How do you explain the creationist mindset..?

Question

All the arguments on both sides have been presented at one time or another, but with the real "mainstream" scienctific disciplines offering conclusive evidence and verifiablity of the "maintream" scientific understandings and principles.
The creationist offers "psuedo science", twisted logic, misquotes, misinformation and outright lies as a retort..

Bearing in mind that at no point does science ever attempt to either prove or disprove the existance of god, yet these creationists attempt to use "psuedo science" to discredit science.. ie: "our science proves science is wrong.." etc..

Can anyone explain how such denial and ignorance is so prevelant in the face of overwhelming evidence and data to the contrary..??

Creationists, remember: Mainstream Science is the real science. Any claims outside of this framework are not science by any definition..!

"M&S", you have omitted one glaring fact, tha evolution isn't the opposition to your creation fairytale, but is only one part of the many fields of the mainstream sciences, and which, like all the others, is corroborated and verified everyday, and is an interlocking, interweaving part of the understandings and principles of the mainstream scientific explanations and descriptions of the natural world around us..

Your denial and ignorance here is shameful, and pathetic at best..

Answer 1

You seem to forget one thing : the evidence that both creationists and evolutionists use is the SAME. Most people assume that creationists have one set of evidence and evolutionists have ANOTHER. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both groups use the same pieces of evidence.

The difference occurs in our interpretation of that evidence. And THAT is based on one's worldview. We are therefore moving away from science into the realm of philosophy.

That's how I explain both the creationist and evolutionist's mindset.

Answer 2

This may be your experience with creationists. However, most that I know simply try to demonstrate the limits of science in its application to origins, especially regarding the origin of life. This necessitates a language founded on scientific terminology and language. But the point is that the scientific method cannot be applied to explaining the origin of the universe. It is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Both evolution and intelligent design, if they are to be taught, should be taught in philosophy class, not science class. BTW, simply asserting something does not make it so. Your assessment of the credentials of the evolutionary argument and the intelligent design argument is your OPINION, which in my opinion, is founded in ignorance of the evidence at hand.

In response to your addendum, you must not be familiar with the scientific method, which is the definition of true science--hypothesis, experimentation/observation, and conclusions/revisions to hypothesis. This means that science requires "testability". This, by definition, cannot apply to events which are theoried to have occurred billions of years ago. Your definition of "science" is common in that many believe that it is the consensus INTERPRETATION of data by scientists which defines truth. In fact, this represents only consensus opinion, not observable fact. I do not dispute that most scientists claim to believe in evolution, but it is not because this interpretation has been observed and tested, it is because of their presuppositions (read, bias) that they bring to the interpretation of the evidence. There is no person that does NOT bring presuppositions or bias to the interpretation of data. BTW, the first party to resort to name-calling in a debate is generally the one who is truly "pathetic", since they must rely upon emotion to make their point instead of relying upon the soundness of their argument.

Answer 3

I think many creationists, particularly the most public and well-known, are entirely dishonest. They know that all living organisms are related by common descent, and they know that evolution is the explanation, in fact they know it so well that they also know the best ways to deceive people into thinking that evolution is not true.

Answer 4

I agree that creationism is not science and should stop masquerading as science, however, the now incarcerated Ken Hovind could actually make creationism start to make sense, however, anyone else pretty much makes it sound totally laughable.