Creationism and Human Evolution

[Zirojtan]

So I'm sitting here drawing Castoroides ohioensis because every rendition of it I've been able to find on paper online I think is dismal, and it popped into my head:


We're quite a long ways from where we were in say, the 19th century or even the early 20th century in terms of understanding human evolution, and even though many people believe in God today, including myself, most of them believe in evolution as well. My dad doesn't believe in human evolution, but he instead of coming up with explanations, he comes up with questions, like: "So if God exists, and we're still his children, at what point did we become human from animals, and where would our ancestors fall in terms of God's plans?" He just says: "I don't know." when presented with evidence though.


I believe in God, but I'm definitely not religious, and don't claim to have any good answer for the above question, or for whether or not humans have a divine purpose that is separate from or more important than that of animals, nor do I have any specific beliefs about the nature of God; I essentially just believe that there is one.


But I'm wondering as far as creationists are concerned, how do their mainstream intellectuals tackle some of these difficult questions, like the clearer picture of human evolution, and the apparent age of life on Earth, and what kind of experiences have you guys had with this?

[The Vortex Empire]

But I'm wondering as far as creationists are concerned, how do their mainstream intellectuals tackle some of these difficult questions, like the clearer picture of human evolution, and the apparent age of life on Earth, and what kind of experiences have you guys had with this?

They deny the existence of any evidence. To them, fossils are either tricks planted by Satan or tests of faith planted by God, or just made up by those evil heathen scientists trying to lure people away from the truth. Many deny that Earth is more than a few thousand years old, while old earth types just claim God guided evolution. Attempting to argue with most of them is basically just bashing your head into a wall.

I believe in God, but I'm definitely not religious,

That's kind of the definition of being religious.

[Formless]

That's kind of the definition of being religious.

No, that's the definition of a theist. If you will allow me to be semantic for a moment, he could be a deist, meaning he believes in god but rejects the idea of revelation that is central to how religions function. My father is a deist, and yet probably the single harshest critic of religion I have personally met, mostly on moral grounds.

Otherwise, carry on.

[Spekio]

They don't. They keep trying to "disprove" evolution, or claim that (the tons) of evolution data are bogus, i.e. carbon dating is wrong due to Noah's flood.

[Kitsune]

Show his this?

[Zirojtan]

That's kind of the definition of being religious.

Haha, no, it isn't.

No, that's the definition of a theist. If you will allow me to be semantic for a moment, he could be a deist, meaning he believes in god but rejects the idea of revelation that is central to how religions function. My father is a deist, and yet probably the single harshest critic of religion I have personally met, mostly on moral grounds.

To be honest, I don't give it a lot of thought, so I can't really say where I stand on that one. Define "revelation"?

[The Vortex Empire]

Show his this?

*snip*

Plaster models made by heathen scientists, obviously!

[The Vortex Empire]

That's kind of the definition of being religious.

No, that's the definition of a theist. If you will allow me to be semantic for a moment, he could be a deist, meaning he believes in god but rejects the idea of revelation that is central to how religions function. My father is a deist, and yet probably the single harshest critic of religion I have personally met, mostly on moral grounds.

Otherwise, carry on.

http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries ... y/religion

religion
noun
1 [uncountable] the belief in the existence of a god or gods, and the activities that are connected with the worship of them
2 [countable] one of the systems of faith that are based on the belief in the existence of a particular god or gods

1 seems to fit the bill to me, while it wouldn't fit definition 2. By some definitions of religion, simply believing in the existence of a deity qualifies as religious. Evidently, we weren't using the same definition, but that's semantics for you.

[Formless]

To be honest, I don't give it a lot of thought, so I can't really say where I stand on that one. Define "revelation"?

Basically, "take my word for it, the cosmos works this way because I am a [prophet, demigod, pope, guru, saint, rabbi, priest, Dalai Lama, messiah, etc.]! God told me personally, and not you.". So basically, taking the gospel as... well, gospel. To use a familiar christian example. A deist would want independent, rational verification of this stuff.

1 seems to fit the bill to me, while it wouldn't fit definition 2. By some definitions of religion, simply believing in the existence of a deity qualifies as religious. Evidently, we weren't using the same definition, but that's semantics for you.

This would be why dictionaries are a poor place to get your philosophical categories from. Definition #1 would discount Bhuddism and animism, among other things; but that's western ethnocentrism for you.

[Formless]

Show his this?

*snip*

Plaster models made by heathen scientists, obviously!

Microevolution! Clearly, the small one was a dwarf, and the smallest one was just a deformed chimp.

[The Vortex Empire]

This would be why dictionaries are a poor place to get your philosophical categories from. Definition #1 would discount Bhuddism and animism, among other things; but that's western ethnocentrism for you.

True enough.

[The Vortex Empire]

Show his this?

*snip*

Plaster models made by heathen scientists, obviously!

Microevolution! Clearly, the small one was a dwarf, and the smallest one was just a deformed chimp.

Bah, they're clearly the skulls of demons and fallen angels, corrupted and twisted in punishment for their betrayal.

[Kitsune]

Show his this?

*snip*

Plaster models made by heathen scientists, obviously!

Granted, more of a feeling but his dad does not seem the type to argue that.

[Zirojtan]

Granted, more of a feeling but his dad does not seem the type to argue that.

Not at all. He normally just says: "I don't know." Although I'm not really dedicated to convincing him, so I'm not bothered.

Bah, they're clearly the skulls of demons and fallen angels, corrupted and twisted in punishment for their betrayal.

That sounds like something someone that reads the Bible and is mentally living in that time period would say. I'm talking about the more mainstream types, you know, like the Bible Belt Hoo Has with their television shows? How do they go about explaining what these early hominins really are without sounding like a bunch of superstitious villagers, or how young the world is?

[Formless]

Uh... to answer your question, we're talking about people who really are beyond parody. All of those things are seriously arguments that have been used before. Young Earth creationists and Biblical Literalists really are a thing, especially around the Bible Belt. Conspiracy theories about forged evidence really are a thing. This is a group of people you just can't argue with, because they are halfway to being psychotic. Their explanations for early hominids range from improbable (deformed modern humans/apes, conspiracies, failed experiments) to insane (they're demons! They're planted by the Devil!).

Keep in mind they also have to explain why Dinosaurs exist. That's even more inconvenient for some of their beliefs.

[Serafina]

Nah, they just rationalize Dinosaurs like this:
They were created by god, but either were hunted to extinction (their meat was supertasty after all) or died out due to radical changes after The Flood.

Sure, that doesn't stand up to any detailed scrutiny - but that's the deal, as usual they just don't look at all the details.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

That sounds like something someone that reads the Bible and is mentally living in that time period would say. I'm talking about the more mainstream types, you know, like the Bible Belt Hoo Has with their television shows? How do they go about explaining what these early hominins really are without sounding like a bunch of superstitious villagers, or how young the world is?

Eh... no. The 'more mainstream types' are the Christians who accept evolution on principle, usually maintaining that the principle was created by God regardless (Catholic style, and impressively neat). Creationists, by definition, mentally live in the Bronze Age, perhaps reaching the Roman era when quoting the New Testament: they're not afraid of 'sounding like a bunch of superstitious villagers' in that lot.

In these cases, you can generally click on the bigass logo up left and jump to Mike Wong's page on Creationism vs Science. It's got a compendium of common Creationist arguments, and even a page of butthurt fundamentalists sending him hatemail if you want to laugh/cry/laugh/cry ad infinitum.

[Zirojtan]

Will do.

[Simon_Jester]

That sounds like something someone that reads the Bible and is mentally living in that time period would say. I'm talking about the more mainstream types, you know, like the Bible Belt Hoo Has with their television shows? How do they go about explaining what these early hominins really are without sounding like a bunch of superstitious villagers, or how young the world is?

The majority of people who actively dismiss evolution and preach that dismissal are counting on the bone-deep ignorance of the people they're talking to. They don't need to convince their audience that fossilized hominids were anything. Because beyond a sort of vague cartoon idea that there once were people who lived in caves like the Flintstones or whatever, the target audience doesn't know anything about early humans prior to Biblical times. They have no concrete information, there's nothing which needs explaining in their mental universe because their mental universe doesn't contain the relevant evidence.

And once that space in their heads is filled up with young-Earth creationism by their parents, pastors, and so on... it becomes nearly impossible to provide an accurate representation of the evidence to them. They weren't educated in science at a young age, or ignored or forgot the education they got, so they don't have the context to understand why it matters that hundreds of feet of rock strata have piled up since the time of the dinosaurs. Or anything else like that.

There are exceptions who actually try to come up with 'scientific' justifications for creationism that at least don't completely fail the laugh test. But that is mostly an intellectual game played by a relative handful of educated creationists who are trying to keep up some kind of intellectual credibility among the general public.

For creationism as a whole, that intellectual game is vital if, say, they ever want creationism taught in public schools- they have to at least be able to dress up someone in a lab coat and "explain" the evidence in a way that a judge cannot easily distinguish from scientific fact. That way they can say "See? Scientists disagree about this!"

But to the average creationist, it's a completely pointless question, because the average creationist's beliefs rest on a foundation of ignorance, and on the attitude that understanding science is other people's job.

[Korto]

Nah, they just rationalize Dinosaurs like this:
They were created by god, but either were hunted to extinction (their meat was supertasty after all) or died out due to radical changes after The Flood.

Sure, that doesn't stand up to any detailed scrutiny - but that's the deal, as usual they just don't look at all the details.

I once watched a video with a friend that claimed that since the dinosaurs lived in a period when there was a very high concentration of oxygen, they only needed to breathe a little, so while they had a large lung capacity, they only had very small nostrils, because they only needed a small amount of air.
When the atmosphere changed to a low percentage of oxygen, the dinosaurs had to breathe so fast to get enough air, that they super-heated their nostrils and, in the high percentage of oxygen, they caught on fire and all burnt to death.
They were apparently serious. It was amusing.

[The Vortex Empire]

Nah, they just rationalize Dinosaurs like this:
They were created by god, but either were hunted to extinction (their meat was supertasty after all) or died out due to radical changes after The Flood.

Sure, that doesn't stand up to any detailed scrutiny - but that's the deal, as usual they just don't look at all the details.

I once watched a video with a friend that claimed that since the dinosaurs lived in a period when there was a very high concentration of oxygen, they only needed to breathe a little, so while they had a large lung capacity, they only had very small nostrils, because they only needed a small amount of air.
When the atmosphere changed to a low percentage of oxygen, the dinosaurs had to breathe so fast to get enough air, that they super-heated their nostrils and, in the high percentage of oxygen, they caught on fire and all burnt to death.
They were apparently serious. It was amusing.

That's impressively stupid, even for creationists. Hm. I wonder how fast the air would need to be moving to make a dinosaur ignite...

[Serafina]

The original argument wasn't that they caught fire, just that they asphyxiated due to not getting enough oxygen. The "had to breathe so much that their nostrils caught fire" was mostly tongue-in-cheek apparently.

Though of course that argument STILL fails utterly - since we have organisms today that have similarly "small nostrils" and can breathe just fine (hint: there is such a thing as a mouth). Not to mention all the small dinosaurs which everyone always forgets.

[Lagmonster]

Let me give you some advice, since he's your dad. Instead of asking people how they should argue, ask why you should.

It's entirely possible that the reason you want to argue against his core beliefs is because you want your dad to respect you, or your intellect.

I don't want you to turn around and say that I'm advocating we abandon people to their delusions; I say, write articles or blogs showcasing science. Study science. Be involved in public education and politics. Talk with people who want to learn. Ideas should be challenged; they don't fight back. It's the people who you will find have no way, no magic moment or phrase that will cause them to abandon a belief. And sometimes you lose a great deal, for no reason, for having tried.

[Zirojtan]

Let me give you some advice, since he's your dad. Instead of asking people how they should argue, ask why you should.

It's entirely possible that the reason you want to argue against his core beliefs is because you want your dad to respect you, or your intellect.

I don't want you to turn around and say that I'm advocating we abandon people to their delusions; I say, write articles or blogs showcasing science. Study science. Be involved in public education and politics. Talk with people who want to learn. Ideas should be challenged; they don't fight back. It's the people who you will find have no way, no magic moment or phrase that will cause them to abandon a belief. And sometimes you lose a great deal, for no reason, for having tried.

Well, thank you for the advice, but I never asked how to argue, or whether I should, cuz I'm actually not trying to change my dad's mind at all. I was simply asking what kind of "scientific" explanations that creationists tried to use to appeal to the more intellectual people in their audiences.

The majority of people who actively dismiss evolution and preach that dismissal are counting on the bone-deep ignorance of the people they're talking to. They don't need to convince their audience that fossilized hominids were anything. Because beyond a sort of vague cartoon idea that there once were people who lived in caves like the Flintstones or whatever, the target audience doesn't know anything about early humans prior to Biblical times. They have no concrete information, there's nothing which needs explaining in their mental universe because their mental universe doesn't contain the relevant evidence.

And once that space in their heads is filled up with young-Earth creationism by their parents, pastors, and so on... it becomes nearly impossible to provide an accurate representation of the evidence to them. They weren't educated in science at a young age, or ignored or forgot the education they got, so they don't have the context to understand why it matters that hundreds of feet of rock strata have piled up since the time of the dinosaurs. Or anything else like that.

There are exceptions who actually try to come up with 'scientific' justifications for creationism that at least don't completely fail the laugh test. But that is mostly an intellectual game played by a relative handful of educated creationists who are trying to keep up some kind of intellectual credibility among the general public.

For creationism as a whole, that intellectual game is vital if, say, they ever want creationism taught in public schools- they have to at least be able to dress up someone in a lab coat and "explain" the evidence in a way that a judge cannot easily distinguish from scientific fact. That way they can say "See? Scientists disagree about this!"

But to the average creationist, it's a completely pointless question, because the average creationist's beliefs rest on a foundation of ignorance, and on the attitude that understanding science is other people's job.

You know, while this sounds outwardly dismissive and just outright rude, it's actually... really accurate, at least in my experience.


See, I was raised in the LDS Church, which has a lot in common with the other Protestants with whom they compete in that they are one of the last refuges for creationist theology. Your post comes across as rude before I really, honestly thought about all of the people that I used to sit in Church with, but after I did, and mind you only for like a second or two, it really made sense. I think it's fair to say that most people don't know anything at all about evolution besides what they saw in junior high textbooks and science videos, and so to the average uneducated (in this particular subject, anyways) mind, which are the minds to which these people are appealing, it would seem just as plausible one way or the other.


Myself, I left the Church when I was 16, not because I thought any of their beliefs or practices were particularly wild or anything (Jehovah's Witnesses anyone?), but just because certain aspects of the theology were honestly very damaging to me as a teenager, being gay and all. I wasn't really convinced of human evolution per say until a couple of years ago when I really started reading about it, because my knowledge of it was primarily based on silly junior high high school presentations that in large part involved just as much handwaving as the creationism I had been taught at church.


Personally, I think that evolution seriously needs to be gone into in more detail in school so that kids can really come out of class with a decent understanding of it, but then... American education as a whole is in need of wild reform, cuz I didn't learn dick in high school.

[Simon_Jester]

My honest opinion is that we could teach a lot more in high schools if the system was free to expel the 5-10% or so of its worst behavioral problems. This isn't about special education, that's not the problem. The problem is reasonably intelligent students who do not and cannot settle down enough to allow others to learn.

Until such time as their behavioral problems go away, they are unfit for a classroom environment, and serve only to poison and destroy the educations of others.

The obvious problem is, where would these expelled children go? I have no answer. All I can do is ask the rhetorical question: would we rather give 80-90% of children, from all demographics, a good education? Or would we rather give 100% of them a mediocre or poor education?

This is not a trivial question- but you might decide on reflection to go with answer number one. Realize that your local school district has probably been forced to accept answer number two.