> The fact that they're mistaken about evolution is not very important in the big picture.
no, its not very important whether they are creationists or not. The more worrying fact is that given the overwhelming evidence that points to the theory of evolution as being true, they decidedly deny it in favour of a less proven theory. I.e., they lack critical evaluation skills which is important in deciding matters - such as who to vote for.
You seem to be saying that people who believe in evolution mostly got there by careful evaluation of the evidence and critical thinking.
I think you're wrong about that. Most people's opinions, on most things, are not particularly well thought out.
All of us, you and me included, are walking around with wrong ideas we picked up as received wisdom or that help us fit in with our social group.
Seizing on creationism and trying to make it into something uniquely awful indicating failures of intelligence or character that most people don't have, is likely a socially motivated error in itself.
> Seizing on creationism and trying to make it into something uniquely awful ... is likely a socially motivated error in itself.
i dont think you understood my point - which isn't that creationism is awful, but that blindly believing something without evaluating the evidence is awful. Those people who just claim evolution is true without having read any of the supporting evidence, but simply to " fit in with our social group" is just as bad.
Ok a little off the main topic here, but since on THIS node there is a mini-debate going about creationist vs evolution, i just want to say that i never truly understood why a person cant be both :/
What's wrong with the notion that the creator just used evolution to create things? Why must he create them as they are.
Cuz i personally view the creator as The Great Coder (or Goder or God for short :P) who jsut wrote an epicly long program and hit the "Compile and execute" button! (hence the BIG BANG) :P
What's wrong with the notion that the creator just used evolution to create things?
That is basically the modern catholic church's opinion on the matter.
The problem you are having is that the word "creationism" is not a definition, it is a summary. For the most part, the word refers to a literal belief in the genesis book of the bible.
oh is that the part about the earth being created literally in six days and that was double a couple thousand years ago? :/ yeah that's just crazy talk.
"What's wrong with the notion that the creator just used evolution to create things? Why must he create them as they are."
Nothing, but there are a lot of people who are unwilling to accept the truth of any statement that contradicts their understanding of the biblical creation story (typically the understanding given to them by someone else). For them the timescale required for evolution is out of the question, humans absolutely had to coexist with dinosaurs, and the entirety of the universe was created in a six day period. Evidence is irrelevant to such people; either they try to concoct a different explanation that fits in with their beliefs or they just use an escape hatch e.g. "Satan planted the evidence."
Fortunately a large number of people accept your proposed version, that evolution is the process used by the Creator. There are also a number of people who accept my proposal: religion serves various social purposes and is not in any way useful for explaining physical phenomena (that is what science is about).
no, its not very important whether they are creationists or not. The more worrying fact is that given the overwhelming evidence that points to the theory of evolution as being true, they decidedly deny it in favour of a less proven theory. I.e., they lack critical evaluation skills which is important in deciding matters - such as who to vote for.