"Do scientists ignore Creationist evidence?" essay - The myth of "closed-minded" scientists

[MarkCharles]

This discussion thread was locked by darkstar3 (a host of the Atheists & Agnostics group).

"Something that Creationists don't even appear to have considered is that the dismissal of their conclusions - which really means dismissal of their religious beliefs - is nothing personal. I think this is a very important point. They seem to take the assertion from the scientific method that the age of the earth is billions of years as a personal affront to their faith and their god. This is a completely nonsensical and rather egotistical stance: Science is directly attacking them and their beliefs. In reality science is making an unbiased statement of what apparently 'is'. "These rocks are, to the best degree attainable, x billion years old." "This sample is, to the most accurate assessment, y millions years old."


Scientists (by which I actually mean the scientific method) do not dismiss or ignore the Creationist religion alone. In fact they ignore all religion and belief systems. It matters not one jot to the scientific world what a certain set of ancient texts say, as taking those into consideration would be entirely antithetical to the scientific method. To illustrate this I've included the very well known and brilliantly simple cartoon concerning Science 'versus' Creationism.

In helpful arrow form:

Science: Facts arrow point to; Conclusions.
Creationism: Conclusions arrow point to Facts."

....

"It is important to make the point that just because a certain religion is "the norm" in a country it does not mean that it is the starting point for everyone, particularly scientists. In the USA, Creationists are Christian. In the middle east, Creationism is described from a Muslim perspective. Funny that. Of course the arguments are similar, mainly due to the god being the same in both religions, but it is difference is not generally noted by Creationists: We do not all have, or have even had, the same beliefs as them. Personally I've never had a faith, religion or believed in a god of any kind, so my own stance is one of bemusement when I am told that I am denying the existence of Yahweh. Again there appears to be an underlying egocentricity at play which is not entirely healthy in my opinion."

http://widgetas.blogspot.com/2011/11/myth-of-closed-minded-science.html?spref=tw

[AlbertCat]

1. "Do scientists ignore Creationist evidence?"

No




















because there isn't any.

[MarkCharles]

2. LOL yup! I honestly didn't know if I should have put this up on here or on

the religion forum. But I feared that every religious believer who posts over there would say something like....
"but WE don't believe in Creationism!!!... WE are better than that, WE just believe that there is a god...for which WE have our sincere heartfelt sense of superiority over those atheists!!!!

I guess my point in putting this up here is the way that essay got to the core of what religious believers actually FEEL, ("think" is too inaccurate of a verb to use, they do NOT "think", they "feel".)

They FEEL personally insulted when their mythological beliefs (like in the existence of a supernatural god) are challenged by facts.

I see it as the very same phenomenon that Creationists "feel" in the sense of being personally insulted. They "feel" we are being "vitriolic", "militant", "radical" in bringing out simple (often scientific or mathematical or logical) facts and assertions. They "feel" we have insulted them personally for their sticking to their myths, myths perhaps not as absurd as a 6000 year old planet, but equally absurd from the point of view of rationality.

That's all. More discussions or disagreement with the writer or with my viewpoint most welcome!

[OswegoAtheist]

3. How Creationist "evidence" works:

1. Come up with some bullshit that, on cursory glance, seems to explain how Creationism is fact.
2. Disseminate it widely.
3. Present it as evidence.
4. It gets totally reamed by actual science.
5. Continue presenting it anyway.
6. It still gets reamed by actual scientists, and mocked for having already been presented.
7. Continue presenting it anyway.
8. It still gets reamed by actual scientists, and mocked for having already been presented, and has been so widely disseminated among the horde that it becomes a repeated meme.
9. Continue presenting it anyway.
10. Science decides it has better things to do than this shit.
11. Continue presenting it anyway, and now claim that, because science refuses to address it, that it is definitely evidence of Creation, science is unable to refute it, and there's a conspiracy of Atheist Satanist Marxist Scientists trying to stifle open debate and empirical inquiry.
12. Come up with another piece of bullshit that, on cursory glance, seems to explain how Creationism is fact.
13. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Oswego "irreducible stupidity" Atheist

[Curmudgeoness]

4. Science decides it has better things to do than this shit!!!

Love your explanation of the evidence. But when do we get to step 13? I think they are stuck on step 11.

I can't imagine that the Creationists are not embarrassed at the truckloads of evidence against their beliefs. I mean, really, if I were into the religion/creation thing, I would have altered my thinking of what "six days" are to god.

[OswegoAtheist]

6. About every decade, I think.

They come up with one "good" (read: plausible to the unwashed masses) idea every decade or so: irreducible complexity, bacterial flagellum, bombardier beetle chemicals; nothing remotely close to evidence, of course, but rather new ideas that propagate well among the mouthbreathers.

Oswego "My daddy wasn't a monkey" Atheist

[DissedByBush]

5. Shooting down the same thing over and over and over just gets old

No, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not disprove evolution.
No, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not disprove evolution.
No, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not disprove evolution.
No, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not disprove evolution.
No, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not disprove evolution.

Every time some Christian hears that (convicted federal felon) Kent Hovind or his ilk, they automatically believe rather than checking it out. Eventually they spout this long disproven nonsense and other drivel like it. Then they complain when nobody takes the time to counter their 5,000 word cut-and-paste treatise on the subject.

[darkstar3]

7. Locking. Poster is no longer with us.

He disrupted poorly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12304526