Getting creationists to accept evolution

[barboft]

I'm a christian although I believe in evolution. Why would one want to convince a creationist about evolution? I prefer there to be differences in views, it would be so boring if everyone thought the same.

Why would one want to convince someone that medicine, not prayer, will help to heal them? Surely having different views is good.

There are some beliefs that cause no problems, and there are others that do, depending on how one acts on them. Lumping them all together as though they're all "dangerous views" as you seem to be doing isn't the way to go. So if someone simply believes that god created the world in 7 days, that poses no problems. Other beliefs do, or could. There is a distinction.

As for "truth", that in itself, if you think your view is the truth, isn't a justification for trying to get others to share your own views. And if everyone had the exact same opinions and the exact same approach to everything, the world would be a very boring place. There's no need to fear diversity.

 

[lrkun]

There are some beliefs that cause no problems, and there are others that do, depending on how one acts on them. Lumping them all together as though they're all "dangerous views" as you seem to be doing isn't the way to go. So if someone simply believes that god created the world in 7 days, that poses no problems. Other beliefs do, or could. There is a distinction.

As for "truth", that in itself, if you think your view is the truth, isn't a justification for trying to get others to share your own views. And if everyone had the exact same opinions and the exact same approach to everything, the world would be a very boring place. There's no need to fear diversity.

Well, knowing and believing are two different things. What we mean by accepting in this thread doesn't mean that the creationist will forget his belief or turn away from god, only that he accept through evidence that evolution is true.

 

[barboft]

There are some beliefs that cause no problems, and there are others that do, depending on how one acts on them. Lumping them all together as though they're all "dangerous views" as you seem to be doing isn't the way to go. So if someone simply believes that god created the world in 7 days, that poses no problems. Other beliefs do, or could. There is a distinction.

As for "truth", that in itself, if you think your view is the truth, isn't a justification for trying to get others to share your own views. And if everyone had the exact same opinions and the exact same approach to everything, the world would be a very boring place. There's no need to fear diversity.

Well, knowing and believing are two different things. What we mean by accepting in this thread doesn't mean that the creationist will forget his belief or turn away from god, only that he accept through evidence that evolution is true.

That's fine. If you feel such a strong compulsion to show creationists why you think your view is correct then by all means go ahead. However I don't agree with creationists yet I don't have that need. I'm quite comfortable knowing that my views aren't shared by all.

 

[lrkun]

That's fine. If you feel such a strong compulsion to show creationists why you think your view is correct then by all means go ahead. However I don't agree with creationists yet I don't have that need. I'm quite comfortable knowing that my views aren't shared by all.

Killing a person is either correct or incorrect as when it depends on the law or a person's philosophy in life; but once the act is done, it is there to be seen. It can be judged. It becomes an event which is based on a fact. The same is true with evolution. It doesn't mean it is correct or incorrect; but because it is there, the event happened, what can we do but inform others. Because even if they deny it, it will continue to be the truth.

 

[barboft]

That's fine. If you feel such a strong compulsion to show creationists why you think your view is correct then by all means go ahead. However I don't agree with creationists yet I don't have that need. I'm quite comfortable knowing that my views aren't shared by all.

Killing a person is either correct or incorrect as when it depends on the law or a person's philosophy in life; but once the act is done, it is there to be seen. It can be judged. It becomes an event which is based on a fact. The same is true with evolution. It doesn't mean it is correct or incorrect; but because it is there, the event happened, what can we do but inform others. Because even if they deny it, it will continue to be the truth.

Well, what you could do is choose not to inform others. I'm not saying you should make that particular choice, I'm just pointing out that it is a choice, and that there must be some reason why you choose the alternative. I disagree with loads of people about loads of things but I just don't feel the need to go around saying so. Even if there was irrefutable evidence that all my views are right, I still wouldn't. Diversity is good, I like it that way. Having differences in opinion is far more interesting and satisfying than having everyone be exactly the same. So my question to you is ("because it's true" doesn't count), why do you feel that compulsion to inform everyone that your views are "true"? What do you hope to gain? Whenever anyone ever does anything at all, there's always a payoff for them, what's the payoff for you?

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

barboft, we aren't disagreeing with you about diversity being the spice of life and all.

But this is more than just a difference in opinion. If I believe that tiny leprechauns carry energy and pass it off to each other in a line to power our electronics, that's my opinion and I'm free to believe it. It becomes a problem when I try to get it taught in schools or alienate those who don't believe it. It becomes a problem when I make the scientific explanation of electricity out to be evil, or the evidence for it a test of faith. It becomes a menace to the welfare of society when I try to spread it.

I would imagine that a nation where a strong fraction of the populace held a similarly absurd belief would probably be declining in education, test scores, amount of engineers being produced, fewer people going to college, etc.

 

[lrkun]

Well, what you could do is choose not to inform others. I'm not saying you should make that particular choice, I'm just pointing out that it is a choice, and that there must be some reason why you choose the alternative. I disagree with loads of people about loads of things but I just don't feel the need to go around saying so. Even if there was irrefutable evidence that all my views are right, I still wouldn't. Diversity is good, I like it that way. Having differences in opinion is far more interesting and satisfying than having everyone be exactly the same. So my question to you is ("because it's true" doesn't count), why do you feel that compulsion to inform everyone that your views are "true"? What do you hope to gain? Whenever anyone ever does anything at all, there's always a payoff for them, what's the payoff for you?

Evolution to us is like an upgrade is to a computer. Don't you wish to change the world into a better place? Sure, I can choose not to inform the public about the facts; but hey, the benefits of informing them is more than keeping it to myself.

If they accept evolution, they can continue to believe in god.

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

If they accept evolution, it doesn't mean that they'll stop believing in god.

I think this is a rather crucial point. We can do our society a service and educate them without tearing them free of all their beliefs.
It's just like trying to explain heliocentricism to a geocentricist. It's good for education, but in no way an obstacle to their religious beliefs.

 

[barboft]

barboft, we aren't disagreeing with you about diversity being the spice of life and all.

But this is more than just a difference in opinion. If I believe that tiny leprechauns carry energy and pass it off to each other in a line to power our electronics, that's my opinion and I'm free to believe it. It becomes a problem when I try to get it taught in schools or alienate those who don't believe it. It becomes a problem when I make the scientific explanation of electricity out to be evil, or the evidence for it a test of faith. It becomes a menace to the welfare of society when I try to spread it.

I would imagine that a nation where a strong fraction of the populace held a similarly absurd belief would probably be declining in education, test scores, amount of engineers being produced, fewer people going to college, etc.

We don't have nations like that. What we have is nations in which belief in god is popular. I know that morality doesn't have to be linked with religion, but by and large religious people (even down to mildly religious or even people who barely give it any thought) use their religion (or even religion in general) as a source of morality. Anyway there are plenty of well educated people around, as well as engineers, and scientists. A lot of them are theists, which isn't surprising given that religion is so massively popular. If you're trying to link intelligence or academic success with atheism, you've probably got a very hard uphill struggle.



Irkun, no offence but can you see, at least superficially, how what you're saying sounds like "spreading the good news" (does that sound familiar?)? I genuinely believe that your intentions are honorable, but you might come off as preachy to some. I know that sounds ironic coming from a theist but not all of us are even interested in what others believe or don't believe.

 

[Gnug215]

Why would one want to convince someone that medicine, not prayer, will help to heal them? Surely having different views is good.

There are some beliefs that cause no problems, and there are others that do, depending on how one acts on them. Lumping them all together as though they're all "dangerous views" as you seem to be doing isn't the way to go. So if someone simply believes that god created the world in 7 days, that poses no problems. Other beliefs do, or could. There is a distinction.

As for "truth", that in itself, if you think your view is the truth, isn't a justification for trying to get others to share your own views. And if everyone had the exact same opinions and the exact same approach to everything, the world would be a very boring place. There's no need to fear diversity.

Indeed, there is a distinction, and it should be made.

I am fairly sure, however, that the OP (and well, everyone else here) is thinking about the "bad" creationists. The Kent Hovinds and Ken Hams.

I'm not sure, but I doubt many people here have a problem with theistic evolutionists. (Go Ken Miller!)

 

[lrkun]

Irkun, no offence but can you see, at least superficially, how what you're saying sounds like "spreading the good news" (does that sound familiar?)? I genuinely believe that your intentions are honorable, but you might come off as preachy to some. I know that sounds ironic coming from a theist but not all of us are even interested in what others believe or don't believe.

You might not agree with me; but others might. Some like coffee, others prefer tea, and some love alcohol drinks. There is a category for most people.

If you call it preaching, then I guess I'm guilty. If you call it spreading the good news, then I plead guilty. The difference between this news and what religion sells is very simple. They can see the evidence. As a consequence, they might learn to trust and use the scientific method.

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

If you're trying to link intelligence or academic success with atheism, you've probably got a very hard uphill struggle.

I was talking more about anti-science vs. pro-science. I would argue that there is an anti-correlation between academic success and religion only when the said religion is actively anti-academics (see: middle-East). There's a population of Christians that are also anti-academics. They're the ones trying to get their beliefs taught in schools, the ones opposed to scientific progress in cosmology, biology, etc. "If God had wanted humans in space, he would have given them wings."

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Indeed, there is a distinction, and it should be made.

I am fairly sure, however, that the OP (and well, everyone else here) is thinking about the "bad" creationists. The Kent Hovinds and Ken Hams.

I'm not sure, but I doubt many people here have a problem with theistic evolutionists. (Go Ken Miller!)

Go Hytegia! xD

--------------------------------------------------

But I think I may have to address this particular post:

We don't have nations like that. What we have is nations in which belief in god is popular. I know that morality doesn't have to be linked with religion, but by and large religious people (even down to mildly religious or even people who barely give it any thought) use their religion (or even religion in general) as a source of morality.

-Please, my good man, take a plane to Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter) and try to lead a mass education of Evolution there.
You will make it ~a week or so without any trouble, but I'm sure you will end up dead within less than a year.
If this makes you feel uncomfortable, then please simply take a drive down to Alabama. My Graduation Exams maybe touched Evolution on a single problem. I learned everything I know from intense debate, discussion, and ultimate understanding of it.

Irkun, no offence but can you see, at least superficially, how what you're saying sounds like "spreading the good news" (does that sound familiar?)? I genuinely believe that your intentions are honorable, but you might come off as preachy to some. I know that sounds ironic coming from a theist but not all of us are even interested in what others believe or don't believe.

You've missed lrkun's point entirely.
Evidence and Reason DOESN'T NEED your belief for it to be correct... What IS required, however, is that people don't go start meshing together nonsense (I'm a person who believes absolute nonsense too, FYI). Or else we get states like Alabama, and countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a NECESSITY that logic and Reason be taught - simply because that this is not some nonsense.
This is fact. With Evidence piled up as high as a mountain.
People who try to deny this actual, factual evidence is one thing - but trying to spread some bullshit -INTO SCHOOLS- and such, and presenting it as "fact" is another.

tl;dr Fantastic nonsense is quite alright until you try to spread it into the realm of science and evidence. You can be religious, and hold scientific views - but you cannot make your religious views your scientific views and try to present them to the world as "unbeatable fact."

 

[barboft]

Indeed, there is a distinction, and it should be made.

I am fairly sure, however, that the OP (and well, everyone else here) is thinking about the "bad" creationists. The Kent Hovinds and Ken Hams.

I'm not sure, but I doubt many people here have a problem with theistic evolutionists. (Go Ken Miller!)

Go Hytegia! xD

--------------------------------------------------

But I think I may have to address this particular post:

We don't have nations like that. What we have is nations in which belief in god is popular. I know that morality doesn't have to be linked with religion, but by and large religious people (even down to mildly religious or even people who barely give it any thought) use their religion (or even religion in general) as a source of morality.

-Please, my good man, take a plane to Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter) and try to lead a mass education of Evolution there.
You will make it ~a week or so without any trouble, but I'm sure you will end up dead within less than a year.
If this makes you feel uncomfortable, then please simply take a drive down to Alabama. My Graduation Exams maybe touched Evolution on a single problem. I learned everything I know from intense debate, discussion, and ultimate understanding of it.

Irkun, no offence but can you see, at least superficially, how what you're saying sounds like "spreading the good news" (does that sound familiar?)? I genuinely believe that your intentions are honorable, but you might come off as preachy to some. I know that sounds ironic coming from a theist but not all of us are even interested in what others believe or don't believe.

You've missed lrkun's point entirely.
Evidence and Reason DOESN'T NEED your belief for it to be correct... What IS required, however, is that people don't go start meshing together nonsense (I'm a person who believes absolute nonsense too, FYI). Or else we get states like Alabama, and countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a NECESSITY that logic and Reason be taught - simply because that this is not some nonsense.
This is fact. With Evidence piled up as high as a mountain.
People who try to deny this actual, factual evidence is one thing - but trying to spread some bullshit -INTO SCHOOLS- and such, and presenting it as "fact" is another.

tl;dr Fantastic nonsense is quite alright until you try to spread it into the realm of science and evidence. You can be religious, and hold scientific views - but you cannot make your religious views your scientific views and try to present them to the world as "unbeatable fact."

Correction noted. Yes, there are countries where the beliefs of some people there are the cause of those countries' problems. But to be fair, it must be pointed out that :

* It's usually a small minority that ruins it for the majority, and unfortunately their views are often mistakenly assumed to be those of the majority
* Before Iraq was invaded, it was perhaps the most progressive country in the middle east
* Islam has a very strong scientific tradition, a tradition, it must be said, which has influenced the western scientific tradition
* Joseph Mengele was an excellent scientist. However his methods were not
* It is only due to the tenacity of the most talented scientists (the minority) that we have some of the things we have today, despite the derision and ridicule of the majority of scientists of the day


If you want to see a world where "nonsense" is never "officially" taught as fact, I'd say that maybe, just maybe, that's a remote possibility. But it's a very big maybe. However, you can never stop people having opinions and teaching them as either fact or as "for informational purposes only" outside schools and colleges and universities. As long as there are humans, there will always be theists. I'm as close to 100% certain of that as one can be.

 

[lrkun]

Thunderf00t said it best, Science and Education FTW (his old slogan, now it's something that I couldn't care less about, hehehe.).

According to Einstein, paraphrased of course, the following are closest to infinity:

1. Human Stupidity; and

2. The Universe.

And to him, he's not even sure about the universe. ^^

---

But wait, as time passes, we can limit such stupidity through education and technology.

The question is what kind of education? What kind of technology?

An education which is up to date and applicable with the times. That means, it must be accurate and effective.

The technology that we're using now and not technology which was used in the past. What I mean by this is that which is available.

---

You might ask, "why should this mean to me?"

It's simple really, in your case, it will stabilize your life and that of your loved ones. ^^

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

It's usually a small minority that ruins it for the majority, and unfortunately their views are often mistakenly assumed to be those of the majority

I would like to think that none of us implied we believed otherwise.

Islam has a very strong scientific tradition, a tradition, it must be said, which has influenced the western scientific tradition

Yes, the Middle-East used to be the intellectual capital of the world. Then the idea came that science was against the religious establishment and alas, the middle-East became the mess that it is today. They have abdicated their status as a strong source of science. Iran has a higher output though than many nations, and is growing in the number of peer reviewed articles being published.

Joseph Mengele was an excellent scientist. However his methods were not

Forgive me if I am not sure what the relevence is.

It is only due to the tenacity of the most talented scientists (the minority) that we have some of the things we have today, despite the derision and ridicule of the majority of scientists of the day

I am not sure what you are referring to. Are you describing peer review?

As long as there are humans, there will always be theists. I'm as close to 100% certain of that as one can be.

Agreed.

 

[barboft]

Irkun, I realise that there are areas where it's important to get certain things right. I'm not saying that shouldn't be dealt with. What I'm saying, I guess, is that generally, it would be a shame to go to every country in the world and notice everyone having the same opinions, and the same things being taught everywhere in the same way. I think it's great, for instance, that certain tribes have their beliefs, or that you can go to Italy or Spain and see statues of virgins being paraded. Religious beliefs often have a positive and fascinating influence on cultures, including music and literature. I suppose that's really where I'm coming from on this.

 

[lrkun]

Irkun, I realise that there are areas where it's important to get certain things right. I'm not saying that shouldn't be dealt with. What I'm saying, I guess, is that generally, it would be a shame to go to every country in the world and notice everyone having the same opinions, and the same things being taught everywhere in the same way. I think it's great, for instance, that certain tribes have their beliefs, or that you can go to Italy or Spain and see statues of virgins being paraded. Religious beliefs often have a positive and fascinating influence on cultures, including music and literature. I suppose that's really where I'm coming from on this.

Well, if you read what I wrote, I never said that these things will disappear or must disappear.

This is reality. Reality = House.

This is you. You're inside the house.

This is your belief in god. Belief = beer.

This is evolution. Evolution = pizza.

You're watching the world cup and your friends are all there.

You have beer and pizza to make it more fun.

----

Notice the story? I subtracted nothing.

 

[Squawk]

Why would one want to convince someone that medicine, not prayer, will help to heal them? Surely having different views is good.

There are some beliefs that cause no problems, and there are others that do, depending on how one acts on them. Lumping them all together as though they're all "dangerous views" as you seem to be doing isn't the way to go. So if someone simply believes that god created the world in 7 days, that poses no problems. Other beliefs do, or could. There is a distinction.

As for "truth", that in itself, if you think your view is the truth, isn't a justification for trying to get others to share your own views. And if everyone had the exact same opinions and the exact same approach to everything, the world would be a very boring place. There's no need to fear diversity.

Beliefs inform our actions. The belief that there really is a sky daddy who created the world 6000 years ago and listens to prayers is about as insane a proposition as I can comprehend, and yet countless millions believe it to be true.

Those beliefs inform how they live their lives, including, but not limited to, there opinions on abortion, slavery, race relations, homosexuality, justice, torture and infact just about any aspect of life that I deem to be important.

Further, those with this idiotic belief are doing their level best to hold back society by indoctrinating kids, by getting this fairy tale bullshit into schools and generally holding back the search for knowledge.

In short, I perceive religion to be the single most restrictive feature of modern society, one that I would happily rid the world of if given the choice, though I'd like to do so via education. It prevents people from having and using their own judgement.

So no, I don't think the comparison is unjustified.

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

Religious beliefs often have a positive and fascinating influence on cultures, including music and literature. I suppose that's really where I'm coming from on this.

We understand that, and I don't think any of us have a problem with that.
As long as they don't try to push their beliefs into classrooms and fight against scientific progress, then I don't care what beliefs they have.

edit:

Further, those with this idiotic belief are doing their level best to hold back society by indoctrinating kids, by getting this fairy tale bullshit into schools and generally holding back the search for knowledge.

Exactly.