Creationism and Ignorance

[John V]

But the mutations are essentially random (though truly random is hard to find).  It is the selection process which is not random.

Right, and the changes in populations over time relies on this non-random selection process.

Except for when the changes aren't random. Again, drift isn't random. Consider vitamin C synthesis, or rather the lack thereof in certain species, including us.

---

Looking further into the numbers in OP regarding people who don't think there a scientific consensus:

- in the creationists, about 50% don't think there's consensus

- in the evolutionists, about 25% don't think there's a consensus.

So, there's significant ignorance (if that explanation is correct) among the evolution believers as well.

The concise definition of evolution given from qualified sources has been rejected by evolutionists here.

That concise definition would be agreed upon by most creationists anyway.

We can't come up with a replacement definition that's concise and accurate.

It's really not surprising that there's a discrepancy.

Pew is usually pretty good, but in this case I don't think they understood the issues well enough to ask the right questions.

[Fake Messiah]

- in the evolutionists, about 25% don't think there's a consensus.

So, there's significant ignorance (if that explanation is correct) among the evolution believers as well.

Yes there is some ignorance about evolution even among people who acknowledge it. Unfortunately if someone supports evolution does not mean that he or she understands it well. He/she understands it to some degree, to what they were thought in school, but haven't read more about it.

And here lies the reason why

[FatAndFaithless]

Yeah, the public's belief about a scientific consensus doesn't change the fact of the actual scientific consensus. Even highly educated non-scientists (like surgeons or lawyers or dentists) can get shit pretty wrong -> see Ben Carson.

[Amarok]

Just because you ACCEPT something (Because it's an indisputable fact ) Does not mean ones knowledgeable about it. And there is zero doubt in mainstream science that evolution occurs . So you attempts a muddying the waters to pretend your absurd creationist bullshit is a valid or equal is just that . And there is no such thing as an evolutionist there are those who accept the scientific reality and those who ignorantly or willfully deny it .

---

Yeah, the public's belief about a scientific consensus doesn't change the fact of the actual scientific consensus.  Even highly educated non-scientists (like surgeons or lawyers or dentists) can get shit pretty wrong -> see Ben Carson.

Indeed scientific consensus is not always consistent with public consensus. Yet another thing creationists try and take advantage of for propaganda .

[Drich]

In a recent post, I said that contemporary Christian culture has an ignorance problem. Roughly a third of the people in this country outright deny evolution, claiming that humans were created in the form they hold today. A third is a lot--too damn many if you ask me.

I've gotten into debates on other forums with fundies who claim that scientists are misinterpreting the data. All this is fine and good, but even assuming that scientists are misinterpreting the data, the reason that many evangelicals accept creationism is not because they have looked at the data and concluded a misinterpretation on the part of scientists. They are simply malinformed. See the chart below:


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...arwin-day/

It seems peculiar to me that roughly a third of the population accepts the doctrine of creationism and roughly a third imagines that there is some sort of disagreement between scientists concerning evolution. Methinks there is some overlap between those who are misinformed about the position of scientists and those who accept creationism.

I felt like I should post this thread not only to justify my earlier statements about the ignorance problem but also to highlight the problem itself... hopefully prompting discussion. Even if creationism is true, this is inexcusable and it represents anti-intellectualism and rejection of the facts at its finest.

But where does the problem lie? Is it with our education system? Religious indoctrination? Both? Neither? Regardless of where one stands on the issue, I think we can all admit that a third of the population being malinformed is problematic.

Supplementary information:

---

---

the problem lies in a misunderstanding of what genesis 1 2 and three 3 are communicating, and how it can not work with any for of evolution

[John V]

Yeah, the public's belief about a scientific consensus doesn't change the fact of the actual scientific consensus.  

No, it doesn't. Yet, that's the topic of the thread.

[Angrboda]

If only, huh?  The cynical flexibility of true believers allows them to utilize technology even when they deny the reality and efficacy of the underlying mechanism.  They might not believe in the demonic forgery of physics or the materialist lie of genetics...but they'll launch the missile with a biological warhead all the same.

You know..I can't really get worked up worrying about war.  I'm less and less concerned with the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons.  The thought of designer bioweapons..though, terrifies me*.  It's one of my many tics.  While I doubt that these will ever be cooked up by the real nutters...they are the people I would expect to use them.  Apocalyptic weapons in the hands of an apocalyptic death cult, the fear is real.

*unless we come up with them first, innoculate ourselves against them...and then weaponize our entire populace as latent hosts while selling the rest of the world "treatment" - then I'm all for it...Now Pay Me!

The true believers don't have to think. They'll just pay someone to develop their bioweapons for them.

[FatAndFaithless]

Yeah, the public's belief about a scientific consensus doesn't change the fact of the actual scientific consensus.  

No, it doesn't. Yet, that's the topic of the thread.

Sure, which is why we've been talking about ways to make evolution more understandable.  But even those that do not accept evolution MUST acknowledge that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on the topic, and that painting the issue as a 'controversy' in science or listing of 50 PhDs that reject evolution is laughably dishonest.

[Mister Agenda]

Project Steve is a pretty good demonstration of how ludicrous Alpha's book link is.

https://ncse.com/project-steve

And not that they're not from a 'wide variety of fields'. They scientists whose names are Steve or some reasonable variation of Steve, whose credentials are relevant to the study of evolution (in the biological sciences). How is the opinion of an electrical engineer of weight when it comes to evolution?

[Whateverist]

No, it doesn't. Yet, that's the topic of the thread.

Sure, which is why we've been talking about ways to make evolution more understandable.  But even those that do not accept evolution MUST acknowledge that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on the topic, and that painting the issue as a 'controversy' in science or listing of 50 PhDs that reject evolution is laughably dishonest.

*my bold*

Contradicted by the facts sadly, but not because there isn't sufficient reason to accept it. For those who don't accept it, reason just isn't fully engaged.