Wear the Black Hat

[Kitsune]

Let us assume a theoretical problem...
Pretend that instead of arguing for Evolution, we pretend to argue for creation. First off, I have a feeling that we would be able to argue better than 80 to 90% of creationist.

My point is that as a Layman, I read a lot of books. Much of the stuff is too complex for a high school course (which is what most people have at best) and might even be beyond junior college level. getting how everything connects takes quite a bit to understand

The problem is how do we win the hearts and minds of the common person, especially in the United States?

[Kanastrous]

Tell them that they are so unique and smart and gorgeous and special that there is no conceivable explanation for their marvelous existence, save the conscientious action of a Divine Creator.

Appeals to vanity usually make the whoppers go down smoother.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

But the real question is, what do you use to fill in the gap between that and telling them what filthy evil sinners they are that they must accept the blood atonement of Christ and worship God through His church or burn forever because God loves them so much? You have to put something in the middle to confuse them or they might get a little put off.

Perhaps you should start with some epistemological gibberish that justifies arguments from ignorance and makes excluding the supernatural as an unreasonable act of faith. Science is one thing, but enough philosophy will make even serious people wonder if there is any justification or even meaning to any concepts at all. Then the vanity will have time to sink in and bias them towards credulity, as they grasp for some sort of concept to hang onto.

There doesn't seem to be anyway to do this without feeling really dishonest. I wonder what it's actually like for full-fledged apologists (I can admit, though, from experience, that genuine ignorance helps a lot.)

[Kanastrous]

I wonder what it's actually like for full-fledged apologists

I try to avoid spending too much time imagining what it's like to be insane.

I have a good imagination and there's always the risk of the condition becoming chronic.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

But the real question is, what do you use to fill in the gap between that and telling them what filthy evil sinners they are that they must accept the blood atonement of Christ and worship God through His church or burn forever because God loves them so much? You have to put something in the middle to confuse them or they might get a little put off.

Perhaps you should start with some epistemological gibberish that justifies arguments from ignorance and makes excluding the supernatural as an unreasonable act of faith. Science is one thing, but enough philosophy will make even serious people wonder if there is any justification or even meaning to any concepts at all. Then the vanity will have time to sink in and bias them towards credulity, as they grasp for some sort of concept to hang onto.

There doesn't seem to be anyway to do this without feeling really dishonest. I wonder what it's actually like for full-fledged apologists (I can admit, though, from experience, that genuine ignorance helps a lot.)

Accepting that you were created doesn't mean you know how or who created you. Christian theology might believe that god created mankind, but have the whole obidience and relationship with god ass backward.

Creationism or ID isn't the same as chrisitianity. Unfortunately in the US, they get smacked together so it becomes a religious thing.

[Darth Wong]

Let us assume a theoretical problem...
Pretend that instead of arguing for Evolution, we pretend to argue for creation. First off, I have a feeling that we would be able to argue better than 80 to 90% of creationist.

My point is that as a Layman, I read a lot of books. Much of the stuff is too complex for a high school course (which is what most people have at best) and might even be beyond junior college level. getting how everything connects takes quite a bit to understand

The problem is how do we win the hearts and minds of the common person, especially in the United States?

You don't need to understand the subject in order to argue for creationism. All you have to do is appeal to the average person's inherent resentment toward "elitists". Print a long list of examples where scientists were wrong (even though it was other scientists, not religious scholars, who found and corrected the error), and then conclude that scientists are incredibly arrogant to insist that no theories other than evolution should be given serious consideration. If you know more about biology, just list a bewildering amount of detail describing the complexity and inter-connectedness of life, and then conclude that God must have done it.

Really, it's incredibly easy to argue for creationism, because you're not making a logical case and therefore you don't have to worry about making an airtight argument. You're appealing to emotion and the strawman claim that science claims infallibility.

[Kanastrous]

Creationism or ID isn't the same as chrisitianity. Unfortunately in the US, they get smacked together so it becomes a religious thing.

It's neither unfortunate, nor accidental.

Creationism and ID are instruments being used in the effort to shove Christian beliefs into public classrooms.

And the fact that's going on, tells me a great deal about Christians.

[Twoyboy]

If you know more about biology, just list a bewildering amount of detail describing the complexity and inter-connectedness of life, and then conclude that God must have done it.

Knowledge of biology is unnecessary when the common man also has no knowledge of biology. Look up some of the "facts" stated about the Bombardier beetle on creationist sites. Blatant lies are more effective than the truth when no one is going to keep you honest.