I know a number of homeschoolers who are creationists.
Most of them are perfectly capable, not-stupid people, doing a good job raising their kids and educating them.
You wouldn't call them stupid, or think their kids were stupid, if you met them without knowing they were creationists. The fact that they're mistaken about evolution is not very important in the big picture.
> The fact that they're mistaken about evolution is not very important in the big picture.
no, its not very important whether they are creationists or not. The more worrying fact is that given the overwhelming evidence that points to the theory of evolution as being true, they decidedly deny it in favour of a less proven theory. I.e., they lack critical evaluation skills which is important in deciding matters - such as who to vote for.
You seem to be saying that people who believe in evolution mostly got there by careful evaluation of the evidence and critical thinking.
I think you're wrong about that. Most people's opinions, on most things, are not particularly well thought out.
All of us, you and me included, are walking around with wrong ideas we picked up as received wisdom or that help us fit in with our social group.
Seizing on creationism and trying to make it into something uniquely awful indicating failures of intelligence or character that most people don't have, is likely a socially motivated error in itself.
> Seizing on creationism and trying to make it into something uniquely awful ... is likely a socially motivated error in itself.
i dont think you understood my point - which isn't that creationism is awful, but that blindly believing something without evaluating the evidence is awful. Those people who just claim evolution is true without having read any of the supporting evidence, but simply to " fit in with our social group" is just as bad.
Ok a little off the main topic here, but since on THIS node there is a mini-debate going about creationist vs evolution, i just want to say that i never truly understood why a person cant be both :/
What's wrong with the notion that the creator just used evolution to create things? Why must he create them as they are.
Cuz i personally view the creator as The Great Coder (or Goder or God for short :P) who jsut wrote an epicly long program and hit the "Compile and execute" button! (hence the BIG BANG) :P
What's wrong with the notion that the creator just used evolution to create things?
That is basically the modern catholic church's opinion on the matter.
The problem you are having is that the word "creationism" is not a definition, it is a summary. For the most part, the word refers to a literal belief in the genesis book of the bible.
oh is that the part about the earth being created literally in six days and that was double a couple thousand years ago? :/ yeah that's just crazy talk.
"What's wrong with the notion that the creator just used evolution to create things? Why must he create them as they are."
Nothing, but there are a lot of people who are unwilling to accept the truth of any statement that contradicts their understanding of the biblical creation story (typically the understanding given to them by someone else). For them the timescale required for evolution is out of the question, humans absolutely had to coexist with dinosaurs, and the entirety of the universe was created in a six day period. Evidence is irrelevant to such people; either they try to concoct a different explanation that fits in with their beliefs or they just use an escape hatch e.g. "Satan planted the evidence."
Fortunately a large number of people accept your proposed version, that evolution is the process used by the Creator. There are also a number of people who accept my proposal: religion serves various social purposes and is not in any way useful for explaining physical phenomena (that is what science is about).
Are you saying these people just don't understand and haven't taken the time to learn the details about evolution? Or, do these people understand the science behind evolution and still actively deny that it took place? If the latter, then yes these people aren't "all there". Perhaps calling them stupid is over the line, and counter-productive, but I would be skeptical of any other opinions they hold due to the fact that they are creationists. It shows a severe lack of critical thinking if nothing else.
> It shows a severe lack of critical thinking if nothing else.
No it doesn't, it shows a presence of severe cognitive bias.
I would be skeptical of any other opinions they hold regarding biology, geology, and morality but they probably don't have any preconceived notions about math, or physics.
I guess you mean young-earth creationists? It's easier for them to swallow than evolution because it doesn't so directly threaten their beliefs. And it doesn't need to be a total rejection; they can disregard tons proof of the age of the universe and still know enough math and engineering to make, say, microprocessors.
Of course you must have read claims like "the speed of light changes over time" and "all that light was created en-route 6000 years ago". This allows them to believe a ridiculous premise but still participate in reality and use their GPS with a clean conscience.
But I think there are many creationists who can reconcile their differences with reality by believing the seven days of creation are a metaphor or some sort of measure in "God years", so they can reject evolution like they were brainwashed to, but they have no problem believing in the speed of light and measurements of distances between stars.
Most of them are perfectly capable, not-stupid people, doing a good job raising their kids and educating them.
You wouldn't call them stupid, or think their kids were stupid, if you met them without knowing they were creationists. The fact that they're mistaken about evolution is not very important in the big picture.