Study: understanding ToE = acceptance

[sfs]

Would you say he rejects it on scientific grounds or on broader theological and philosophical grounds?

Very much on theological grounds.

 

[pitabread]

All we ever get is regurgitated PRATT's from the 3 or 4 creo sites out there.

Funny thing I've noticed is that even PRATTs seem less common these days. It used to be you'd get creationists regularly citing sites like ICR, AiG, Kent Hovind, etc.

Nowadays it seems creationists just make up whatever nonsense they want and it varies wildly from one to the next, even to the point of contradicting each other.

 

[HitchSlap]

Funny thing I've noticed is that even PRATTs seem less common these days. It used to be you'd get creationists regularly citing sites like ICR, AiG, Kent Hovind, etc.

Nowadays it seems creationists just make up whatever nonsense they want and it varies wildly from one to the next, even to the point of contradicting each other.

You might say that creationism is evolving.

 

[Kenny'sID]

BTW, This is how I imagine your posts sound.

And yours sound about as believable as a Flat Earth Society video.

If you don't believe in evolution, you don't understand evolution.....and lets not forget, science no longer proves anything, so please, just believe whatever we tell you.

Here at Twsty's Labs, we don't prove evolution, we make it conveniently believable.

 

[HitchSlap]

And yours sound about as believable as a Flat Earth Society video.

If you don't believe in evolution, you don't understand evolution.....and lets not forget, science no longer proves anything, so please, just believe whatever we tell you.

Here at Twsty's Labs, we don't prove evolution, we make it conveniently believable.

Conveniently believable or inconvenient facts?

 

[Kenny'sID]

You got me thinking with this:

Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it.

Are Americans who understand Flat Earth more likely to accept it?

 

[HitchSlap]

You got me thinking with this:



Are Americans who understand Flat Earth more likely to accept it?

Are you saying flat earth is a fact, and a spherical earth is conspiracy?

 

[Rivga]

Yes. Todd Wood understands evolution and the evidence for it, and he still rejects it. What he doesn't do is lie about the evidence.

The study said "More Likely" and not it's a universal fact.

Todd Wood and the Christian scientist swim in the opposite direction of the main body of research. And this is good for Science, it keeps the whole process honest. And these guys maybe good scientist, issue (for creationist) is they have yet to make so much as a dent in The theory of evolution by Natural selection.
We know why too, if you go into science with a belief that is faith based, unless you are luck in having come to the right conclusion by accident then you are fighting a losing battle.

Question: Given that Islam has a load of scientists working on there own version of Creationism, if it turns out that they find a whole in the current theory does it mean that Allah and not God is the true creator of the world?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Are you saying flat earth is a fact, and a spherical earth is conspiracy?

Do you work for Twisty Labs?

It was a question, a very simple one at that.

 

[sfs]

Todd Wood and the Christian scientist swim in the opposite direction of the main body of research.

I'm a Christian scientist and I swim in the same direction as the main body of research. Todd Wood doesn't really contribute anything to the scientific enterprise.

ETA: Okay, some days I float more than I swim, but I'm still going the same direction.

 

[Rivga]

I'm a Christian scientist and I swim in the same direction as the main body of research. Todd Wood doesn't really contribute anything to the scientific enterprise.

My apologies if it seemed that I lumping all Christian Scientists into the Todd Wood school. It was not meant I was simply replying to the post in front of me, I should have caveated some of the comments above.

Todd Wood and the Christian scientist swim in the opposite direction of the main body of research

My sentence should read more like Todd Wood and the Christian scientist, who follow Todd's lead on trying to over turn a scientific theory to confirm a faith based religion by, swimming in the opposite ....

I would still maintain that even someone putting forward a crackpot hypothesis helps science, I again was certainly not putting Todd Woods achievements on any sort of equal footing to (what I'd refer to as) a real scientist.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I think this a difficult study to have actually done. It would be very difficult to control bias. How does one determine if someone has a good understanding of Evolution? Apparently they just did a poll. Usually, if someone studies something, one at least broadly agrees with the content. Seldom do people continue to study a concept once they found something unacceptable or that they consider wrong. On average, a person with a good understanding of Christianity or Islam say, is more likely to be a Christian or Muslim. Most who study the Koran or Bible would do so with the understanding that inherent worth is to be found there. Muslims or Christians seldom study the Rig Veda. You would find the odd religious scholar, but broadly this would be the case. I have used religion as an example, but it would hold true for geology or paleontology or any of the sciences.

So intrinsically, someone that has done the effort to be able to have a "good understanding" is probably someone who has already broadly accepted the concept. This study does not really give us much useful information, therefore. It hinges on what is understood as a "good understanding", but I believe the study has inherent problems of presupposition and bias that renders it fairly moot. It would be a different matter entirely if they gave a randomised group instruction in Evolution and then determined their acceptance thereof, but to retroactively try and correlate acceptance with understanding is going to presuppose that they are broadly equivalent, by its very nature.

 

[Rivga]

It would be very difficult to control bias. How does one determine if someone has a good understanding of Evolution? Apparently they just did a poll

There is a few questions you could ask:
"Is Evolution by natural selection random" would give you a clear indication of someone understanding.
Or
"What result did you get in Biology at school"

That is just two ideas that I throw together in a few minutes, between reading your post and replying, if I spent any significant time and effort and had some people to help me then I am sure I could make it more robust.

It is a worthy question, and one I asked to myself when I read the post but the assumption that it would be difficult is overstated.

 

[Monna]

God created life, evolution begins there.

I suspect that many Jews, Christians, and Muslims would also accept that the One who created life (and the natural world in which life exists) is also able to intervene, from 'time' to 'time.'

 

[razzelflabben]

Well that's my point, nothing of substance or value is ever said by creationists. Instead, all we get is 'i believe my bible to be literally true, therefore whatever facts you may think you have are subservient to my interpretation of the bible.'

lol and that is my point...you labeled me without ever knowing what I believe...iow's you don't know because you don't listen and instead twist everything into something it is not.

This is basically a five year old telling a cardiothoracic surgeon he's doing it wrong because he watched an episode of Scrubs. Creationists never put in the time it takes to fully understand the theory - and I mean really understand. All we ever get is regurgitated PRATT's from the 3 or 4 creo sites out there.

and yet there are lots of creation scientists in all areas of science...what does that tell us?

 

[Speedwell]

lol and that is my point...you labeled me without ever knowing what I believe...iow's you don't know because you don't listen and instead twist everything into something it is not. and yet there are lots of creation scientists in all areas of science...what does that tell us?

"Lots of?" There are many Christian and other theist scientists in all areas of science. But creation scientists? Not so many. In fact, if you look into it, you will find that most of them are working for the creation science "ministries" like ICR, AiG, CMI, etc.

 

[razzelflabben]

"Lots of?" There are many Christian and other theist scientists in all areas of science. But creation scientists? Not so many. In fact, if you look into it, you will find that most of them are working for the creation science "ministries" like ICR, AiG, CMI, etc.

lol I did look into, found a long list of creation scientists, posted the link on another site and was told that I was wrong because...(no reason given)

No thanks, if you all can't listen well enough to hear what is being said, I'm done...and I am not even creationist in the traditional sense of the word....

 

[Speedwell]

lol I did look into, found a long list of creation scientists, posted the link on another site and was told that I was wrong because...(no reason given)

Because most of those listed were not, in fact, creationists. Isn't that a good enough reason for you?

 

[sfs]

and yet there are lots of creation scientists in all areas of science...what does that tell us?

Looking at lists of creation scientists and comparing it to the number of scientists in the world, it tells me that they're an extremely small minority. Based on my experience, they're a tiny minority among Christian scientists.

 

[sfs]

Also, when I look at the supposedly scientific arguments actually produced by creationist scientists about evolution and related topics, they are almost uniformly really bad arguments -- ignoring data, misrepresenting findings and quotations, cherry-picking results. That tells me that they don't really have a case.