Is creationism anti-intellectual?

Question

I notice that many of the refutations of creationism focus on the peceived deficiency in scientific sophistication among creationists.
Is this warranted?

Answer 1

There are creationists and creationists. Many of
them are poorly educated and have been brain-
washed by various religions. These are not so
much anti-intellectual as simply ignorant. Their
refusal to give up their faith in the face of evidence,
when such is presented to them, does qualify as
probably anti-intellectual.

Other creationists are much more sophisticated,
Duane Gish, for example as well as the current
crop of "intelligent design" advocates, Dembski,
Johnson, etc. These people are quite familiar
with all the scientific arguments and have spent a
great deal of time and effort in devising
"refutations" of them which satisfy them, but no one else. They are a combination of distortions
of the evidence, rationalizations and, apparently,
sometimes outright lies. These people have
their minds already made up, and are not about to
be swayed by any evidence whatever. This, it
seems to me, definitely qualifies as being anti-
intellectual, though perhaps anti-rational would be
a better description.

A good example of the sort of argument these
people use is given in one of the other answers.
This is the one that equates evolution of
intelligence with "random particles". No one ever
said that evolution occurred in this way. Natural
selection is clearly an anti-chance, non-random
process and it is what guides evolution. The so-
called randomness is only in producing the
genetic variation on which natural selection operates, and even it is clearly non-random. The
only way in which it is random is in whether the
new genetic variation is likely to be beneficial to
the organism or not. It may be beneficial, helpful
or neutral with no preference for one or the other,
except that, if the organism is already well-adapted
there are likely to be more neutral or harmful
changes possible than beneficial ones.

Answer 2

No, it is not warranted. people who have self assurance in evolution because of the fact the medical clarification for the commencing up of life concentration on their preconceived assumption that creationist are undesirable in medical sophistication. Evolution itself is fullyyt a concept, with out complete actual evidence, assuming that the "lacking links" are nonetheless to be chanced on. it incredibly is on the industry to treat it purely as lots a "fairy tale" because of the fact the creationist account. in actuality, technology has at the instant made a stride in direction of proving creationism. Quantam physics has arise with the "String concept". It postulates that each and every person count, everthing that exists, is composed of "strings" of vibrating skill. That the association of those strings produces the diverse types and kinds of all count. The creationist account describes God as "conversing" each and everything into life. Sound being a vibrating skill... what end would you derive? technology has continuously been approximately guy's attempting to understand the character of the flaws of God. An clever layout previous our intelligence.

Answer 3

I don't think it fits the definition of anti-intellectual, but
Modern creationism is an evolutionary product of bureaucratic inertia. Religions created this form of anti-intellectualism. The grass roots anti-intellectualism promoted by church bureaucracies required an intellectual framework. From the grass roots demand, with support of wealthy religious conservatives, arose organizations like Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute. These organizations support church bureaucracies permitting them to avoid modern biology which promotes analytical skills which in turn threaten doctrine.


Definitions of intellectual on the Web:

appealing to or using the intellect; "satire is an intellectual weapon"; "intellectual workers engaged in creative literary or artistic or scientific labor"; "has tremendous intellectual sympathy for oppressed people"; "coldly intellectual"; "sort of the intellectual type"; "intellectual literature"
of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind; "intellectual problems"; "the triumph of the rational over the animal side of man"
cerebral: involving intelligence rather than emotions or instinct; "a cerebral approach to the problem"; "cerebral drama"
a person who uses the mind creatively
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

An intellectual is a person who uses his or her intellect to study, reflect, or speculate on a variety of different ideas.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual

Answer 4

I think it is. Creationism is entirely predicated on faith in a creator. All attempts to argue for creationism stem from this faith. Faith is not logical or reasonable, rather it is dogmatic and unreasonable. That's why those who believe in creationism cannot engage in a discussion using thought and reason. They believe there is a creator and this belief carries more sway than any argument.

Answer 5

I think it is, in that it resonates back to the Scopes Monkey Trial from 1925.

Answer 6

I have trouble believing that intellignce is created by nothing other than random particles.

Whereas, believing that intelligence created intelligence seems logical to me.

Answer 7

I like danE answer