Does anybody understand why Creationists continue to reject evoltion?

[scisyhp]

What I really fail to understand is how they continue to reject it despite the fact that there is so much information on the subject, and the information that there is, is so overwhelming. I mean, isn't there a certain point where your faith has to take a back seat to easily varifiable, grade school science? http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Many Creationists claim that they don't believe in it becouse evolution is bad science, and scientists do not know what they are doing. Now I ask them this, do you have any idea how any of the technology in our world works? How your cell phone, or your car, or your television, or the computer and internet you are using right now work? No. Now maybe the scientists who are making all of these things possible also know something about how evolution works.

What I would like to know is why they continue to reject something that really isn't that difficult to grasp?

[Minnesota]

Their religious belief leaves them no other alternative. The fundie mind set filters every fact of life through their faith, and when that faith requires blind obedience to their interpretation of the Bible, evolution is de facto ruled out. The nonsense they come up with to counter the evidence of evolution is merely grasping at straws to keep their doubts in check. Should they admit that any evolutionary evidence might have validity it would be seen as a chink in their belief, which they cannot afford. So to counter the robust basis of evolution they are forced into making idiotic statements, and distort or ignore the facts. They live a life of silly denial, but then that's the trade off for the security they need in order to make it through life without falling apart.















I know, I know, the last was a bit of overstatement, but I kind of like it.

[Meh_Gerbil]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderator Notice

thiest in non-theist only area.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Barry Desborough]

... to counter the robust basis of evolution they are forced into making idiotic statements, and distort or ignore the facts. They live a life of silly denial, but then that's the trade off for the security they need in order to make it through life without falling apart.

I know, I know, the last was a bit of overstatement, but I kind of like it.

I do think personality type might come into it (plus exposure to indoctrination or propaganda). There seems to be a need for a feeling of absolute certainty which is a need that many other people lack. I think the feeling of certainty is more important than what the certainty is about.

I wonder if any studies have been done on personality type and fundamentalism?

[zorathruster]

What I would like to know is why they continue to reject something that really isn't that difficult to grasp?

1. Many theists realize that the "fundamentalist" perspective of literal truth of the bible conflicts with the observed and verified evolution of organisms.

2. Theism rests on many unverifiable aspects which conflicts with scientific methodology that insists on verification and repetition.

3. It is important for humans to be part of a group. In some societies, they walk over hot coals, some pierce body parts, in New Guenia it was necessary to kill someone from a neighboring village, all this to be part of the group. It is often difficult to perform the task, but it forms a common experience that brings the group together, kind of initiation. Theism requires a belief in patently unbelievable events. It doesn't take much dedication to believe something that is possible or true, but it takes devotion to profess believing in the patently unbelievable.

[sylas]

What I really fail to understand is how they continue to reject it despite the fact that there is so much information on the subject, and the information that there is, is so overwhelming. I mean, isn't there a certain point where your faith has to take a back seat to easily varifiable, grade school science?

I think the answer to your question here is no.

We might consider it naive, but it's a judgement call that is outside the scope of science to address... by definition. For some people, their faith is first, and science takes the back seat. This only becomes a problem when science conflicts with tenents of beliefs taken on faith. The findings of science don't refute all of Christianity; but there are a sizeable number of believers who hold by faith to some things that conflict with the discoveries of science.

Many Christians are not particularly interested in science. There's more than enough misinformation around; and you can't actually "easily verify" the matter without a bit of judgement as to what sources you use.

Cheers -- Sylas

[scisyhp]

Many Christians are not particularly interested in science. There's more than enough misinformation around; and you can't actually "easily verify" the matter without a bit of judgement as to what sources you use.

Cheers -- Sylas

This is just a pet peeve of mine, but it really makes me angry when Christians insult science or don't believe something becouse their faith conflicts with it, For example believing that the earth is 6000 years old is rediculus, it's really not even a matter of faith at a certain point it's common sence. I find it incredibly hypocritical that they may choose to insult or not believe science despite the fact that they use it everyday, don't believe in the big bang or evolution but if your going to do that stop being a hypocrit and using science at all, stop using you car, your computer, your television, Christians need to do one or the other, either accept science and common sence, or givie both up, but for gods sake stop being hypocrits.

[XaositectCrayon]

This is just a pet peeve of mine, but it really makes me angry when Christians insult science or don't believe something becouse their faith conflicts with it, For example believing that the earth is 6000 years old is rediculus, it's really not even a matter of faith at a certain point it's common sence. I find it incredibly hypocritical that they may choose to insult or not believe science despite the fact that they use it everyday, don't believe in the big bang or evolution but if your going to do that stop being a hypocrit and using science at all, stop using you car, your computer, your television, Christians need to do one or the other, either accept science and common sence, or givie both up, but for gods sake stop being hypocrits.

science is open to disagreement... if they disagree it's their perogative

[Bagger_Vance]

For kicks and giggles?

[scisyhp]

science is open to disagreement... if they disagree it's their perogative

Yes, but they're not Disagreeing becouse they see holes in the science, they're disagreeing becouse they are told to, I don't see any of them attacking the theory of gravity, a theory that may have more holes than any other theory in physics, but they will attack very strong, fundamental science, like the geological fact that the Earth is 4.3 billion years old, it's rediculus. I think there's a time and a place for faith, just like there's a time and place for common sence.

[yuzuha]

I do think personality type might come into it (plus exposure to indoctrination or propaganda). There seems to be a need for a feeling of absolute certainty which is a need that many other people lack. I think the feeling of certainty is more important than what the certainty is about.

I wonder if any studies have been done on personality type and fundamentalism?

I think you have a point there. There are some pretty rigid "by the book" people out there (maybe they are afraid of making a mistake or don't want to think, but blindly follow some formula... I was supervising the recovery of work after a major disk crash and when I told the techs how to run a particular type of job for the recovery, only to have this woman argue with me that I was wrong because the day-to-day operations manual... that I wrote... said to do it a different way. I finally got so frustrated that I grabbed the book and penned in "unless there is a software/hardware failure and your software analyst or supervisor tell you to follow a different proceedure for the durration of the recovery." At which, she sputtered a bit and looked at me begrudgingly). That was 25 years ago and I still don't understand people like that.

I've also seen a few psych themselves up into thinking they were having a heart attack (since it was in a work setting, they were also feeding off of everyone's panic'd concern) come back from the hospital as born again fundie's (they were actually just hyperventillating, but it never hurts to call emergency just to be sure). I can only guess that they were afraid they were going to die and made some deal with god about living. So, now they have to believe 'lest they be "recalled" for renigging on a divine deal.

Maybe others blind themselves as a way of protecting themselves from their angst of living in an uncertain world or the mistaken notion that they shouldn't exist if they have no reason for being, or the sterility of a mechanistic, clock-work universe (forget quantum mechanics, people are still hung-up and responding to pre-Victorian notions of a clock-work universe, and often seem that their understanding of science is over a century or two out of date)?

On the other hand, I know some very religious people (a couple of nuns and a minister) who do not reject science. They took a more philosophical attitude and didn't take themselves too seriously (they seem psychologically healthy and are willing to admit that their beliefs may be wrong, but their religion "feels right" to them). They're psychologically flexible and adaptable, and quite pleasant to be around (I was not even offended at one of them calling me her "favorite heathen" because she was fond of me and came up with it as an attempt at ironic humor, and our theological discussions never escalated to anything more than a friendly probing of each other's philosophy/psychology).

It would be interesting to see if there is a correllation between personality type and educational level vs theism/agnosticism/atheism. But I have a feeling there is a definite correllation between personality and how they use or handle their beliefs, or lack thereof (dogmatic atheism?). It would also be interesting to see what sort of personality is prone to becoming an avid believer in alien abductions or crop circles?

[XaositectCrayon]

Yes, but they're not Disagreeing becouse they see holes in the science, they're disagreeing becouse they are told to, I don't see any of them attacking the theory of gravity, a theory that may have more holes than any other theory in physics, but they will attack very strong, fundamental science, like the geological fact that the Earth is 4.3 billion years old, it's rediculus. I think there's a time and a place for faith, just like there's a time and place for common sence.

yeah but you are still putting an "all or nothing" stance... I'm sure you'd complain about a Christian acting like that

[Griggsy]

Indeed some lie - take out of context passages- in order to save morality !

[neonmagek]

The thing is, they don't grasp it (general speaking) because they don't want to. The vast majority of them don't even know what Evolution is. All they know is it was something started by Charles Darwin and it has people comming to be, with out a god zapping them into existance. They want to beleive a God zap us into being so they pretend Evolution just HAS to be wrong. Most of them do not know what science is either.

[zorathruster]

Fear! They fear the total collapse of structured society because they find rational reason to believe without religion anarchy would rule.

How did I get to that on the topic of evolution?

Religion forms a support structure to help people deal with the realities and randomness of life. Religions help deal with death and random bad events as well as reward (when ever something good happens, its because the entity that controls everything likes you). That support structure needs devoted and dedicated members. To ensure everyone is truly dedicated, they put out precepts (such as special creation) which have a mountain of contradictory evidence. The vast amount of evidence for evolution being just part of the equation. These false precepts ensure you can distinguish the "truly dedicated" from the non-dedicated. You have to be truly dedicated to accept many of the churches ideas, like virgin birth, transmutation of the host, ...

Theist believe that the world order would break down when their precepts are confronted and shown to be invalid. They fear the associated anarchy more than they desire truth to be disseminated. They need to distinguish the true believers from the chaff. This Mega meme has multiple reinforcing attributes that all come together to form the modern religious perspective. Denying evolution is one way they can reinforce their religious perspective.