Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Pink Floyd Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer CafeSociety CafeSociety CafeSociety  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Water Sports
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Why are creationists so stupid?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 492 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 12, 2008 7:47:01 PM PST
Aquatic Ape says:
Do you have to be stupid to believe in creationism, or does believing in it make you stupid?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 12, 2008 8:34:47 PM PST
Ronald Craig says:
Reducing it to a question of "stupidity" kind-of obscures the real causes, doesn't it?

Sure, a lot of Creationists are just plain stupid. (By definition, half of the population is below average intelligence. According to various statistics, over 85% of the American population believes in something for which there is no objective evidence. Creationism is an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Are these factors unrelated?) But more of them are just ignorant about how Science really works. (No doubt a result of the wonderful American public education system?) And they are, from my observations thus far, for the most part woefully ignorant of the nature and history of the very "scriptures" they hold sacred.

People don't like things that shake up their world view. When it happens, they react emotionally, without thinking. It's the lack of thought that makes them look "stupid."

As for the second part of your question, intense belief does cause people to close their minds to new ideas when those ideas conflict with the tenets of their belief. That also can make them look "stupid"; but it doesn't mean they are.

I guess my point is this: labels are dangerous if you let them influence your own thinking. Labeling creationists as "stupid" could lead you to underestimate them someday.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 12, 2008 8:58:18 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 12, 2008 9:10:00 PM PST
'probabilist says:
Aquatic Ape wrote:

> Do you have to be stupid to believe in creationism,
> or does believing in it make you stupid?

Neither. You just have to have the creationist story drilled into you, without rest, from a very early age. That'll do it, for most. Only a few manage to reach escape velocity, in the wake of such a beginning.

P

P.S. I have no trouble with creationists believing what they want to believe, as long as they don't try to shoehorn their so-called "science" into the science classes of publicly supported schools in the United States. Those attempts all clearly violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution (as shown most recently in the Dover case), and I'm having none of that. The Establishment Clause is there to protect all of us many varieties of Christians from each other, and it must not be eroded.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2008 7:47:21 AM PST
Sean LeBlanc says:
I agree with probalist - it's not really either. It probably has a lot more to do with imprinting from an early age - or imprinting done at some other major event when one would be open to such memes, such as when someone gets "reborn". With that imprinting you can be taught almost anything - distrust science, distrust thinking, and instead believe the Bible to be the literal word of god that is also a text to be taken seriously on matters such as history, morality, and even science.

It seems there are plenty of people that are reasonably smart, yet believe some of this stuff. I wouldn't think it's fair to say they are all stupid. If someone has been taught since birth that real inquiry is the work of the devil (with that Tree of Knowledge stuff right there in the text) and that scientists and/or atheists aren't "humble" enough, etc., then you can begin to see how even some of the most brilliant of minds may have been severely retarded by these memes.

Now, some creationists might just be doing it to make more money, and I have doubts as to whether they truly believe their own baloney. As ridiculous as Hovind is, he made more money than the average real scientist, but I don't think even he is so stupid to believe his own stuff about a world-wide flood, dinosaurs living today, etc. Of course, he also seemed to honestly think that tax law didn't apply to him, so who knows...

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2008 8:42:00 AM PST
Bill M. says:
I don't think it's stupidity, just laziness when it comes to learning about science. In my experience, the people who say "I don't believe in evolution", when pressed on the subject, show that they simply don't even know the basics about evolution or even science in the first place. You can see this in all the popular, fallacious creationist arguments: "It's just a theory", "This wasn't all due to random chance", "Why are there still apes?", "Well you weren't there so you can't know", "Accepting evolution would mean we'd have to throw out God", and so on. Some even use the term "evolution" to refer to concepts in not only biology, but cosmology, chemistry, and anything else that contradicts a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

Anybody who does even a MINIMAL amount of reading about biology and the scientific method, will learn that "theory" and "hypothesis" mean completely different things in science, that the underlying mechanics of evolution are anything but "random", that an examination of the world shows that all hypotheses of "what happened" are far from being equal in probability and consistency, and that there are plenty of scientists who have no problem accepting evolution and also having their own personal belief in God (not all theists are creationists).

Unfortunately, you can't sum up everything there is to know about evolution in a simple, magazine-sized article of pure layman's terms. It's much easier, therefore, to ignorantly go along with an incorrect definition of evolution and attack that like some paper target. The central argument of creationism is "A deity is the only way to explain complexity", which of course has been debunked time and time again, ever since the days people stopped believing in things like "a sun god" or "a rain god".

Plus, people love to believe in conspiracy theories. It's just so much easier and fun to believe in something like "Elvis Presley is still alive" or "JFK was killed by the CIA", than to show all the evidence against it. In fact, when conspiracy theorists are presented with evidence that contradicts their claims, they just change their position and rationalize the evidence away ("Oh that death certificate of Elvis was forged!"). Likewise, it's easier to play armchair theologian than to actually read up on science and learn new vocabulary words.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2008 8:52:46 AM PST
Sean LeBlanc says:
Bill:

Very good points, Bill. I completely overlooked the lazy aspect. I guess I was thinking more about the "active" creationists.

But the lazy aspect does a lot more to explain creationists that are more go-with-the-flow types (that are also at least nominally religious) that pay more attention to what Britney or Paris are doing this week than anything of real substance. I'm sure they know just as much about, say, foreign policy, as they do science.

It explains whats-her-name on The View both denying evolution while also not knowing if the earth was flat or not.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2008 9:33:51 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 13, 2008 9:37:46 AM PST
Moi says:
I think your insulting creationists runs afoul of the guidelines for this post. Meanwhile, let's stick with the debate here. We creationists see order in a vastly complex and enormous universe. That is sufficient proof for us. The Bible also proves itself with numerous prophecies that are dead-on accurate and unduplicateable. We base our beliefs on the wonder of God's Word and the evidence of a resurrected Christ. It may not be "scientific" but it does answer our questions as to Who made this world and to Whom we will one day render account when we die. We need to further proof.

Hear the Scriptures in Romans 1:18-20:

1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse...

Where is the evidence for the Big Bang or evolution? Can someone duplicate it for us - explode nothing and conjure up a universe? Your "scientific" hypotheses do not answer the question of how the universe came to be - and, admit it or not, the universe is a whole lot more complex than a quadrillion "smart" scientists can understand, let alone explain.

I think the debate calls for a bit of humility on the part of the scientists. Unfortunately, since scientists admit no moral code or standard of morality, we cannot expect them to be honest or humble. How can a person determine what is right or wrong if we do not even know where we came from? If we descended from apes, what makes us superior to apes? We could as well just behave like apes! Oh, I know, AquaticApe probably calls himself an ape's descendant, right? No moral compass, no standard of right and wrong. Evolutionists can lie all they want - it's their nature and choice.

The truth is this: many evidences that prove the Bible true are wished away according to the whims and caprices of the scientists who do not want to submit to a higher Authority. Thus they add to their sins - and bring themselves under stricter judgment. It doesn't have to be so, my friends. You have the opportunity to repent of your sins.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2008 9:34:13 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 13, 2008 9:38:24 AM PST
Irish Lace says:
I would suggest you have to be ignorant to believe in creationism. Being willfully ignorant is a symptom of stupidity. To be educated on the topic and still choose to "believe" is a symptom of indoctrination, delusion or fear.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2008 9:39:04 AM PST
Moi says:
The Bible tells us the earth is round: Is. 40:22.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2008 9:43:53 AM PST
Sean LeBlanc says:
B:

[The Bible tells us the earth is round: Is. 40:22.]

Some of your fellow creationists (flat-earthers) disagree with you on that:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

"Flat Earthers believe that the earth is flat and is covered by a solid dome or firmament. Waters above the firmament were the source of Noah's flood. This belief is based on a literal reading of the Bible, such as references to the "four corners of the earth" and the "circle of the earth." Few people hold this extreme view, but some do."

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2008 9:48:17 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 13, 2008 9:50:32 AM PST
Deckard says:
Aquatic Ape said:
Do you have to be stupid to believe in creationism, or does believing in it make you stupid?
----------------------
Most are not stupid - they are just worried and/or scared that many things that they hold true and dear may be wrong. It is easier to believe in simplistic truths and construct elaborate denials of reality than to do with its often unpleasant nature.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2008 9:52:41 AM PST
Deckard says:
B. Obisesan said:
We base our beliefs on the wonder of God's Word and the evidence of a resurrected Christ. It may not be "scientific" but it does answer our questions as to Who made this world and to Whom we will one day render account when we die. We need to further proof.
-------------------------
As I said -simplistic truths are easier to live with.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2008 9:59:56 AM PST
Irish Lace says:
The verse (in English) refers to the "circle of the earth", not the globe of the earth. If the English translation is correct, the quote does not appear to address what you assert it addresses.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2008 10:42:20 AM PST
J. Vansweden says:
I define myself as a creationist, and maybe this is just me and my lack of understanding of the term, but the science of creation is not only unimportant to my belief, but is not connected at all. Creationism to me is simply the belief that no matter the method of creation that it was under divine control. The world could have been created via a big bang, evolution, a six day creation, etc. None of these theories conflict with my belief that a divine being was in control. You may call me stupid, but I would say that I am probably more enlightened that most.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2008 11:01:03 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 13, 2008 11:01:21 AM PST
J. Vansweden,
You are correct that none of the three "theories" conflict with your (or anyone elses) belief that a divine being was in control. I don't think anyone on this forum would call you stupid, for accomodating your religious faith with a knowledge of science. You would only be considered stupid if you rejected the mountains of factual evidence for the process of evolution, the ancient age of the earth, the straigraphy of the geologic column and fossil record in favor of a "theory" that is simply a fanciful collection of myths.
Regards
Steve

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2008 11:10:35 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 13, 2008 11:11:57 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2008 11:18:33 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 13, 2008 11:19:07 AM PST
Sean LeBlanc says:
K:

[The key word is "theory". Evolution is a theory the same as any religion.]

Wow. Just WOW.

K, did you read all the posts? Specifically, Bill M.'s?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2008 11:26:33 AM PST
Irish Lace says:
"The key word is "theory". Evolution is a theory the same as any religion. So, do YOU then fall into the "stupid" category?"

That statement isn't about "stupid", K. King. It more likely reflects ignorance. Is your religion a theory like evolution is a theory? If so, please tell us about the evidence that supports this theory. Of course, you understand that the scientific theory of evolution is unproven, so if your religion is a theory like evolution, is it also unproven?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2008 12:32:37 PM PST
K. King
"If you're making the argument of creation vs. evolution, which it seems that's where you're going with this, I could type for days on this subject."
Oh my God, please don't! We've heard it all before.
Also, please learn the definition of "theory" in the scientific sense.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2008 1:59:11 PM PST
Deckard says:
K. King said:
Evolution is a theory the same as any religion. So, do YOU then fall into the "stupid" category?
-------------------
Evolution is a theory that explains many facts and pieces of evidence.
What is your evidence for the existence of a god? What facts does your religion explain? Why is yours any more valid than any other religion?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2008 11:04:45 PM PST
Bill M. says:
>We creationists see order in a vastly complex and enormous
>universe. That is sufficient proof for us.

Like I said, "deity is the only explaination for complexity" is what creationism comes down to. You can believe the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Moster for all I care. Just don't pretend your personal religious beliefs are science.

>The Bible also proves itself with numerous prophecies that
>are dead-on accurate and unduplicateable.

Even if we assume that these aren't cases of bad retranslations and heavy personal interpretation, what does that have to do with biology?

>It may not be "scientific"

Glad you admit that.

>but it does answer our questions as to Who made this
>world and to Whom we will one day render account
>when we die.

Yes, I know that it gives you a nice simple answer to the big ol' cosmic questions. And you get some sort of spiritual satisfaction out of it. Fine. But answers involving notions some big invisible man are useless for understanding the world on an OBJECTIVE, physical level. The Bible is a religious book, not a history book.

>Where is the evidence for the Big Bang or evolution?

Thank you for reinforcing my point that creationists 1) lump things like cosmology in with evolution, and 2) show that they haven't done a minimal amount of research on the subject. If you want to see the evidence for either of these things, go do the research. There have been thousands of books and millions of scientific journal papers on each of these subjects. But like I said, it's much easier to just play armchair theologian, isn't it?

>Can someone duplicate it for us - explode nothing and conjure
>up a universe?

"Explode nothing"? Thank you for showing that you're clueless about what the Big Bang model proposes.

>Your "scientific" hypotheses do not answer the question of how
>the universe came to be -

The Big Bang is not a mere hypothesis. It is a theory (which is NOT the same thing as a hypothesis) that has evidence and has proven to be consistant with what we see in the universe. Saying "a big invisible man did it" does NOT tell us anything about the mechanisms involved. It's just a useless way of replacing one question with another, and holds no more validity than other creation myths.

>and, admit it or not, the universe is a whole lot more complex than a
>quadrillion "smart" scientists can understand, let alone explain.

Sure, but at least scientists are making an effort to learn and can show results that they've learned. That's more than I can say for the creationists.

>Unfortunately, since scientists admit no moral code or standard
>of morality, we cannot expect them to be honest or humble.

This is no more relevant than the fact that bakeries propose no rules about plumbing. It is NOT THE JOB of science to develop and enforce moral codes. Ethics is the job of religion, philosophy, and psychology. Likewise, it is not religion's job to offer objective, consistant, scientific explanations for natural phenomena.

>How can a person determine what is right or wrong if we do not
>even know where we came from?

See above. Cosmology, biology, and ethics are three completely different human studies.

>If we descended from apes,

Thank you once again for showing your complete ignorance of the subject. Evolution does not propose humans descended from apes, but that humans and other primates share a common ancestor. Again, you would have known this if you did even a minimal amount of research on the subject, instead of ignorantly assuming you know the subject.

>Evolutionists can lie all they want - it's their nature and choice.

Who's lying? You're the one being dishonest by setting up a fallacious strawman representation of biology and trying to attack it.

>The truth is this: many evidences that prove the Bible true
>are wished away according to the whims and caprices of the
>scientists who do not want to submit to a higher Authority.

No, the truth is that creationists like you have been duped into thinking that one has to be an atheist to accept the evidence of evolution, and that anybody outside of your particular religion must be immoral.

>You have the opportunity to repent of your sins.

And you have the opportunity to go to a library.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2008 8:13:00 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 14, 2008 8:20:32 AM PST
L. Sit says:
"The key word is "theory". Evolution is a theory the same as any religion. So, do YOU then fall into the "stupid" category?"

Couldn't have agreed more. Evolution? C'mon. Are we so arrogant to accredit evolution to the human race and not an Intelligent Designer? The problem I see with non-Christians these days is an inability to conform to godly principles from the Bible which makes them the devil's puppets. Now I maybe old fashion but just saying, back in the old days we'd get a stool and a belt and well....you know how it is with those Sunday school characters.

"Evolution" much like its "gravity" couterpart is a theory - A MORALLY REPRENSHIBLE theory that defies Jesus' LOVE. I'm only asking for science to change its way for the better and then we'll be all happy because sometimes not knowing and leaving it to the mysteries of God's Designs comes with the extra advantage of Christianizing more atheists.. We need to whip the devil out of these "EVOLUTIONISTS" and give 'em hell and brimstone talk - the ol' good news saved for last ammunition

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2008 8:28:38 AM PST
Mary Endress says:
Do you know what a theory is?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2008 8:40:27 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 10, 2008 2:14:51 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2008 8:45:10 AM PST
Mary Endress says:
Ah, whoknows - how I've missed your acerbic wit
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 20 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  75
Total posts:  492
Initial post:  Jan 12, 2008
Latest post:  Dec 30, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 13 customers

Search Customer Discussions