Can a person actively reject something they don't understand?

[pitabread]

Bit of a philosophical question here, but I was thinking about this in the context of the C/E debate.

In my own experience, I've found a lot of creationists that post about evolution invariably end up framing it in a strawman context. This can involve either coming up with a conceptual misunderstanding of the theory or in some cases claiming the theory of evolution says things that it does not.

In turn these strawman caricatures of evolution are often used as a basis for the rejection thereof by the creationist. Yet if a creationist is rejecting a strawman version of evolution, they're not really rejecting the actual scientific theory of evolution.

And while they aren't accepting of the scientific theory of evolution, it seems more like a passive disengagement than rejecting the ToE outright.

 

[mlepfitjw]

I dont understand the trinity people suppose we submit to as christians...

Does that make me not a Christian when placing faith on the Lord Jesus Christ?

 

[durangodawood]

Bit of a philosophical question here, but I was thinking about this in the context of the C/E debate.

In my own experience, I've found a lot of creationists that post about evolution invariably end up framing it in a strawman context. This can involve either coming up with a conceptual misunderstanding of the theory or in some cases claiming the theory of evolution says things that it does not.

In turn these strawman caricatures of evolution are often used as a basis for the rejection thereof by the creationist. Yet if a creationist is rejecting a strawman version of evolution, they're not really rejecting the actual scientific theory of evolution.

And while they aren't accepting of the scientific theory of evolution, it seems more like a passive disengagement than rejecting the ToE outright.

Keep in mind a lot of creationists arent so much rejecting ToE, but are rejecting the E itself. They reject the actual history of life on earth, and not just the scientific theory that explains it.

 

[Speedwell]

When a person is convinced that he possesses absolute objective truth, he need not understand anything which contradicts it in order to reject it.

 

[durangodawood]

When a person is convinced that he possesses absolute objective truth, he need not understand anything which contradicts it in order to reject it.

I agree.

But that person should just announce theyre doing a blind contradiction rather than trying to limp through an argument with their broken understanding.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Can a person actively reject something they don't understand?

I see X activity and associate this with Y ideology, and I actively work towards hindering X activity thus actively rejecting Y ideology - even though I don't understand it.

It is totally possible and happens in many contexts.

Doesn't lead to understanding though.

 

[Speedwell]

I see X activity and associate this with Y ideology, and I actively work towards hindering X activity thus actively rejecting Y ideology - even though I don't understand it.

It is totally possible and happens in many contexts.

Doesn't lead to understanding though.

But in the case of creationism, the association is a fake, a straw man: "the theory of evolution is anti-Christian."

 

[Gregory Thompson]

But in the case of creationism, the association is a fake, a straw man: "the theory of evolution is anti-Christian."

Is it though?

The strawman in that argument is that not every Christian thinks the same even with creationism as a belief.

There is this flaming effigy the size of the Eiffel Tower for both sides of this argument.

 

[Speedwell]

Is it though?

The strawman in that argument is that not every Christian thinks the same even with creationism as a belief.

There is this flaming effigy the size of the Eiffel Tower for both sides of this argument.

We were talking about those Christians who reject evolution without understanding it because they believe it to be anti-Christian.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

We were talking about those Christians who reject evolution without understanding it because they believe it to be anti-Christian.

This distinction is only made when so many sentences are said. However, if they are not, it implies all christians, not just christians with that specific scope.

 

[Speedwell]

This distinction is only made when so many sentences are said. However, if they are not, it implies all christians, not just christians with that specific scope.

Right--imprecise writing habits. In this forum, the term "creationist' is customarily used to refer to young-Earth biblical-literalist creationists. They generally refer to themselves as "Christians" because they are taught that they are the only "real" Christians, all others being apostates, and it is easy for the rest of us to sometimes slip into that usage.

 

[pitabread]

I see X activity and associate this with Y ideology, and I actively work towards hindering X activity thus actively rejecting Y ideology - even though I don't understand it.

Scientific theories don't come with ideologies attached to them. I suspect this is just an example of precisely what I was talking about: rejecting something on the basis of a strawman caricature.

 

[pitabread]

We were talking about those Christians who reject evolution without understanding it because they believe it to be anti-Christian.

In fairness, I'm not explicitly limiting to just those views in the OP.

My motivation for this thread was partially fueled by a thread in the Christian-only subforums here: More on why I reject evolution

They specifically link to an anti-evolution site that contains clear falsehoods and misconceptions about evolution: Seventy-five Theses

If their reasons for claiming to reject the ToE are based on said falsehoods and misconceptions, then they obviously aren't rejecting the actual scientific ToE, but rather a gross parody of it.

 

[Shemjaza]

In fairness, I'm not explicitly limiting to just those views in the OP.

My motivation for this thread was partially fueled by a thread in the Christian-only subforums here: More on why I reject evolution

They specifically link to an anti-evolution site that contains clear falsehoods and misconceptions about evolution: Seventy-five Theses

If their reasons for claiming to reject the ToE are based on said falsehoods and misconceptions, then they obviously aren't rejecting the actual scientific ToE, but rather a gross parody of it.

Except, as we see on these forums, the sciencey sounding justifications are all after the fact.

 

[Smokie]

Bit of a philosophical question here, but I was thinking about this in the context of the C/E debate.

In my own experience, I've found a lot of creationists that post about evolution invariably end up framing it in a strawman context. This can involve either coming up with a conceptual misunderstanding of the theory or in some cases claiming the theory of evolution says things that it does not.

In turn these strawman caricatures of evolution are often used as a basis for the rejection thereof by the creationist. Yet if a creationist is rejecting a strawman version of evolution, they're not really rejecting the actual scientific theory of evolution.

And while they aren't accepting of the scientific theory of evolution, it seems more like a passive disengagement than rejecting the ToE outright.

The human mind allows for some people to believe that they are someone that they are not, so in many cases the mind creates it's own reality, logic has no place

 

[pitabread]

Except, as we see on these forums, the sciencey sounding justifications are all after the fact.

Fair point.

 

[inquiring mind]

They specifically link to an anti-evolution site that contains clear falsehoods and misconceptions about evolution: Seventy-five Theses

I found the thesis pretty interesting myself. What in particular strikes a sour note with you?

 

[Shemjaza]

I found the thesis pretty interesting myself. What in particular strikes a sour note with you?

10. If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
11. For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
12. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.

This chain is faulty logic.
It strikes me as dishonest to equate "possible" meaning "can occur in the physical universe" with possible, "shouldn't take more then a couple of trys to get it sorted".

Equating the inability of scientists to replicate an unknown chemical reaction that had a petri dish the size of a planet and eons of time with a couple of decades of research isn't reasonable.


16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.

This is just a blatant lie. The theory of evolution is completely independent from whatever origin of life may occur.


I kept reading and found more false statements like the variations on the classic "common design" or "nested hierarchy of cars" nonsense we see around here so often.

Also misleading phrasing such as repeated use of "...is no satisfactory explanation how..." as a way of avoiding dealing with explanations by disregarding them as non specifically not satisfactory. Ultimately clever words to cover an argument from ignorance.

All in all, not worth a thorough read through as it was filled with bad faith arguments and actual lies.

 

[inquiring mind]

10. If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
11. For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
12. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.

This chain is faulty logic.
It strikes me as dishonest to equate "possible" meaning "can occur in the physical universe" with possible, "shouldn't take more then a couple of trys to get it sorted".

Equating the inability of scientists to replicate an unknown chemical reaction that had a petri dish the size of a planet and eons of time with a couple of decades of research isn't reasonable.

So you're playing the 'Deep Time' card here.

16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.

This is just a blatant lie. The theory of evolution is completely independent from whatever origin of life may occur.

They were addressing point #1 in the Scopes trial (I think). They state early that they don't disagree with all scientific processes.

 

[inquiring mind]

I kept reading and found more false statements like the variations on the classic "common design" or "nested hierarchy of cars" nonsense we see around here so often.

Well, a thesis involves personal research, so you're going to get different flavors on any subject.

Also misleading phrasing such as repeated use of "...is no satisfactory explanation how..." as a way of avoiding dealing with explanations by disregarding them as non specifically not satisfactory. Ultimately clever words to cover an argument from ignorance.

All in all, not worth a thorough read through as it was filled with bad faith arguments and actual lies.

No different from the impression many creationists get with all the 'maybe, possibly, and could haves' in many evolutionist papers.