Why do evolutionists refuse to listen to contrary science?

Question

Many evolutionists refuse to expose themselves to books or literature that present scientific evidence for Creation and refuse to read any, but then claim authoritatively there isn't any.

Isn't this a circular argument? As long as I won't read it, I can continue to claim it isn't there.

Some have asked for citations:

"Creator and Cosmos" by Hugh Ross
"Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe
"Tornado in a Junkyard"
"Creation's Tiny Mystery" by Robert Gentry (This one's a slam dunk to geochronology and demonstrates the thinking and modus operandi of evolutionists, but it's harder to get, out of print)
"More Than Meets the Eye"
"Darwin on Trial" by Philip Johnson
"The Case for a Creator" by Lee Stroebel
"Bones of Contention"

These are just a few good ones I can name on the fly. There are MANY others and good scientific institutes dedicated to this study. Most of the books were written by very credible and competent scientists.

Answer 1

yes you are right.. Same with all the cults.

Answer 2

I have read plenty of this drivel, and none of it offers a scientific hypothesis (positing a higher being cannot be tested). Why should I go any further than that?

On the other side, let's set aside the impossibility here and say someone did, somehow, come up with evidence that suggested a "creation". What then? Are we to automatically assume it is the product of the creator you have in mind? How about one from some other religion? How about a committee of barely competent "creators"? You see the mess here? The "cause" you suppose is not (logically) distinct, so again, not scientific. Creationism is a special case of conspiracy theory as far as i'm concerned.

Answer 3

"Creator and Cosmos" by Hugh Ross
"Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe
"Tornado in a Junkyard"
"Creation's Tiny Mystery" by Robert Gentry
"More Than Meets the Eye"
"Darwin on Trial" by Philip Johnson
"The Case for a Creator" by Lee Stroebel
"Bones of Contention"

none of these are TRUE science, but pseudo-science. These creationist wouldn't know science if bit them in the *ss. When are you Adel minded Xians going to realize that evolution is hardcore FACT.

Answer 4

There is no such thing as an "evolutionist", just like there is no such thing as scientific evidence for Biblical creationism.

Creationists do not follow the scientific method. They take an already written doctrine, look at the world, and then try and find evidence to support the doctrine. This IS NOT science, it's stupidity.

EDIT: You can cite all the books you want. It means nothing because ultimately, all the arguments for "Creationism" rely on a totally unprovable premise - that there is, in fact, a creator. Until someone can manifest this "god" you all believe exists, there's no compelling reason to believe it created anything. On the other hand, REAL science does offer measurable, testible, repeatable evidence for it's claims.
(News flash - it's not that hard to get a book published, and there's no law that says people must be factual in their writings.)

Answer 5

Well the books you've cited are hardly what could be considered as "books or literature that present scientific evidence", they simply twist the evidence to fit their beliefs and then can't come up with anything to back these beliefs up.

To be honest, I wouldn't take anything that Michael Behe, Robert Gentry, Phillip Johnson or Lee Strobel produce as truth simply because they have an agenda which is extremely apparent when you read any of their works. When ANY "creation science" article is published under peer review, then I'll consider it. And don't come back with that "Expelled" bullcrap...

Answer 6

As soon as you come up with SCIENCE and EVIDENCE for creation, I'll listen. So far, all I've seen is anecdotal and biblical evidence, none of which is truly evidence for anything other than vivid imaginations.

I've read a LOT about creation... the bible, "Of Pandas and People" (a copy of which is on my bookshelf as we speak), "The New Answers Book" by Ken Ham, "Creation and Time" by Mark Van Bebber and Paul S. Taylor, "What is Creation Science" by Gary Parker... to name a few. NONE of these presents a credible alternative to or argument against evolution or other scientific notions of the beginnings of this earth or universe.

So... what have YOU read that presents the evidence for evolution? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Answer 7

Creationism is not science. It is religion. We don't believe in religion or God, so why would we read those books. BTW, Michael Behe is a joke. His research is considered pseudoscience and no respected scientist accepts it as true science. His own Lehigh University has this disclaimer on its website:

While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific.

So if those other authors are as respected as Michael Behe...then no thank you. I will stick to REAL science and leave the pseudoscience to you.

@>}----}----

AD

Answer 8

It has to do with a particular mind-set a person has depending on what he/she has been exposed to. There are gaps in knowledge in both evolutionism and creationism but that does not make them to give up their respective positions.

But what I find lamentable is scientific people bending the rules of science to 'prove' evolution. Anyone who is a student of science knows that scientific theories are valid only as long as they are not proven wrong. Tomorrow everything might change. Science doesn't give any guarantees as attested to by innumerable theories that have been debunked to make way for the new ones. Still the evolutionists insist that it is a fact. It only 'appears to be so' is the closest they can claim. But no, it has to be pushed as if its acceptance will change anything. How does it matter whether man came from apes or was created by God? Is his treatment of a medical condition going to change? Will any of the animals be treated differently (because they are our supposed ancestors or something like that)? It just doesn't make any sense. The only fear they have is that creationists will stop the development or teaching of science. This fear is totally unfounded. There is nothing wrong with learning the facts. Just don't attach any interpretations to those facts unless it serves a useful purpose. And I have yet to come across a sensible argument as to why evolution theory needs to be accepted.

Answer 9

i know that such literature exists and i have occasionally tried to give it a fair shake, but it its scientific quality ranges from meritless garbage to literature that manages to mimick scientific style but contains no substance. so i often don't bother reading what is offered. you may suspect that i'm prejudiced. well i AM biased (really, who isn't), but it's based on experience.

"Most of the books were written by very credible and competent scientists."

not a single one of those scientists is qualified in evolutionary biology. the closest would be michael behe, and he is a biochemist. now i'm not an evolutionary biologist either, but when i want to learn about a topic, i read what the experts have to say. not that i BELIEVE everything they have to say, but they are in the best position to present the best quality evidence and arguments. it is often said by creationists that both groups are working with the same evidence, but reading both types of literature makes it quite clear that creationists routinely ignore evidence that is inconvenient to their arguments (after a while, one begins to suspect that they do this on purpose).

Answer 10

ask a different question.

"if all of these scientists who have studied, examined and critically evaluated all the available data on the subject and come to certain conclusions regarding the age of the earth, formation of the solar system, evolution of life, why don't religious authorities agree wtih them? do they have some sort of bias? is there a tendency for religious texts to come to a certan conclusion?"

scientists are fact seeking, religious authors are conclusion seeking. if there was scientific evidence discovered tomorrow which proves beyond a doubt that all in the bible was true, every real scientist would admit that they were wrong. i doubt you would ever get that from a religous authority.

Answer 11

Many evolutionists want to be right, they are blissfully ignorant by not paying attention to it. I would like to ask a question to the people answering this question if you believe in evolution: Have you ever studied it? What can you tell me about spontaneous generation? Do you think a rat can be born from mud? Can a person be born of rocks? If you just said no and you are an evolutionist, then you just said you don't believe in evolution...