On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 22:07:01 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 23-4-2011 21:47, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:22:46 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>> So unless you have a proof of evolution that convinces even the die
>>> hard creationists then we better leave it at that.
>>
>> No matter what proof is there, the die-hard creationists will reject it
>> because it means abandoning their belief.
> 
> That is the evolutionists interpretation. They will actually reject it
> because they know some of the assumptions are wrong.

Because they *believe* some of the assumptions are "wrong".  Like the 
"assumption" that there is no creator.  Since that flies in the face of 
their belief that there is a God, they reject it because "it can't 
possibly be right that there is no God."

>> That's the problem.
> 
> Not really. Or at least not a bigger problem than trying to convince me
> God does exist.

I think there's a fundamental difference, if you're like most of the 
atheists I know - you're willing to be convinced given sufficient 
evidence.  But such evidence doesn't exist.

Compare the creationists view - they're not willing to be convinced there 
is no creator.  The only thing that works for them is if the question of 
whether or not their is a creator is taken off the table.

> It only becomes a problem when they try to prevent teaching real science
> and research.

I disagree, it becomes a problem because they teach kids (who are still 
developing the ability to think rationally) that there is no value in 
thinking rationally about a problem - that you can just 'believe your 
way' through a situation.

That undermines not only teaching real science, but the ability for 
students to think about problems in a rational way.

There's a reason why US students view themselves as more confident than 
students in other parts of the world - they're taught to believe in 
themselves, regardless of how well they do with 'facts'.  Hence, low 
scores on exams, but high confidence.

Jim

Post a reply to this message