Do you understand those on the other side?

[Jose Fly]

As I've pointed out many times (probably too many times), I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian environment. I was taught young-earth creationism from an early age, was told prayer and reading the Bible were the answer to most of life's problems and questions, and witnessed all sorts of "interesting" things such as speaking in tongues, faith healing, end times predictions, etc.

Yet despite being completely immersed in this culture, I can't recall a time in my life when I ever believed any of it. However, unlike some of my peers at the time I didn't really find it boring. In fact, I found a lot of it to be rather fascinating because.....very little of it made any sense to me. I just could not understand the people, their beliefs, their way of thinking, or much of anything that I saw and heard. When I saw them anointing with oil someone who had the flu and later saw the virus spread (of course), I could not understand what they were thinking. When I saw them make all sorts of failed predictions about the Soviet Union and the end times, yet never even acknowledge their errors while continuing to make more predictions, I was baffled. Speaking in tongues was of particular interest to me because it really made no sense to me.

In the years that I've been debating creationists it's the same thing. When I see them say "no transitional fossils" or "no new genetic information" only to ignore examples of those things when they're presented, I can't relate to that way of thinking at all. When I see them demand evidence for things only to ignore it after it's provided, I can't relate. When I see them quote mine a scientific paper and after someone points it out they completely ignore it, I can't relate.

Now to be clear, I think I "understand" some of what's behind these behaviors (i.e., the psychological factors), but what I don't understand is how the people engaging in them seem to be completely oblivious to it all. What goes on in their mind when they demand "show me the evidence", ignore everything that's provided in response, and then come back later and make the same demand all over again? Are they so blinded by the need to maintain their beliefs that they literally block out all memories of it? Again....I just don't get it.

So the point of discussion for this thread is....how about you? For the "evolutionists", can you relate to the creationists' way of thinking and behaviors? For the creationists, are there behaviors from the other side that baffle you, and you just don't understand? Do you look at folks like me and think to yourselves, "I just cannot relate to his way of thinking?"

Or is it just me?

[Inquirer]

In another forum I have a "debate" (I use the term hesitantly) going with a creationist. He started off by insisting that there were no examples of gradualism in the fossil record, so I showed him some. His response has been to ignore that data and simply repeat "there is no gradualism in the fossil record".

It's that sort of thing that I just don't understand. What do these people tell themselves in these situations?

As I explained to you recently, all evidence is interpreted and different people will often interpret the same data in different ways.

This is likely in cases where there is no agreed formal process to identify "gradualism" one person sees evidence for gradualism yet another see evidence of discontinuity, and all because they do not share the same interpretation or premises.

So why would you expect this person not to repeat themselves when you simply continue to repeat yourself by refusing to accept their interpretation?

I can understand this perfectly well, its rather simple. Having differing ways of interpretating data is a valuable thing, insisting that we all look at things in the same way is the antithesis of open mindedness.

[Difflugia]

Good question...and crystals/snowflakes are generally used as examples of complexity.

However, neither one has functionality.

Neither one has purpose.

Purpose is intent...eyes with the intended purpose for vision...ears for the intended purpose of audio.

Specifically, all of the built-in body systems that we have..

You realize that you've actually reversed Dembski's argument from "specified complexity," right? The argument you're accepting isn't Dembski's redefinition of "specified complexity," but Paley's watchmaker analogy. You're inferring purpose and claiming that as evidence for design. Dembski recognized that as a failed argument (acknowledging that Darwin was a "destroyer" of Paley's watchmaker analogy on page 33 of No Free Lunch) and framed his argument as a mathematical one that doesn't rely on your inferences of functionality, purpose, or intent.

In short, you don't understand the argument that you've challenged brunumb to refute. I'm going to paraphrase something you wrote a month ago:

That was all a little over my head, admittedly. I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but I'm rocking with [Paley].

Would you say that's an accurate representation of your position?

More to the point, what would brunumb (or I) have to show you to convince you that you, Paley, or Dembski are wrong? I showed you that Hovind was wrong, but your response was simply that you trusted Hovind over me. I offered to show you how to do the analysis yourself, but you declined my invitation. That's not a debate, but a single argument from authority in its purest form. If your position here is the same reasoning with a different authority attached to it, then there's not much point in pretending that we'll get any further by way of debate. Is there more to your argument than that?

That is SPECIFIED complexity.

No it isn't.

That is also low entropy...and blind, mindless, random processes doesn't give you that...

Neither Paley's nor Dembski's arguments involve entropy. That's another argument altogether.

and it is a slap in the face of the creator for anyone to think otherwise.

And thinking that Hitler killed himself in his bunker is a slap in the face of the Inglourious Basterds.

[Jose Fly]

My guess is that it's simply the conviction that the creationist talking heads are knowledgable and honest when they say such things themselves. If Ken Ham says that there isn't any, there isn't any, even if you show it to them. It must be a trick of the light or some sort of clever wordplay because the alternative is that Ken (or whoever) is ignorant, dishonest, or both.

I don't think that's the case with this creationist. But either way, it's still positively bizarre to see someone say something doesn't exist, be shown that thing, ignore it, and just repeat that it doesn't exist, over and over and over.

I can't think of another topic where that sort of thing occurs so regularly.

In addition, when told that Ken (or whoever) is ignorant or dishonest when he's so obviously not, it becomes a signal that such claims are just "part of the game." That's why scientists appear so flatfooted in debate. They're the kind of people for whom data are king. Creationists, on the other hand, are already used to everything they know being wrong. They don't realize that's what they're used to, but that's what it amounts to. Creationists are rarely just creationists, but also inerrantists that believe that the Bible is historically accurate. Since there are plenty of data that conflict with that, too, creationists are in the odd position where every argument they have involves being told that their sources are garbage. There's no positive feedback at all to contrast with the negative feedback, so negative feedback loses all meaning.

Now that's a very interesting possibility that I've not considered. I suppose if you add in how some of them revel in feeling persecuted/oppressed, it could certainly be a factor. IOW, they relish the thought of being an outsider who suffers for their beliefs.

That's the psychological background to claims involving things like "presuppositions," "assumptions," or "point of view." Data are just tricks because if they weren't, creationists would be wrong about virtually everything they believe about the framework of the universe. That appears to be impossible, especially when everyone at home and at church agrees with them. They can't all be wrong about everything, so even if they don't themselves understand how to evaluate the data, one of the many, many people that agree with them must.

Well, they also can't be wrong because they truly do believe the Bible is the actual word of God. I think sometimes folks like us forget just how important that is. I mean, we're talking about an actual transcript of messages that have been handed down by a god, specifically for our benefit. If one really believes that, then it's impossible for them to ever accept that it's wrong in much of what it says.

Good stuff....thanks!

[Jose Fly]

If we had 12 dozen decks of 52 cards, and we unbox the cards and throw all the cards in the air...

We will "see" nature allowing the cards to float freely and gradually fall the the floor in random order.

What we don't "see" is the floating cards (as they fall), configure themselves into a card house.

Is that your understanding of how evolution occurs? You truly think it's no different than tossing cards into the air and expecting houses to form?

But we do "see" intelligent designers making card houses all the time...in fact, it is a talent.

You mean people, not gods.

Now, how is that for a see/don't see comparison?

Extremely weak IMO. Kinda silly too.

Does that include things like plasmodium (the parasite that causes malaria) and it's very complex life cycle?

First, you need to account for the origins of life...as the parasite is a living organism, correct?

You dodged the question. Do you believe the life cycle of the plasmodium parasite has "specified complexity"? If so, do you believe it came about via "design"?

It is because entropy is one of the most understood concepts of science....it is so understood that a 3 year old can drop buckets of paint off of a high rise below to a canvas, and not expect the dropped paint to resemble anything to look like the Power Rangers.

Basically what I am saying is, again; mindless, blind, random processes do not produce specified complexity.

So it does really seem that you think evolution occurs like tossing cards in the air or dropping paint. Where exactly did you get that from?

But intelligent design does...and THAT partly why I believe in God.

So can you name something in the biological realm that you believe to have been designed by God, explain how you reached that conclusion, and describe the process by which it was designed?

[Difflugia]

I can't think of another topic where that sort of thing occurs so regularly.

Conservative politics, antivax, alternative medicine, anthropomorphic climate change denial, free energy, ESP research, UFO believers, and cryptozoology. I know there are more, but I hit the point where I had to think more than a few seconds for the next one.

[Jose Fly]

As I explained to you recently, all evidence is interpreted and different people will often interpret the same data in different ways.

Yes, we've been around that particular bush before and I don't recall this observation having any real point behind it. All data requires interpretation....so what? Unless you're advocating for a framework where all interpretations are equally valid, I fail to see your point.

This is likely in cases where there is no agreed formal process to identify "gradualism" one person sees evidence for gradualism yet another see evidence of discontinuity, and all because they do not share the same interpretation or premises.

So why would you expect this person not to repeat themselves when you simply continue to repeat yourself by refusing to accept their interpretation?

But that's the problem....the person isn't giving an alternative explanation. All he's doing is repeating "there is no gradualism in the fossil record" over and over.

I can understand this perfectly well, its rather simple. Having differing ways of interpretating data is a valuable thing, insisting that we all look at things in the same way is the antithesis of open mindedness.

And in science, one must offer their alternative explanation in order for any discussion and debate to take place. Simply repeating "Nuh uh" whenever someone else gives theirs is just mindless gainsaying.

[Jose Fly]

I can't think of another topic where that sort of thing occurs so regularly.

Conservative politics, antivax, alternative medicine, anthropomorphic climate change denial, free energy, ESP research, UFO believers, and cryptozoology. I know there are more, but I hit the point where I had to think more than a few seconds for the next one.

I guess so (and I probably don't debate those subjects as much as others), but not to the same degree I see from creationists. Creationists still stand out to me as particularly adept at mindless repetition of rote talking points.

[Clownboat]

Basically what I am saying is, again; mindless, blind, random processes do not produce specified complexity.

But intelligent design does...and THAT partly why I believe in God.

When you say 'God', which god concept to you mean and how would mindless, blind and/or random processes not producing specified complexity lead you to that god concept?

Trying to follow your thought process from start to finish.

[Clownboat]

That is SPECIFIED complexity. That is also low entropy...and blind, mindless, random processes doesn't give you that...and it is a slap in the face of the creator for anyone to think otherwise.

Which creator do you speak of and how did you arrive at that one?

I think I understand how in your mind you are justifying getting to a creator, but I fail to see how you arrive at a specific available creator god concept. How does that work?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Which creator do you speak of and how did you arrive at that one?

Good question

It is a cumulative case.

The argument from design is great because it seeks to show the mind of a cosmic engineer...the universe is fined-tuned with mathematical precision.

Like, making Kool-Aid...with just enough Kool-Aid, just enough sugar, and just enough water...and just enough stirring for the PERFECT, refreshing taste.

But first, you have to ACKNOWLEDGE that a cosmic engineer is necessary...and then questions such as which creator can be answered.

I think I understand how in your mind you are justifying getting to a creator, but I fail to see how you arrive at a specific available creator god concept. How does that work?

Do you acknowledge that a Creator is necessary?