What do you call a person who denys evidence that we can all see and touch.?

Question

Like evolution.

Do they choose to never visit a natural history museum or what?

I am looking for a reason that someone would CHOOSE to be stupid.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1118_041118_ape_human_ancestor.html

It is interesting that Yahoo wanted to put this question in the mythology and folklore section.

That is extremely illuminating to me.

Answer 1

I found the article a bit interesting. To tell you the truth I am a bit jaded over new fossils. They keep discivering more of them anmd more things about them every year. It git quite tiresome. I would almost consider it news of a paleontologist did not discover a new fossil.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to bring you down.
I have no doubts that evolution is a fact and that evolution theory is valid. Even if there were no fossil record, evolution has more than enough other evidence to prove itself.

Ken Ham, AiG, the fundies, Northwest Creation, and the rest are simply in denial and really no different than the people who deny the Holocaust happened in my opinion.
--------------------------
I am going to go back to sleep, after I find something I posted earlier to a similar question and give it to you.


Here is the earlier answer:

Creationism is supported mostly by Fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism relies on the idea that the bible is literally true.
Evolution theory directly contradicts Genesis. In other words, if evolution is right then the bible is not literally true.
Fundamentalism is a billion dollar a year industry in the USA.

I don't think the Fundamentalists are interested in accepting that evolution is true because that would threaten their gravy train. They will fight science tooth and nail.

Answer 2

When a person denies evidence he is following his emotions instead of reason. If a person was taught as a child that the emotion of faith sits higher on the hierarchy of the intellect over reason, then he is being consistent with that principle.

The problem that he must encounter in life is that the denial of any evidence always contradicts reality and therefore it cannot be integrated. This means that in some areas of his life he chooses reason over emotions, while in other areas he compartmentalizes and chooses emotions over reason. This causes havoc in logical and rational thinking and this is the reason why there is ultimately no human benefit in following any religious belief.

Answer 3

Stubborn and/or fearful. Skeptical. Sometimes in the name of "faithful".

Quote: "Words eventually became fetishes, more especially those which were regarded as God's words; in this way the sacred books of many religions have become fetishistic prisons incarcerating the spiritual imagination of man. Moses' very effort against fetishes became a supreme fetish; his commandment was later used to stultify art and to retard the enjoyment and adoration of the beautiful.

In olden times the fetish word of authority was a fear-inspiring doctrine, the most terrible of all tyrants which enslave men. A doctrinal fetish will lead mortal man to betray himself into the clutches of bigotry, fanaticism, superstition, intolerance, and the most atrocious of barbarous cruelties. Modern respect for wisdom and truth is but the recent escape from the fetish-making tendency up to the higher levels of thinking and reasoning. Concerning the accumulated fetish writings which various religionists hold as sacred books, it is not only believed that what is in the book is true, but also that every truth is contained in the book. If one of these sacred books happens to speak of the earth as being flat, then, for long generations, otherwise sane men and women will refuse to accept positive evidence that the planet is round." ...

~~~~~~~

I think this is happening today with the clashing of science and the olden beliefs found in holy books. Thus the inability to change the mind and see the truth when it is right in front of them. But this is not everybody. :)

Answer 4

As a Christian, I do not deny that evolution may have been possible. But it would be a way which was tied into God's creation of mankind. However, you cannot take evolution as an absolute fact. It is still quite debatable, and in the past science has been proved to mislead (yes that was because people were not so scientifically advanced as we are now, so we have less chance of being wrong, but who's to say we aren't? That's human pride right there.) Thank you, but I would rather wait until there are no doubts before I say I completely believe in it.
Also, when there is totally convincing evidence which we can see and touch.....

Answer 5

Terrific link - thanks a bunch.

It's sad. From archaeobacteria to homo sap., evolution is simply a fact. For people to continue to deny it - and even, in some lunatic cases, to claim it has no solid foundation - is deranged.

All the real arguments were fought and won over a century ago. There's just no doubt anymore among those who understand it. But the Luddite shrieking goes on.

CD

Answer 6

I believe that however evolution happened, if it did, then God provided the materials and conditions to contribute or cause it to happen. I don't know why it isn't possible. I am not stupid, your sarcasm doesn't help anything, it only heightens the negativity that's already in this site. I think that behavior is stupid. Not that the person who says it is stupid, but the belief that just because someone doesn't agree with you are unintelligent.
Peace

Answer 7

A scientist looks at the evidence and draws the conclusion. Christians read the Bible and look around for supporting evidence...

Answer 8

Uninterested in truth.

I think that we tend to throw around terms like "crazy" or "brainwashed", and miss what's really going on. It's a basic difference in values: you and I value truth very highly, while the creationist/spiritualist (etc.) puts truth below things like "feeling certain" and "not rocking the boat".

If there's one confusion that's shared by almost everyone here, it's about the importance of feeling certain. Many people on all sides of the issues here seem to think that feeling certain of something indicates that thing is true, and that we can look inside of ourselves and tell - by gauging our certainty - when we are infallible. Many people here mistakenly believe that knowledge is certain, that science produces certainty, and that it's better to "stick to your beliefs" that to change your mind. Countless believers here have proudly exclaimed that religion never changes, and seem to think that the fact that scientific knowledge does change is somehow a strike _against_ scientific knowledge.

Answer 9

A follower of convention and/or rigid religious doctrine. Or someone who adheres to some kind of absolute idealistic philosophy. Or someone who has never bothered to pick up and read through a biological science book.

Answer 10

You are making mthis assumption based on the idea that those big brains that formulated evolution did so without a good reason (to them) of advocating such THEORIES!

Well, it just so happens, they did.

Evolution and the theories supporting an accidental universe were formulated by people with an atheist agenda to support.
In order to support this ideaology and agenda, they had to attempt to "prove" that you and me and the universe are here accidentally. These were and are NOT stupid people. Just misguided by their ideology of atheism.
I choose to not be fooled by it all.