the meantime, I'll keep working to keep the supernatural
programming to a minimum.
I strongly believe that my daughter is so wonderful because I am HONEST
with her and don't fill her head full of *****. (yeah, Santa Claus and
the Easter Bunny are the exceptions and are considered fun, benevolent
things that children eventually learn the truth about with no real harm
done) Gawd and monsters are mean and cruel.
Something just hit me.
I guess I've been teaching my daughter is that there is nothing to fear.
Without fear, life is wonderful.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: creationalism |
08 Feb 2004 06:18:03 PM |
|
|
Creationalism assumes a materialist stance, amongst others, and so must come
worse off when set against the theory of evolution. But the materialist
stance of evolution theory is fundamentally flawed, as I pointed out a few
posts ago.
JJ
darth_versive <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e0e3045.0402081143.3cd4b563@posting.google.com...
How are we to account for the observation that so many creationists,
when repeatedly confronted with overwhelming evidence in support of
the theory of evolution, seem either to not comprehend this evidence,
or to discount it without serious thought, or with clearly specious
reasoning?
It's much too easy to suppose that they really *do* understand it, and
yet for some cynical, ulterior motives, choose to pretend that they
don't. This explanation just doesn't hold water. Some of the things
they say seem so nonsensical that it's hard to believe that anyone
would willingly invite ridicule for saying such things if they really
understood how silly they were, and that people would deliberately
damage their own cause by such statements.
So how are we to account for such behavior? Is there some
psychological "brick wall" that somehow keeps them from understanding
normal science when that science seems to them to contradict some
theological dogma that they hold fast to? If so, just how does this
"brick wall" operate? Clearly, the proponents of modern science
education have not found a way so far to deal with this brick wall,
since it is seemingly still very much in operation in the minds of
creationists, in spite of all their attempts to break through it.
DV
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: creationalism |
08 Feb 2004 06:28:00 PM |
|
|
Creationalism assumes a materialist stance, amongst others, and so must come
worse off when set against the theory of evolution. But the materialist
stance of evolution theory is fundamentally flawed, as I pointed out a few
posts ago.
JJ
darth_versive <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e0e3045.0402081143.3cd4b563@posting.google.com...
How are we to account for the observation that so many creationists,
when repeatedly confronted with overwhelming evidence in support of
the theory of evolution, seem either to not comprehend this evidence,
or to discount it without serious thought, or with clearly specious
reasoning?
It's much too easy to suppose that they really *do* understand it, and
yet for some cynical, ulterior motives, choose to pretend that they
don't. This explanation just doesn't hold water. Some of the things
they say seem so nonsensical that it's hard to believe that anyone
would willingly invite ridicule for saying such things if they really
understood how silly they were, and that people would deliberately
damage their own cause by such statements.
So how are we to account for such behavior? Is there some
psychological "brick wall" that somehow keeps them from understanding
normal science when that science seems to them to contradict some
theological dogma that they hold fast to? If so, just how does this
"brick wall" operate? Clearly, the proponents of modern science
education have not found a way so far to deal with this brick wall,
since it is seemingly still very much in operation in the minds of
creationists, in spite of all their attempts to break through it.
DV
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: creationalism |
08 Feb 2004 06:37:58 PM |
|
|
Creationalism assumes a materialist stance, amongst others, and so must come
worse off when set against the theory of evolution. But the materialist
stance of evolution theory is fundamentally flawed, as I pointed out a few
posts ago.
JJ
darth_versive <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e0e3045.0402081143.3cd4b563@posting.google.com...
How are we to account for the observation that so many creationists,
when repeatedly confronted with overwhelming evidence in support of
the theory of evolution, seem either to not comprehend this evidence,
or to discount it without serious thought, or with clearly specious
reasoning?
It's much too easy to suppose that they really *do* understand it, and
yet for some cynical, ulterior motives, choose to pretend that they
don't. This explanation just doesn't hold water. Some of the things
they say seem so nonsensical that it's hard to believe that anyone
would willingly invite ridicule for saying such things if they really
understood how silly they were, and that people would deliberately
damage their own cause by such statements.
So how are we to account for such behavior? Is there some
psychological "brick wall" that somehow keeps them from understanding
normal science when that science seems to them to contradict some
theological dogma that they hold fast to? If so, just how does this
"brick wall" operate? Clearly, the proponents of modern science
education have not found a way so far to deal with this brick wall,
since it is seemingly still very much in operation in the minds of
creationists, in spite of all their attempts to break through it.
DV
.
|
|
|
| User: "\Rev Dr\ Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: creationalism |
08 Feb 2004 07:03:51 PM |
|
|
John Jones wrote:
Creationalism assumes a materialist stance, amongst others, and so must come
worse off when set against the theory of evolution. But the materialist
stance of evolution theory is fundamentally flawed, as I pointed out a few
posts ago.
What "materialist stance of evolution theory"? Evolutionary theory no
more has any "materialist stance" than does weather forecasting or
accident investigation.
If you feel otherwise, please cite which one of the steps of the
scientific method requires, enforces or necessitates "materialism".
Please be specific.
After that, you can explain to me why it's OK for weather forecasting to
be "materialist" but not OIK for evolutionary biology.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "wanderer" |
|
| Title: Re: creationalism |
10 Feb 2004 08:27:43 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 01:03:51 +0000, "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank wrote:
John Jones wrote:
Creationalism assumes a materialist stance, amongst others, and so must come
worse off when set against the theory of evolution. But the materialist
stance of evolution theory is fundamentally flawed, as I pointed out a few
posts ago.
What "materialist stance of evolution theory"? Evolutionary theory no
more has any "materialist stance" than does weather forecasting or
accident investigation.
If you feel otherwise, please cite which one of the steps of the
scientific method requires, enforces or necessitates "materialism".
Please be specific.
After that, you can explain to me why it's OK for weather forecasting to
be "materialist" but not OIK for evolutionary biology.
science limits itself to what can be observed and proven physically.. yet,
in evolution theory, as well as weather forecasting, it admits a "random
element" which is fundamental to the process. i.e. random gene mutations,
or random lightning strikes. science has no justification for the
outcome of so-called random events, only a statistical approximation..
because it limits itself to materialist observation, physical measurement.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: creationalism |
10 Feb 2004 08:49:25 PM |
|
|
wanderer wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 01:03:51 +0000, "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank wrote:
[snip]
science limits itself to what can be observed and proven physically.. yet,
in evolution theory, as well as weather forecasting, it admits a "random
element" which is fundamental to the process. i.e. random gene mutations,
or random lightning strikes. science has no justification for the
outcome of so-called random events, only a statistical approximation..
because it limits itself to materialist observation, physical measurement.
Wrong! The mutations may be random, but the causes of those random
mutations are well understood. Would you claim we don't understand
gravity because we can't predict exactly how a pair of dice will come up?
"Random" is not the same as "not understood" or "mystical" or
"spritual". It's just random.
Enkidu
--
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we
go to church we're just making him madder and madder"
--Homer Simpson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R.Schenck" |
|
| Title: Re: creationalism |
10 Feb 2004 10:08:06 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 02:27:43 +0000 (UTC), wanderer
<aaron@NOSPAMomadin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 01:03:51 +0000, "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank wrote:
John Jones wrote:
Creationalism assumes a materialist stance, amongst others, and so must come
worse off when set against the theory of evolution. But the materialist
stance of evolution theory is fundamentally flawed, as I pointed out a few
posts ago.
What "materialist stance of evolution theory"? Evolutionary theory no
more has any "materialist stance" than does weather forecasting or
accident investigation.
If you feel otherwise, please cite which one of the steps of the
scientific method requires, enforces or necessitates "materialism".
Please be specific.
After that, you can explain to me why it's OK for weather forecasting to
be "materialist" but not OIK for evolutionary biology.
science limits itself to what can be observed and proven physically.. yet,
in evolution theory, as well as weather forecasting, it admits a "random
element" which is fundamental to the process. i.e. random gene mutations,
or random lightning strikes. science has no justification for the
outcome of so-called random events, only a statistical approximation..
because it limits itself to materialist observation, physical measurement.
what do you mean it has no justification? it can't explain it in
materialistic terms? are you saying a throw of the dice invloves
super-natural forces becuase of any randomness in the system?
The motions of particles in a gas are random. does that mean i can
inflate a ballon without filling it with air? does that mean the gas
laws are supernatural or non materialistic?
i think you are conflating the randomness of the effect of the
mutation with how the mutations are being induced. For example, UV
radiation damages dna. its not a random process, it happens according
to relatively well established materialistic events/mechanisms.
perhaps the orientation of the nucleous when the particular uv
radiation strikes it is more or less random, and that has an
influence, but i dont think -that- is what you mean. And whether its
a gene coding for fingernail density of elasticity of the membranes
holding your intestines in place is random in that respect. I mean,
sure, science can't say, why did it happen this way, why did the chain
of events that ended with this gene getting mutated occur instead of
an other equally likely one, sure science cant answer why. But it
-can- answer how it happened. it can delineate the chain of events.
that what darwins theory does, it delineate the material/actual
mechanism by which evolution occurs. It doesn't answer 'why' in the
sense used before. if thats a fault well, then thats a fault.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Wostenberg" |
|
| Title: Re: creationalism |
12 Feb 2004 03:17:32 PM |
|
|
\"Rev Dr\" Lenny Flank wrote:
John Jones wrote:
Creationalism assumes a materialist stance, amongst others, and so must come
worse off when set against the theory of evolution. But the materialist
stance of evolution theory is fundamentally flawed, as I pointed out a few
posts ago.
What "materialist stance of evolution theory"? Evolutionary theory no
more has any "materialist stance" than does weather forecasting or
accident investigation.
If you feel otherwise, please cite which one of the steps of the
scientific method requires, enforces or necessitates "materialism".
Please be specific.
After that, you can explain to me why it's OK for weather forecasting to
be "materialist" but not OIK for evolutionary biology.
Wether forecasting is empirical, evolutionary biology is historical.
Empirical sciences necesarilly explain by way of natural laws, but
historical sciences need not. If for example in an arson investigation
somebody asked "how did the fire start?" and our investigator responded
by appealing to some law, such as "because in the presence of oxygen
flamibles combust", what would we say? He did not so much answer
wrongly, as misunderstand the question.
We were not asking for an explanation that appeals to natural laws or
makes predictions, but to a reconstruction of past events to explain
present features of the universe. Such reconstruction may appeal to
natural as well as intelligent agents. We expect our arson investigator
not to quite the law of combustion, but determine if the fire had
natural or intelligent causes.
Likewise, when we ask "what is the origin of man?" we are not asking for
a general law, but a reconstruction of past events to explain present
features of the world. Him who quotes a law of population genetics, like
him who quotes the law of combustion, has misunderstood the question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: creationalism |
12 Feb 2004 10:54:57 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins I read this message from Alan Wostenberg
<awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com>:
\"Rev Dr\" Lenny Flank wrote:
John Jones wrote:
Creationalism assumes a materialist stance, amongst others, and so must come
worse off when set against the theory of evolution. But the materialist
stance of evolution theory is fundamentally flawed, as I pointed out a few
posts ago.
What "materialist stance of evolution theory"? Evolutionary theory no
more has any "materialist stance" than does weather forecasting or
accident investigation.
If you feel otherwise, please cite which one of the steps of the
scientific method requires, enforces or necessitates "materialism".
Please be specific.
After that, you can explain to me why it's OK for weather forecasting to
be "materialist" but not OIK for evolutionary biology.
Wether forecasting is empirical, evolutionary biology is historical.
Do you have a reason for developing these new categories. My
experience is that both meteorology and evolutionary biology
examine the past and have models that predict future
observations.
Empirical sciences necesarilly explain by way of natural laws,
As does evolutionary biology.
but
historical sciences need not. If for example in an arson investigation
somebody asked "how did the fire start?" and our investigator responded
by appealing to some law, such as "because in the presence of oxygen
flamibles combust", what would we say? He did not so much answer
wrongly, as misunderstand the question.
And, yet, that is exactly how forensics works, they appeal to
natural laws. You don't see them say "maybe some unknown
unconstrained entity did some unknown thing at some unknown
time". Nor do they do the nonsense you suggest, no scientists
makes such vague comments. They might say "oxygen from this hole
in the wall fed this fuel supply here combined with this heat
source".
We were not asking for an explanation that appeals to natural laws or
makes predictions, but to a reconstruction of past events to explain
present features of the universe.
I want my explanations of the past to fit with natural laws. You
do seem to prefer explanations that don't.
Such reconstruction may appeal to
natural as well as intelligent agents. We expect our arson investigator
not to quite the law of combustion, but determine if the fire had
natural or intelligent causes.
Do you know of any fire that had intelligent, but not natural
causes?
Likewise, when we ask "what is the origin of man?" we are not asking for
a general law, but a reconstruction of past events to explain present
features of the world.
One that fits with natural laws. You are free to propose
histories of the Earth that don't fit our understanding of
natural law.
Him who quotes a law of population genetics, like
him who quotes the law of combustion, has misunderstood the question.
Right, you combine the models, the laws, with the observations.
--
Matt Silberstein
I want to be different, I just don't want to change.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
16 Feb 2004 06:14:57 PM |
|
|
No, it's a wall of solid unobtainium.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
08 Feb 2004 03:47:12 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:41:42 +0000 (UTC),
(darth_versive) posted in alt.atheism:
How are we to account for the observation that so many creationists,
when repeatedly confronted with overwhelming evidence in support of
the theory of evolution, seem either to not comprehend this evidence,
or to discount it without serious thought, or with clearly specious
reasoning?
They need their beliefs to remain sane, so they reject anything
threatening those beliefs. It's that simple. The human mind won't
willingly commit psychological suicide.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "ta" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
08 Feb 2004 04:38:09 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9jbd20pvkosnemd73pcsqvtu5ft9lagtru@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:41:42 +0000 (UTC),
(darth_versive) posted in alt.atheism:
How are we to account for the observation that so many creationists,
when repeatedly confronted with overwhelming evidence in support of
the theory of evolution, seem either to not comprehend this evidence,
or to discount it without serious thought, or with clearly specious
reasoning?
They need their beliefs to remain sane, so they reject anything
threatening those beliefs. It's that simple. The human mind won't
willingly commit psychological suicide.
You're absolutely right, but let's be fair and acknowledge that this
phenonemon is certainly not unique to creationists (and I realize you aren't
necessarily suggesting that it is). Any belief system, including the current
prevailing one in western society, which places blind faith in science and
technology, is subject to the same sort of criticism.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Will" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
08 Feb 2004 10:31:18 PM |
|
|
"ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<qRyVb.28348$qK3.13090@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9jbd20pvkosnemd73pcsqvtu5ft9lagtru@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:41:42 +0000 (UTC),
(darth_versive) posted in alt.atheism:
How are we to account for the observation that so many creationists,
when repeatedly confronted with overwhelming evidence in support of
the theory of evolution, seem either to not comprehend this evidence,
or to discount it without serious thought, or with clearly specious
reasoning?
They need their beliefs to remain sane, so they reject anything
threatening those beliefs. It's that simple. The human mind won't
willingly commit psychological suicide.
You're absolutely right, but let's be fair and acknowledge that this
phenonemon is certainly not unique to creationists (and I realize you aren't
necessarily suggesting that it is). Any belief system, including the current
prevailing one in western society, which places blind faith in science and
technology, is subject to the same sort of criticism.
Oh, horseshit! Your assertion is utterly asinine. The very essence of
science is NOT to put blind faith in anything, but to rely on
observations, reason and proveable results. Do you disagree? Do you
seriously think science is a form of faith? Well, the next time you
want to talk to your friend across town, try telepathy rather than the
telephone. The next you want to visit the store, try astral projection
rather than taking your car. You are surrounded by, sustained by,
employed by, fed by, and live by the products of science. This
nonsense about science being a "belief system" is nothing but a
foolish conceit of the willfully ignorant.
Will
.
|
|
| | |
