Creationists, where do you get your facts?

[Skaloop]

During the course of the very many Crevo discussions that go on here, I've often heard Creationists state things like "Evolution is hanging by a thread!" or "Scientists are giving up on evolution!" or "Fossil X is a hoax!" or "Scientists are finding more and more evidence for Creation!" even when even a cursory google search can show that these things are not true.

So where do Creationists get these ideas? And I mean them as an individual directly. So if your pastor says "A new poll shows that most scientists now reject evolution" you are getting your info from your pastor. If it's something written on a Creationist website, you are getting it from that site. Only if you have read the poll yourself are getting your info from the poll. And could thereby provide a reference to it for the rest of us, I would hope.

As it is now, the things I hear are so similar and so suspect in their sources that they seem like urban legends, perpetuated through friend-of-a-friend-type hearsay rather than actually supported by something tangible.

So when a Creationist says "Evolution is no longer accepted by most scientists", how do they know? What is their source for this information? If they hear it from someone else, do they make any attempts to verify it?

(and non-Creationists, also feel free to provide any of your regular sources for evolution info; the rest of us might find something new around the interwebs)

 

[laconicstudent]

When I was one, it was hearsay and anecdotes from various pastors who had no understanding of science ftw.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I too have been wondering this. The "surety" many creationists show when they decree the imminent demise of evolutionary theory fascinates me. I often take a step back and look around to see if, indeed, the world has tilted on its axis.

I would dearly love to see a Creationist site the source of these dire straits for not only evolutionary theory but generally earth history.

 

[CoderHead]

When I was a creationist I often spouted the "Darwin recanted" and "The human body is too complex not to be made by a Designer" lines. Those came from adults in my church and my parents. I feel dirty admitting that.

 

[Nathan Poe]

When I was a creationist I often spouted the "Darwin recanted" and "The human body is too complex not to be made by a Designer" lines. Those came from adults in my church and my parents. I feel dirty admitting that.

Would you like the number of a rape counseling center?

 

[Sanguis]

Would you like the number of a rape counseling center?

Heh, that would be a funny conversation.

"Hi, this is the rape counseling clinic, how may I help you?"
"I... I... I'm sorry, it's too hard for me to say."
"Sir, if you'd like, I could put you on to a counselor?"
"Yes, yes, thankyou."

"Hello, may I be of assistance?"
"Yes, I used to be a... a... creationist!"

 

[Wedjat]

For the evolution sources, Google can't be beat.
Generally when I write a response on how something happens or works in evolution, I do it off the top of my head (for starters) based on my current understanding of evolution. I write it out just so I can thoroughly understand my position, then I open up a new tab and Google it to see what the experts say. Sometimes the position will be different from what I wrote and I end up reading article after article to clarify, since I've already written it out, I can address each individual piece of my original argument to see where it's mislead, I usually forget about the thread at this point and just continue in that line of research. When I finally do come back to the thread I re-write it according to my recently gained understanding.
Usually if I know I've read it somewhere before I won't go through that whole process, which has unfortunately caused me to have to recant what I've said a couple of times.

 

[Kharak]

The answer you were looking for was a Magic 8 Ball and the Creationist equivalent to the Tom Clancy plot generator.

 

[truth above all else]

During the course of the very many Crevo discussions that go on here, I've often heard Creationists state things like "Evolution is hanging by a thread!" or "Scientists are giving up on evolution!" or "Fossil X is a hoax!" or "Scientists are finding more and more evidence for Creation!" even when even a cursory google search can show that these things are not true.quote]

Practitioners of evolutionary philosophy and its associated fields, can never publicly admit to the fragility of the hypotheses and theories related to evolutionary concepts.Such admissions are career threatening, the evolutionary perspective will always be defended by those who rely on it , and derive not insubstantial incomes from its dissemination.
Such persons resent being awakened from their blissful stupor and will always distort, mock, slander and reject anything that may lie beyond the evolutionary worldview.

 

[Wedjat]

Practitioners of evolutionary philosophy and its associated fields, can never publicly admit to the fragility of the hypotheses and theories related to evolutionary concepts.Such admissions are career threatening, the evolutionary perspective will always be defended by those who rely on it , and derive not insubstantial incomes from its dissemination.
Such persons resent being awakened from their blissful stupor and will always distort, mock, slander and reject anything that may lie beyond the evolutionary worldview.

Case in point...

 

[Mike Elphick]

During the course of the very many Crevo discussions that go on here, I've often heard Creationists state things like "Evolution is hanging by a thread!" or "Scientists are giving up on evolution!"....

Ah, The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism:-

In recent reading of Dembski and other ID proponents I saw them make a claim which has been made for over 40 years. This claim is one that the young-earthers have been making. The claim is that evolution (or major supporting concepts for it) is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall. This claim has many forms and has been made for over 162 years. This is a compilation of the claims over time. The purpose of this compilation is two-fold. First, it is to show that the claim has been made for a long, long time. Secondly, it is to show that entire careers have passed without seeing any of this movement away from evolution. Third, it is to show that the creationists are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal. In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area for the last 40 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn't stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim. Now for the claims in chronological order....
Demise of Evolution?

 

[Kharak]

Practitioners of evolutionary philosophy and its associated fields, can never publicly admit to the fragility of the hypotheses and theories related to evolutionary concepts.

By definition, all theories must be falsifiable and the mere condition in which they can be disproven must be possible for anything within science to constitute a theory or hypothesis for that matter. The ability for all and any theory to become untrue is a cornerstone of science. Just like the original form of Darwinian evolution was scrapped with the synthesis of Mendelian genetics, so were the old Atomic models. Creationism is not falsifiable because one cannot disprove gods, especially when they are said to exist outside the the universe (ie: supernatural).

Furthermore, evolution is the foundation for all modern biology and has endured. We know more about evolution, perhaps, than is currently known about gravity, save for its apparent relationship with mass.

Such admissions are career threatening, the evolutionary perspective will always be defended by those who rely on it , and derive not insubstantial incomes from its dissemination.

The last part doesn't even make since. Scientists, especially hardcore biologists, are hardly rolling in hundred dollar bills. They go to school for many years, fight over what little money is out there for funding, and spend years researching specific components of life that the general public could not even begin to understand if it slapped them in the face like a purse full of bricks.

If anything, Creationism is the one driven by scam artists who prostitute their degrees (provided they get that far) and their souls for the sole purpose of providing empty tracts of sophistry. How many grants do they fight for? How much do Creationists spend on research each year? None at all: It's the assumption that some deity created everything and all actually study of biology done over the years is heretical. Research is not needed when an assumption trumps it. It's to biology as ethnocentrism is to anthropology and sociology.

Such persons resent being awakened from their blissful stupor and will always distort, mock, slander and reject anything that may lie beyond the evolutionary worldview.

Considering that Creationism is an insult to those who actually perform the research and actually do their jobs, it's little wonder why the proverbial middle finger is given to the clowns who mock years of physical study for a few easy dollars or a little attention. I'm not sure you'll understand, but some people do research for a living, as in real work. Shocking, but science is not for the weak of heart or the lazy armchair 'scientists' professing inane 'theories' as they were prophets heralding the End Times.

If actual scientists wanted to listen to vacuous nonsense, rest assured they are probably lurking this message board or Talk.Origins so they to can chuckle at know-it-all adults who might as well be thirteen year-olds bragging about how they figured it all out and the Evolutionists are all dumb atheists.

Assuming once again that all those Christian biologists in the field of evolution recanted their belief in the Son of God while I was away.

 

[BasinBrat]

Heh, that would be a funny conversation.

"Hi, this is the rape counseling clinic, how may I help you?"
"I... I... I'm sorry, it's too hard for me to say."
"Sir, if you'd like, I could put you on to a counselor?"
"Yes, yes, thankyou."

"Hello, may I be of assistance?"
"Yes, I used to be a... a... creationist!"

I get that you and Nathan Poe are making a joke, but the idea that being a creationist is in any way comparable to the trauma of being raped... Yeah I gotta say I find that fairly offensive.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists, where do you get your facts?

The Bible.

Since I have declared myself "evidence-free", I decry evolution by declaring its antithesis: the Creation.

 

[Split Rock]

Practitioners of evolutionary philosophy and its associated fields, can never publicly admit to the fragility of the hypotheses and theories related to evolutionary concepts.Such admissions are career threatening, the evolutionary perspective will always be defended by those who rely on it , and derive not insubstantial incomes from its dissemination.
Such persons resent being awakened from their blissful stupor and will always distort, mock, slander and reject anything that may lie beyond the evolutionary worldview.

So, the question presented by the O.P. was: Where did you get this trash from?

 

[Hespera]

I get that you and Nathan Poe are making a joke, but the idea that being a creationist is in any way comparable to the trauma of being raped... Yeah I gotta say I find that fairly offensive.

Speaking as one who has experienced one of those traumas, its always odd what some people do or dont think is offensive, isnt it?

 

[Hespera]

So, the question presented by the O.P. was: Where did you get this trash from?

I think its from some parallel universe.

I think our friend truthabove is unaware that the 'related fields" he refers to would take in nearly all of science. the "blissfully unaware' part is of course just projecting (something to learn about in psychology)

 

[Skaloop]

Practitioners of evolutionary philosophy and its associated fields, can never publicly admit to the fragility of the hypotheses and theories related to evolutionary concepts.Such admissions are career threatening, the evolutionary perspective will always be defended by those who rely on it , and derive not insubstantial incomes from its dissemination.
Such persons resent being awakened from their blissful stupor and will always distort, mock, slander and reject anything that may lie beyond the evolutionary worldview.

That's not an answer to my question. And it's still incorrect. In all the studies I had to perform (as an undergrad; I claim no expertise, just some basic experience), my report on the results always had to include any weaknesses or flaws in my methods as well as areas that could be improved or areas that would need further study.

On a more general level, "evolutionists" admit all the time that there are certain parts of evolution that are currently unclear or open for debate or not fully explained. That's why they still study it. If they really couldn't admit to any "fragility", then there wouldn't be continuous work to understand and explain those "fragilities." There very fact that there are "evolutionists" is an admittance that the theory is not complete. Probably never will be, as new findings raise new questions to research. (also, note that being incomplete does not equate to being wrong).

Anyway, to get back on topic, who or what told you that scientists cannot speak out about the so-called flaws of evolution? Was it AiG or some other website? The movie "Expelled"? Or did you yourself ask scientists their views on the matter?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nowhere.

I have declared myself "fact-free".

You've made that obvious over the years.

Instead, I decry evolution by declaring its antithesis: the Creation.

Without any facts getting in the way, that leaves nothing but yourself, doesn't it?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Practitioners of evolutionary philosophy and its associated fields, can never publicly admit to the fragility of the hypotheses and theories related to evolutionary concepts.

Now if only creationists could find legitimate overwhelming evidence of this "fragility" and post it!

That would be fantastic. Instead of telling scientists how their science is wrong you might wish to attempt to convince the scientists. That will require science.

, the evolutionary perspective will always be defended by those who rely on it , and derive not insubstantial incomes from its dissemination.

Is it always about MONEY MONEY MONEY to religious folks? Is that why you guys do stuff? Because I can tell you, as a scientist I don't make as much money as creationists might think I do. In fact many of us don't go into science because of huge paydays. If we wanted a lot of money we'd get MBA's or start our own churches.

A lot of us actually went into science because we love science!

NOT because we "hate God". NOT because we want to be richer than God. NOT because we want to destroy all that is holy. NOT because we want to be part of the "thug peer review gang" who terrorize honest good folks.

Again, it would be very enlightening if a creationist would tell us their personal experience as a professional scientist here on this board.

Because you've got plenty of scientists here telling you their experiences!

Feel free to share!