Why are ID Proponents/Creationists such dishonest ********?

[VoijaRisa]

ChaoticConsonance

I think you misunderstand the usage of "materialism". Here it refers to a philosophical position that the world and all that is in it is physical, that there is no spiritual. Conciousness, emotion, etc. can all be explained by physical laws, even if we don't have the science for it yet.

Quite right. The sense I was talking about is that Creationists tie evolution to the philosophical position of materialism which at its core simply states that there is no magic or spiritual realm. However, they again exhibit their dishonesty when they then conflate it with greed and all sorts of other negative things that are often associated with it.

The reason they do this is that evolution, as with all science, takes the approach of methodological naturalism which presumes that either there is no magic realm or if there is, that it is insignificant to the experiments. If we didn't make this assumption, no science could be done since that "magic" variable could not be constrained.

Some people (like Richard Dawkins) have come to the (again, philosophical) conclusion that because this methodological naturalism works so well, this must mean that the "magic" variable must actually be zero, and that there is no magic, no spiritual realm and no God. Creationists get their panties in a knot over this, and that's what Miller was suggesting may be the cause for the recent Creationist movement, but as I pointed out before, Creationism was around long before Dawkins.

[VoijaRisa]

Updated with additional section on Dembski's lack of rational responses.

[VoijaRisa]

Updated with new link to Evolution, Entropy, the Big Bang, and the Second Law.

[Atomic Sky]

They have to be dishonest because no one is stupid enough to believe it (unless they're American).

[Master Twibble]

Because their crazy?

I mean... come on.

They think a big man in the sky made everything and sits in this heaven place (which I cannot find on a map or with my telescope, trust me I've looked) and judges us for everything we do.
EDIT: Also Angels are very real. But Ghosts and Aliens? ******** NO!

And dinosaurs fossils were put here by god.
To test their faith.
.......


Adults with imaginary friends are stupid.

[VoijaRisa]

Atomic Sky

They have to be dishonest because no one is stupid enough to believe it (unless they're American).

This doesn't seem to work quite right to me because it suggests that they have to be dishonest to get non-Americans to swallow their s**t.

However, America is the only country that has major problems with this sort of thing. This suggests that Americans wouldn't buy it without the dishonesty either, but the rest of the world is a bit smarter and has a better foundation of science education.

[xjxjxjxjxjxjxjxjxjjx]

You just called all creationists dishonest.

What next? Calling all black people thugs?

People have different beliefs than you. Deal with it.

This is America, people are free to believe and worship as they please no matter they're race, creed, color, or religion.

[Reniefuwa]

Blackhorn- the Legend

ID proponents have to be purposfully dishonest for the simple reason that it is the only way for them to continue to accept what their (small) logical side has rejected. When discussing 'change over time' with any ID/Creationist, you can get them to admit to minor changes in the Darwin's Finches, in bacteria, in plants and others- but once you bring in the concept that this 'change over time' is evolution, they imediatly deny it- if they didn't, they would be admitting they are wrong, and few humans are willing to do that.

Partly true, and partly not. That's not the whole reason. When you talk "evolution" they think "Mutation + Natural Selection." Not wrong (right?). However, those minor changes in finches can be accounted for by genetic recombination; in other words, all the traits were already possible for those birds, and natural selection sort of 'funneled' them into the species we see today. Natural selection does not go against any kind of "god-made" concept.

[VoijaRisa]

xjxjxjxjxjxjxjxjxjjx

You just called all creationists dishonest.

What next? Calling all black people thugs?

People have different beliefs than you. Deal with it.

This is America, people are free to believe and worship as they please no matter they're race, creed, color, or religion.

The onus is on you to show me a creationist that can make their arguments without having to resort to the intellectual dishonesty exemplified in this post. I've been around a long time and I've yet to find a single one.

I have no problem with people with different beliefs. They can have it all they want. However, when they start pretending to do academic work, they'd best expect that they'll be held up to intellectual and academic standards. In that field, you're free to believe as you'd like. But intellectual dishonesty doesn't fly. They walk into the field and by doing so accept the standards. Go whine about persecution somewhere else.

Reniefuwa

However, those minor changes in finches can be accounted for by genetic recombination; in other words, all the traits were already possible for those birds, and natural selection sort of 'funneled' them into the species we see today. Natural selection does not go against any kind of "god-made" concept.

This idea presumes that all information was present at the beginning of life on Earth and is slowly fragmenting into various species as time goes on. This would require immense cells with millions the times of DNA of cells today. Given that the fossil record flatly contradicts this (early life was simpler) this cannot possibly be the case. The information did not already exist. It had to be generated somehow. RM+NS is the only theory which can presently explain that.

[Reniefuwa]

RM+NS? Hrn?

[VoijaRisa]

Reniefuwa

RM+NS? Hrn?

Random Mutation + Natural Selection.

[Reniefuwa]

Anyway, just explaining the reasoning behind those kind of responses. And ah-ha! they will say. What mutations have we seen that are actually beneficial? Nobody hopes to hear that their doctor has found evidence of a mutation in their child.

[VoijaRisa]

Reniefuwa

What mutations have we seen that are actually beneficial?

How about these?

Reniefuwa

Nobody hopes to hear that their doctor has found evidence of a mutation in their child.

And how many people do you think actually are informed enough to know whether mutations are good or bad? Hell, how many Americans can correctly define the term "theory" as it applies in a scientific sense? (Hint: It's <50%)

And before you get freaked out about mutations, you, me, and everyone else is full of them. The majority are neutral. Some are bad. Some are good.

[Ayures]

If you ever want to research definitive evidence of natural selection, and thus evolution, just research the pepper moth.