Are theists unconcerned that they could be spreading rumors and false information about science?

Question

One of the questions in the last 24 hours was a Frequently Asked Question here. The question was (rephrased) "Isn't Evolution only a theory, not a fact?" This question has been answered here many times, but theists who believe Evolution contradicts the Bible continue to ask the question and not accept the answer. I don't really expect this to change. I answer the question even though it's like trying to bail out the ocean.

But the reason I am asking this question is that one answerer answered the question with this statement:
"I think evolution is just the best alternative to God at the moment .. they're always playing with it trying to find new ways to make it believable coz new holes pop up in every new issue of scientific american ..."

I won't say who said this or point to the original question. My point is not to shame the individual who said it, since the problem seems to be common among creationists.

(to be continued)

I understand why creationists reinforce each other's beliefs. But what I don't understand is why creationists are so willing to blatantly misprepresent widely accepted scientific truth. I challenge anyone here to find even one article published in Scientific American that disputes any major element of the Theory of Evolution. There are many articles on Evolution, and some discuss some of the controversial details, for example whether there has been any horizontal genetic transfer via viruses from one species to another. But to claim that nearly ever issue of Scientific American has articles about "holes" in the Theory of Evolution is so far from the truth that it can only be called a lie. I don't think this individual knew that s/he was lying. I suspect s/he was simply repeating something s/he had heard from another creationist. Which brings me to my question: When theists make such sweeping claims about science, don't they even wonder if they are spreading lies via rumor mongering?

For those who want more background about the "it's only a theory, not a fact" meme, here are several links to explore. The first one is from a current article of ScientificAmerican.com:

http://scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?articleId=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_is_only_a_theory
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-evolutiontheory.htm
http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Evolution_Fact_and_Theory.html
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/theory_not_fact.html
http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html

Answer 1

theory = 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art *music theory*
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action *her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn* b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances often used in the phrase in theory *in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all*
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena *wave theory of light*
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject *theory of equations*

Science = 1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study *the science of theology* b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge *have it down to a science*
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws *culinary science*

Evolutionary science evolves itself. Nothing in science is set in stone. When new facts come along like the discoveries at the Burgess Shale science is capable of growing and adapting to encompass it,

Creationists mistakenly use science's strength as their argument for it's weakness. The bible can't evolve so people who base their world view on it can't understand the ability for a belief (at it's root science is also a belief system all be it based on what very much seems to be discernible facts)

The bible says (Ecclesiastes 1:9-14 NIV) "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN.
{10} Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time.
{11} There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow."
And they believe it.

Answer 2

The arguments would at the very least SOUND a little more credible if they actually used some scientific vocabulary, or something that showed they've at least done some research on the subject. But that's not what I see. They show that they don't even know an accurate definition evolution. And at best they're regurgitating little lines that they've gotten from creationist websites ("It violates the 12th law of theromodynamics, or one of them, or something.")

Personally I think the main reason why most people reject evolution is not purely because of religion. I think it's because people are just LAZY. Nobody wants to pick up a book and read something that's longer than a Reader's Digest article when instead they can just fall back on "The big invisible man did it". This IS rocket science; you can't sum everything up in a paragraph of pure layman's terms.

I think the other appeal is the smug factor. Some people would love to think that they debunked this cornerstone of biology with just a few strawman arguments. That doesn't fly.

Answer 3

I do not even know where to start with this,Jim. The theists reasons are myriad and bad. Lack of scientific training? Fear of materialism? Or just missing humanities position on " the great chain of being ". I am getting to the point of not caring anymore, as they seem unteachable and ossified in their beliefs. That is the big problem; belief trumping the evidence. They say that science advances by the falsification of one hypothesis at a time. The truth is, that science advances one funeral at a time. Usually the funeral of those with ossified positions; both in science and life.

Answer 4

Do you know how it must feel for a perfectly decent respectful Christian to constantly be reading posts like these, generalising us as intolerant idiots who know nothing about other religions? Well , guess what - we're pretty fed up with it. Sure , some Christians are ignorant - but not all of us! ALL groups have the good and the bad. I NEVER thought Wicca was evil. I NEVER thought Pagans worshipped the devil. I NEVER said ANYTHING about Einstein's spirituality actually. Surprised?

Answer 5

I love how they pass off current news articles as not being evidence of evolution. The commonality being that they do not comprehend the notion of natural selection (hence Kirk Camerons totally misguided Crocoduck). Here is a current article that shows genetic errors and how they might propagate (or die off)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18917406

Answer 6

Not "could be", but they "ARE"..! In fact they must..!
That is such a well thought out question, that I bet not many of them will respond to it.

With references offered, and it being clear that you recognise their methods of rebuttal, only the most BLATANT, denial, ignorance, misinformation, misquotes, misrepresentation, scientific iliteracy, and outrighit lies will be offered to counter your questions..
..as is the norm for these narrow minded fruitcakes..

Answer 7

There is no longer any excuse for theistic sophistry; evolution is now a proven fact. (Details available on request; please provide an e-mail address.) That will not slow them down at all; having made up their minds, they are unwilling to let themselves be distracted by anything as inconvenient as a fact.

Answer 8

No, because like me, science is self-correcting, and never claims to be infallible.

If you are naive enough to take as infallible anything and everything a particular discipline tells you, you pretty much deserve to be lied to.

Answer 9

An interesting parallel to your question is this:
The Bible actually supports good science,
while today's science rejects the Biblical account.

But fortunately, there are hundreds of scientists that do support the Bible because evolution does indeed have many holes in its theory.

Answer 10

They have been unconcerned with anything which does not conform to their demands since the beginning of their religion.