Creationism and Ignorance

[vulcanlogician]

I've read the book. They have pretty good credentials.

You're missing the point, man. And your book is part of the problem. It's taking a small sample size of scientists and using them to "demonstrate" that evolution is up for debate within the scientific community.

BTW, the book was in response to an evolutionist challenging creationists to come up with a single scientist with a PhD who doesn't accept mainstream thought on evolution. This book has 50 of them, and he turned away a lot more for space considerations.

So one dumbass comes up with a dumbass challenge that is easily toppled fifty times over by creationists with an agenda. The book should have been called That One Guy was Wrong instead of In Six Days. It's almost like a practical example of a strawman.

The contributors to this book felt secure in their positions. Some scientists who have questioned evolution, or just presented results seemingly at odds with evolution, have had their careers affected. Some poll respondents may be factoring this in as well.

I don't care who "feels" secure in their opinion. I'd like to get the whole story on those who have had their careers affected, because creationists have overblown such claims in the past (like in Ben Stein's movie about design). I'm all for any scientific theory being scrutinized. And if there is a real case of real data being suppressed or genuine research being stifled, that's an issue. Give me a tangible case and we'll discuss it. But don't expect me to just accept what is presented in some random link. Flat earthers have tons of "evidence" that NASA has been misrepresenting the shape of the world. I need independent, objective sources. Otherwise it's just a conspiracy theory, and I don't do those. There actually are problems with bias in certain scientific fields, mostly surrounding publication--not data collection. I actually wrote a research paper on the subject. The problem is there, but (on the whole) insignificant.

My quick response to the poll being inaccurate is that for it to be substantially so would have to mean there is a large problem with corruption in the field of science. That sounds more like a conspiracy theory (see above).

Where "an increase in the quality of education" means more pro-evolution indoctrination.

No. You. DIDN'T!

The difference between education and indoctrination is mostly whether you agree with what's being taught.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! This goes against everything people have been working to achieve since we clawed our way out of the bronze ages. There is reality, and then there is what people believe. Ideally, one wants to have his beliefs conform to reality as much as possible.

It amazes me how Christians get indoctrinated with ideas, and then when they discover that there are people with contrary ideas, they automatically just assume: "oh those people were indoctrinated to believe something else." Lol! Some of us weren't indoctrinated, and if we were, we broke free from it and began searching for the truth independently.

2,400 years ago Plato argued that there is a difference between truth and opinion. It's a very basic premise with which to begin an earnest investigation into reality, but so many centuries later, people still don't get it.

If you want to educate people on evolution, start with teaching them that evolution is simply a change in frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. Why hasn't that been driven home?

Maybe because there's more to the story.