a creationist mindset

chickenman

evil unamerican
May 8, 2002
1,376
7
41
Visit site
✟9,874.00
I stole this from the infidels board, but I think everyone should read it, it sums up creationist tactics fairly well I think;

Originally posted by ps418:
It is useless to try to explain science to someone who isn't interested in what the facts have to say. And it's useless to try to learn anything from such people. If they are clever, as Johnson is, they can find a way to claim that almost any fact supports their position. If evolutionists agree on something, it's a dogmatic orthodoxy; if they disagree, they're squabbling about every detail of evolutionary theory. If a piece of evidence seems to count against evolution, evolution has been disproven; if it seems to count for evolution, that merely shows that evolution is unfalsifiable. If scientists state that they are personally atheistic, they are clearly exposing the rotten metaphysical heart of evolution; if they state that they are religious, they are clearly trying to cover the rotten heart up. If we learn anything new, it's evidence that our current theory is completely false; if what we learn is exactly what we expected, it's only because we were precommitted to finding it in the first place. If we point out where creationists are wrong, we are persecuting the underdog; if we ignore them, we are refusing to face the fact that they're right. If a piece of evidence supports one part of evolutionary theory, it doesn't support that other part. If we find a strong piece of evidence for evolution, there ought to be more just like it. If an evolutionist speaks out in favor of Darwinism, it's because they were strong-armed into it; if they say anything which can be taken out of context to suggest any skepticism about evolution, it's resounding proof that nobody in science believes the theory.
 

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by tericl2
Actually, I think it sums up the evolutionist's mind set.

Those are all argument types that I have seen most evolutionists throw up on most discussion boards.

I haven't seen a lot of that stuff from people who accept evolution as a working theory. I have seen the whole lot of them from people who are trying to deny it.

By contrast, people who don't accept young earth creation mostly seem to be sticking to the nice, simple, "but it's inconsistent with all the data".
 
Upvote 0

Christian Soldier

QUESTION EVOLUTION
Aug 1, 2002
1,524
55
Visit site
✟2,190.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
"But our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective 'scientific method,' with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology."

Stephen Jay Gould, "In the Mind of the Beholder," Natural History, February 1994
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Christian Soldier
"But our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective 'scientific method,' with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology."

Stephen Jay Gould, "In the Mind of the Beholder," Natural History, February 1994

Did Stephen Jay Gould mention, in "In The Mind of the Beholder", whether science was any good at all? Did he mention whether there was a method that led to good results, or was this his announcement that he was retiring from science because the methodology was so non-robotic?
 
Upvote 0

Christian Soldier

QUESTION EVOLUTION
Aug 1, 2002
1,524
55
Visit site
✟2,190.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
"Did Stephen Jay Gould mention, in "In The Mind of the Beholder", whether science was any good at all? Did he mention whether there was a method that led to good results, or was this his announcement that he was retiring from science because the methodology was so non-robotic?"

Why would Gould be spinning in his grave over something he said and meant, in an evolutionist periodical? He was merely being honest, which is unusual for an evolutionist. He simply admitted the hard fact that evolutionists who hide behind a veneer of always being "fully rational", "objective" and "logical"---are clearly engaging in "self-serving mythology".

Kudos to the man for telling the truth. If only Jerry was so honest!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

foolsparade

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2002
1,853
25
Pennsyl-tucky
✟2,584.00
Faith
Atheist
I guess we all will ignore the fact that CS is calling Jerry a liar.

"The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents."
-- Stephen Jay Gould, "The Verdict on Creationism," The Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 1987-88
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Christian Soldier
"Did Stephen Jay Gould mention, in "In The Mind of the Beholder", whether science was any good at all? Did he mention whether there was a method that led to good results, or was this his announcement that he was retiring from science because the methodology was so non-robotic?"

Why would Gould be spinning in his grave over something he said and meant, in an evolutionist periodical? He was merely being honest, which is unusual for an evolutionist. He simply admitted the hard fact that evolutionists who hide behind a veneer of always being "fully rational", "objective" and "logical"---are clearly engaging in "self-serving mythology".

Kudos to the man for telling the truth. If only Jerry was so honest!

Oh, I reckon he would be spinning in his grave at having his words taken as a weapon in an attack on science. I guess what you are getting at is because (admittedly) scientists are seldom completely objective, or fully rational, and sometimes have errors of logic, then it is plenty scientific for Creationists to be completely biased, summarily dismissing any evidence for evolution, and denying 150 years of research on strictly philosophical grounds.

You seemed to miss some other "points" Gould made in this quote:

-He simply admitted the hard fact that chemicalists who hide behind a veneer of always being "fully rational", "objective" and "logical"---are clearly engaging in "self-serving mythology".

-He simply admitted the hard fact that gravitationalists who hide behind a veneer of always being "fully rational", "objective" and "logical"---are clearly engaging in "self-serving mythology". 


-He simply admitted the hard fact that evolutionists who hide behind a veneer of always being "fully rational", "objective" and "logical"---are clearly engaging in "self-serving mythology".


-He simply admitted the hard fact that nuclear phyicalists who hide behind a veneer of always being "fully rational", "objective" and "logical"---are clearly engaging in "self-serving mythology". 
 
Upvote 0

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,025.00
Faith
Catholic
What a remarkable coinkydink.
Over at http://www.creationists.org/quote003.html, where the "evolutionists quote of the month" is located, there is the exact same quote from Gould. Does this mean you never actually read the whole essay. I bet you never even actally had access to the whole essay.

A classic case of out of context quotes.

By another coincidence, I have been reading Gould's "Dinosaur in a Haystack" and read that very essay just the other day. Funny thing is, when you read the whole essay you get the distinct impression that Gould is not criticizing evolutionists, but rather arguing for a more human face to be put on science and scientists - who are often viewed as automotons.

At least that is my opinion. But then again, I actually read the essay - I am not just pretending I did.
 
Upvote 0

Christian Soldier

QUESTION EVOLUTION
Aug 1, 2002
1,524
55
Visit site
✟2,190.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
"The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents."
-- Stephen Jay Gould, "The Verdict on Creationism," The Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 1987-88"

Thank you for posting the above, it helps me make several points.
  • Gould definitely wasn't honest all the time. His claim that Creationists assert that "all fossils are products of Noah's flood", is hogwash.
  • Evolutionists evoke miracles all the time. Like the miracle that over the course of billions of years, an amoeba eventually evolved into a man. But I guess it could be classified as a fairy tale!
  • Evolutionists are far more unwilling to abandon claims clearly disproven, and many of them disproven long ago. Look at Haeckel's faked embryo drawings, they are still found in some modern biology textbooks.
  • Gould's contention that Creationists improperly quote evolutionists does absolutely nothing to prove that my quote is out of context. That assertion must be tested on a case-by-case basis, and so far my quote stands. All the evos here have done is give very creative and specious interpretations of what they THINK Gould meant.
 
Upvote 0

Christian Soldier

QUESTION EVOLUTION
Aug 1, 2002
1,524
55
Visit site
✟2,190.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
"What a remarkable coinkydink.
Over at http://www.creationists.org/quote003.html, where the "evolutionists quote of the month" is located, there is the exact same quote from Gould. Does this mean you never actually read the whole essay. I bet you never even actally had access to the whole essay."

Your link is dead, so I went to the site via my browser address block. You're wrong, as is frequently the case. The "quote of the month" over there is from Richard Dawkins, not Gould:

Proof Late_Cretaceous Is Dead Wrong

As is the case with virtually all evolutionists, you prove yourself to be highly presumptuous. I didn't get the quote from the site you mention. It isn't the quote of the month as you falsely reported. It may have been there at another time, but you would know that better than me---since I don't frequent that site.


"A classic case of out of context quotes."

Your unproven opinion only.

"By another coincidence, I have been reading Gould's "Dinosaur in a Haystack" and read that very essay just the other day. Funny thing is, when you read the whole essay you get the distinct impression that Gould is not criticizing evolutionists, but rather arguing for a more human face to be put on science and scientists - who are often viewed as automotons.

At least that is my opinion. But then again, I actually read the essay - I am not just pretending I did."

For someone who has allegedly read the essay, you don't sound too sure of yourself. Phrases like "you get the distinct impression" and "At least that is my opinion" do nothing to prove your specious case. If you really thought the essay proved your point, you would have quoted it at length. Your failure to do so strongly suggests that the quote I provided is in context.

The evos on this forum have yet to prove my quote is out of context.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,025.00
Faith
Catholic
The Gauntlet has been dropped.
Here is my view of "in the mindset of the Beholder"

Gould starts out by saying that beauty is indeed in the "eye of the beholder" - that what is condidered beautiful is not always going to be in consensus. Then he talks about how idealized science would be immunte to aesthetic judgements. He continues to say that the way people learn is based on "social preconceptions and biased thinking". In other words scientists are only human afterall. THis is where you little quote comes in, to emphasize the point that the idealized concept of science and scientists is folly, that it is as flawed as humanity. He goes on to say that "scientists who make discoveries do not follow this optimized pathway". In other words some genuine human creativity is involved in the process of scientific discovery - not just pure rational scientific method. Gould calls this this "messy and personal side of science should not be disparged" and that "scientists should proudly show this human face to show their kinship with all other modes of creative human thought".
It is quite clear that Gould is emphasizing that science is not a cold logical process, but a creative human one. He then discusses the very real issue of biases in thinking and the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. THen he introduces a new concept which he calles adbuctive reasoning. Abducitve reasoning, it what Gould claims lead to great leaps in science. Thinking out of the box if you will.Later in the essay he talks about the Cambrain explosion and other Evolutionary topics.

Please, give me your inturpretation of the essay. I am sure you can get a copy of the book at your local library.
 
Upvote 0

Christian Soldier

QUESTION EVOLUTION
Aug 1, 2002
1,524
55
Visit site
✟2,190.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
"The link works perfectly fine."

Yes, now that you've fixed it!

"Try it again. There was just a coma left at the end of it."

The quote you linked to IS NOT the current "quote of the month" that's listed on the homepage. I was correct that the current month's quote is from Dawkins.

You insinuated that I got the quote from that site. I did not. Please try to present verifiable facts, rather than your biased and baseless speculation.
 
Upvote 0
In response to our knight in shining armor's comment on the "fairytale" of evolution:

I suggest that you try reading The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.   It explains evolution in a very easy-to-understand way, yet it maintains the complexity of evolution and natural selection.   What I especially recommend you read is the section on the minute, infinitesimal mutations and changes that lead, gradually over billions of years, to more complex organisms.

By the way, I think it was more of an archaic bacterium that gave rise to homo sapiens over the aeons.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Christian Soldier

QUESTION EVOLUTION
Aug 1, 2002
1,524
55
Visit site
✟2,190.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
"In other words some genuine human creativity is involved in the process of scientific discovery - not just pure rational scientific method."

Thank you for the very enlightening look into evolutionist methods of scientific inquiry. When "pure rational scientific method" repeatedly fails to prove their hypotheses, the evos just get "creative" and start making things up!
 
Upvote 0