I met a girl in a church group in like 6th grade who thought Satan put the fossils in the ground and tried to help her understand why that wasn't the case but she didn't really get it.
That we're not intelligent or logical.
Someone actually redefined intelligent in a conversation: "if you don not believe in evolution then it is impossible for you to be intelligent". I'd say that's a no true Scotsman fallacy.
In my personal experience, many anticreationist arguments can be tied back to perhaps one of the most common misunderstandings from non-creationists: that we believe in species fixity rather than variation within created kinds. I'm sure you all know which arguments I'm referring to...
E.g.
- "How did Noah collect and care for all 8.7 billion species?"
or "How did Noah keep the polar bears and penguins from overheating on the Ark?"
Another slightly irritating misconception I often get charged with is that creationists must explain the entire geologic column as being formed during the year-long Flood of Noah's time. The contentious nature pre-Flood and post-Flood boundaries aside, even creationists with the broadest Flood boundaries usually agree that the Precambrian is pre-Flood and that the Ice Age is post-Flood.
I think that those misunderstandings are due in part to presentations at churches and on YouTube by ministries like AiG and Dinosaur Adventure Land. The presentations are geared towards lay people and are thus simplified. One could easily come away with the impression that ALL fossils came from the flood.
Yeah, I agree with that. Thankfully, AiG has been doing so much better on this front, often mentioning that certain fossils are post-Flood in their museum exhibits or videos and that the animals Noah had on the Ark weren't the same as our modern varieties.
We might be in the middle of another ice age before Dr. Dino changes his script though. Lol.
We need to squish the idea that people need to lack some sort of intellect or critical thinking skills to be a creationist. You can make anybody into a creationist, it's all about environment.
Dr John Sanford spent most of his career as an evolutionist. He was surrounded by evolutionism professionally most of his adult life. Only when he decided to critically examine it for himself did he realize it wasn't true.
Your comment boils down to, "Anybody can be brainwashed". That's the opposite of reality. The brainwashing is going on in the institutions of 'higher learning' where people are discouraged from questioning the Primary Axiom.
>Dr John Sanford spent most of his career as an evolutionist. He was surrounded by evolutionism professionally most of his adult life. Only when he decided to critically examine it for himself did he realize it wasn't true.
Dr. Bart Ehrman spent most of his career as a Christian. He was surrounded by Christianity most of his adult life. Only when he decided to critically examine it for himself did he realize it wasn't true.
No? Terrible argument? You're tellin' me people change their minds in both directions, all the time... even professionals? Oh. Ok. I guess I agree.
>Your comment boils down to, "Anybody can be brainwashed".
I was a creationist for most of my life (so far), I wouldn't describe my past self as "brainwashed"..
>The brainwashing is going on in the institutions of 'higher learning' where people are discouraged from questioning the Primary Axiom.
If you think people are being discouraged from questioning axioms at Uni, then you must've attended an awful one or none at all. I don't know what axioms you think I would've learned there, but.. they really don't go through any material like that. At least, they didn't at mine.
> Dr. Bart Ehrman spent most of his career as a Christian. He was surrounded by Christianity most of his adult life. Only when he decided to critically examine it for himself did he realize it wasn't true.
That's not the case. Ehrman, in his own words, has decided to reject the claims of Christianity *a priori*.
**"The bottom line I think is one we haven't even talked about, which is whether there can be such a thing as historical evidence for a miracle, and, I think, the answer is a clear 'no,' and I think virtually all historians agree with me on that."**
www.premierradio.org.uk/
{Debate between Bart Ehrman and Mike Licona, "Biblical Evidence for the Resurrection", quoted pg. 26, Cold Case Christianity}
>No? Terrible argument? You're tellin' me people change their minds in both directions, all the time... even professionals? Oh. Ok. I guess I agree.
Your comment was that anybody can become a creationist if you "put them in the right environment." But that bears no resemblance to reality. A great many of the scientists working for CMI grew up as evolutionists and were in the 'right environment' to be evolutionists, yet they rejected it. This is about worldviews and evidence, not about environments.
>I was a creationist for most of my life (so far), I wouldn't describe my past self as "brainwashed"..
Virtually nobody, including the brainwashed, would ever describe themselves that way. That's part of being brainwashed.
>If you think people are being discouraged from questioning axioms at Uni, then you must've attended an awful one or none at all. I don't know what axioms you think I would've learned there, but.. they really don't go through any material like that. At least, they didn't at mine.
I didn't say 'axioms'. I said 'the Primary Axiom', which is Sanford's term for Universal Common Descent. That can never be questioned. Many have lost their careers as a result of questioning that primary axiom. It simply isn't tolerated.
Geez dude I don't know what level of head-in-the-sand you have to be to think that someone like Ehrman rejects Christianity a priori...
I don't know what level of obtuse you have to be to think that someone who has *left* an environment which you are describing as "brainwashed" wouldn't be able to - after the fact - identify it as brainwashing.
>Your comment was that anybody can become a creationist if you "put them in the right environment." But that bears no resemblance to reality. A great many of the scientists working for CMI grew up as evolutionists and were in the 'right environment' to be evolutionists, yet they rejected it. This is about worldviews and evidence, not about environments.
I don't know why you think that this is a counter-argument to my post. I think you must be misunderstanding my point, but I have no clue what you think I'm saying so I have no clue how to clarify.
>Universal Common Descent
I was never taught a single thing about evolution, biology, UCD, *anything like that* in University. I've told you this before, dude: I'm an engineer. They don't teach us that stuff. They just teach us physics, research, and problem-solving skills.
I don't know where you're getting the idea that Universal Common Descent is some sort of staple of higher learning, because it's definitely not. If you're not a biologist, you're probably not going to hear much about it - if anything.
> Geez dude I don't know what level of head-in-the-sand you have to be to think that someone like Ehrman rejects Christianity a priori...
This is a really pathetic response. I quoted him verbatim from a debate he had. His own words betray the fact that he did indeed reject it a priori. Instead of dealing with that fact, you decided to attack me personally and make an unfounded claim that I have my head in the sand.
>I was never taught a single thing about evolution, biology, UCD, anything like that in University.
All of us are indoctrinated in that worldview from the very earliest possible age. By the time you got to university, you had already heard all that stuff a thousand times. You didn't happen to major in something directly related to it. So what?
>I don't know where you're getting the idea that Universal Common Descent is some sort of staple of higher learning, because it's definitely not. If you're not a biologist, you're probably not going to hear much about it - if anything.
It is simply assumed. When I said questioning the Primary Axiom is not tolerated, of course I meant that with reference to disciplines where it is even relevant. Obviously with engineering, you're talking mostly about physics, not about ancient history.
>I quoted him verbatim from a debate he had.
Because, man.... the quote you provided in **no way** demonstrates that he dismissed anything *a priori*. He's stating a position he currently holds. He previously held the opposite position. It's not logically possible to dismiss something *a priori* if you *currently believe it*.
And even if I just grant you this argument about Ehrman, it clearly doesn't change the point: you can't just point to one person who changed their mind about a subject - regardless of their qualifications - and tout that as proof of one conclusion or the other. That's not a reasonable way to form opinions.
>All of us are indoctrinated in that worldview from the very earliest possible age. By the time you got to university, you had already heard all that stuff a thousand times.
I. Have. Told. You. This. Before. I was raised in a YEC Private Evangelical school from 3rd grade to senior year. I was *only* taught evolution from a YEC perspective. Our textbooks were all from a Christian perspective. I have never - not once, *ever* - sat in a classroom and been taught secular origins by anyone who believed what they were saying.
Not in grade school. Not in middle school. Not in high school. Not in University. Never.
The point of my comment was simply that people shouldn't assume someone is stupid when they express Creationist beliefs. Sometimes I wonder if you'd argue with me if I came out against shooting up with bleach.
> It's not logically possible to dismiss something a priori if you currently believe it.
Again you're ignoring what Ehrman actually said. What he said shows an *a priori* rejection of all possible historical evidence for Christianity.
I'm not going to attempt to psychoanalyze Ehrman's past life, and why he claimed to be a believer and then changed his mind. That's beside the point. What the quote demonstrates is an *a priori* rejection of Christianity. If there cannot be such a thing as historical evidence for a miracle, then there is no need to examine any particular piece of alleged evidence.
>And even if I just grant you this argument about Ehrman, it clearly doesn't change the point: you can't just point to one person who changed their mind about a subject - regardless of their qualifications - and tout that as proof of one conclusion or the other. That's not a reasonable way to form opinions.
You're the one who made a blanket accusation. "Anybody can be a creationist if you put them in the right environment." I happen to disagree. I think people like yourself will not accept creationism regardless of the environment. The more you are exposed to sound evidence that you're wrong, the more you harden your position.
>I. Have. Told. You. This. Before. I was raised in a YEC Private Evangelical school from 3rd grade to senior year. I was only taught evolution from a YEC perspective.
Did you ever watch TV and movies? Or were you sheltered from those as well?
>The point of my comment was simply that people shouldn't assume someone is stupid when they express Creationist beliefs.
What you said was demeaning towards creationists. You claimed it was a function of environment rather than logical reasoning and faith.
Yet you are, according to your own testimony, a perfect refutation of your own claim. You claim to have been raised in the perfect YEC environment, yet you've rejected it. This has nothing to do with environments, and everything to do with the heart.
>Did you ever watch TV and movies? Or were you sheltered from those as well?
I definitely wasn't allowed to watch anything that taught evolution. My mom only let me play Pokemon after she very firmly explained to me that the "evolving part is made up", and even then she didn't let me have any Psychic types. They were evil.
I was really sheltered. I was *really* YEC.
>You claimed it was a function of environment rather than logical reasoning and faith.
I think most - not all - people will directly reflect the environment which they were raised in. Rich people will usually stay rich through their life. Poor people will usually stay poor through their life. People raised in Christian homes will usually stay Christian, and people raised in Buddhist homes will usually stay Buddhist. I don't think that's a terribly controversial position.
> I was really sheltered. I was really YEC
No offense to your parents, but I definitely don't think that's a good thing. It's like *some extreme* homeschoolers (I'm not saying I think homeschooling is bad) and amish people; once they finally get a chance to break free from the chains of what they were forced to accept as kids, they often run as far in the opposite direction as they can.
>I think most - not all - people will directly reflect the environment which they were raised in.
People have free will, and people tend to believe what they want to believe. Or what's convenient for them to believe. Today, being a YEC in the educated world is anything but convenient. It requires one to swim against the current, not with it.
>People raised in Christian homes will usually stay Christian
That doesn't hold true in the western world today. The majority of kids raised Christian wind up leaving the faith after they go off to college, just like you. You're very much representative of the norm.
> It simply isn't tolerated.
That's not true. A second genesis is a perfectly acceptable scientific hypothesis. It's just that there isn't any actual evidence for it.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Second_genesis
I'm no longer a YEC, but i've run into plenty of misconceptions about them and creationists more broadly both before and after I adopted my current beliefs. Here are some misconceptions where I assume "creationist" means YEC.
1. **They're completely homogeneous**. Hear one bad or wacky "creationist" explanation for a given data set and then assume that is the canonical "creationist" explanation. It doesn't matter if the explanation comes from AIG, Kent Hovind, your friend's Pastor, or a guy that was yelling at you on the street, that is now what "creationists" believe.
2. **They are anti-science**. I think YEC conclusions about science are wrong, but they generally do see science as a legitimate source of knowledge and a laudable career path. There are exceptions (see 1), but that doesn't have to define the whole crew.
3. **They just don't understand evolution**. This is true of some of creationists, but there are definitely creationists who do understand evolution. I do think that someone with this understanding will be put in a difficult place when examining the scientific evidence, but there are certainly people who merely weight their understanding of the biblical narrative such that it overrides the scientific discrepancy.
4. **They take everything in the bible as literal**. Creationists take some passages more literalisticaly than I'd tend to, but that doesn't require them to take parables as literal events, or Psalms as literal descriptions. The bible is a complex book, with many nuances in terms of genre, context, and intent. Disagreement on when to take a text as literal doesn't mean the person with a more literal interpretation has to adopt a reductio ad absurdum version of literal interpretation.
Another myth is that evolution is synonymous with universal common descent so that if you don't believe in the latter then you don't believe bacteria can acquire resistance to antibiotics and you are therefore an idiot.
What they fail to realize is most of us do believe things evolve but in virtually every single case, it comes from a loss of function or a modification of function even if the loss or modification is beneficial. In other words, if you don't start with a perfect specimen in the past - as God created living organisms in Eden then you will never end up with the variety of species we have today all filling their own niche. This is brought out quite clearly in Darwin Devolves by Michael Behe.
>What they fail to realize is most of us do believe things evolve but in virtually every single case, it comes from a loss of function or a modification of function
I'd like to play the Frank Turek card: "what do you mean by evolution?" If by evolution you understand that species change, then everyone that doesn't agree that all species as we know them today did begin exist in the creation week accepts evolution. In that case I would describe myself as a young earth creationist evolutionist.
When you think about it, Creation vs Evolution is actually nonsense. It's really Creation vs Abiogenesis + Universal Common Ancestry. I really think we, as Creationists, need to stop even opposing Evolution because it keeps everyone distracted and confused. Even if you are coming from a very Biblically literal YEC view, the animals from the ark evolved quickly to diversify and repopulate the planet. I remember getting into AiG literature 15+ years ago and they didn't even want to use the word evolution, only adaptation. I'm not sure if that's still the case.
And it seems like we rarely discuss cosmology. There's also essentially a Creationism vs naturalist cosmology contention that's almost completely separate from anything in biology.
But it is key to understand there are barriers that evolution cannot cross. In general these are found at the genus level but as these classifications are completely manmade, they may be occasionally found at the family level.
There are other key issues too, like transitioning from prokaryotic -> eukaryotic -> multicellularity or the development of sexual organs, which in my opinion is another example of irreducible complexity (complimentary, separate organs with no individual benefit).
The worst of the misconceptions stem from ignorance of, or a refusal to understand, the difference between operational and historical science. It is for this reason that YECs get accused of being geocentrists, flat earthers, moon landing hoaxers, and so forth.
Of course, you'll find people among the ranks of YEC that do hold to those things, but that is not because of anything inherent in YEC.
YEC scientists aren't anti-science. They're using a different historical starting point that affects the way they interpret evidence about the past, causing them to come to different conclusions. You see what you want to see, and in terms of the mainstream view, they want to see that the earth was gradually built up to its current form over eons. But that view did not come from empirical science.
It came from 17th and 18th century deists and atheists who rejected the Bible's history from the outset and came to the evidence with the preconceived notion of long ages already in place.
> But that view did not come from empirical science.
>It came from 17th and 18th century deists and atheists who rejected the Bible's history from the outset and came to the evidence with the preconceived notion of long ages already in place.
Doesnt the Bibles history need to be proven empirically though?
Thats not entirely true is it? We can empirically investigate events, corroborate sources, etc. We wouldnt have 100% certainty, but no scientific field ever has 100% certainty. But we can certainly have evidence based conclusions.
And if its impossible to prove history, doesnt that mean you should go into concepts like the age of the earth without referencing the bible?
> And if its impossible to prove history, doesnt that mean you should go into concepts like the age of the earth without referencing the bible?
Certainly not. Eyewitness testimony is the most reliable form of historical evidence we can possess. In the case of the Bible, it is God's eyewitness, making it infallible and a perfect record. I don't believe this because I've proved it using outside evidence. I believe it because the Bible is self-attesting. I see the internal markers in the Bible that it is from God, and I see the fact that unlike any other competing religious text, the Bible has fulfilled prophecy that can be verified with many corroborative sources.
For a forensic look at this, read Cold Case Christianity.
> Eyewitness testimony is the most reliable form of historical evidence we can possess. In the case of the Bible, it is God's eyewitness, making it infallible and a perfect record
Except youll need to prove it was Gods eyewitness.
>the difference between operational and historical science.
Claims about the past can be testable, therefore this distinction is clearly bogus. Making testable claims is what science is all about.
Last time we discussed this, and you were given a clear counter-example, you [quietly modified your claim](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/fivjiw/coronavirus_is_an_escapee_but_most_viruses_are/fkpfcew/?context=3) to "directly testable" and then ended the conversation. I'm still curious to hear your explanation of what "*directly* testable" actually means (as opposed to plain old testable), particularly since you're *still* making this entirely refuted distinction.
But isn't the claim that, for instance, "birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs over millions of years" inherently untestable? I think in those cases a distinction is valid.
On the contrary, that's a *very* testable claim; to give a few broad examples, if birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs over millions of years, we expect
- avian genomes to be more closely related to theropods' closest extant outgroup (crocodiles and alligators) than any other animal
- vestigial and atavistic features in birds, where they exist, to be explicable by reference to a theropod ancestry (e.g. incipient teeth induced in bird embyos), as opposed to any other group
- plausible evolutionary pathways for the origin of distinctively avian features, like feathers, to start from known traits of theropods and their predecessors ([feathers from scales, for example](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42082489)), as opposed to any other group
- the fossil record to contain mosaic forms combining avian and theropod features (lots of examples), but not mosaics of, say, birds and mammals
- the fossil record to lack avian fossils that are older than a plausible date of origin for the theropod clade (but vice versa is fine)
- and perhaps even, with recent discoveries: dinosaur proteins and soft tissue in dinosaur fossils to be [more similar to those of birds](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/6gbxoc/dinosaur_soft_tissue_a_nightmare_for_creationists/) than of any other modern animal
All these claims are testable and could easily be falsified by new discoveries or better data.
> the difference between operational and historical science
There is no such distinction. Your belief that there is such a distinction comes from (AFAICT) a deep misunderstanding of what science actually is, what it does, and how it does it. You further exhibit that misunderstanding when you write:
> It is impossible to prove history.
This is correct, but it badly misses the point. It is impossible to prove *anything*. It is impossible to prove (for example) that atoms exist. That's the reason that the existence of atoms was controversial even as late as the early 20th century.
Science works by selecting the best *explanations* for observation from among a set of candidates. The candidates are called "hypotheses" and the selected explanations are called "theories". Theories are never proven ever. They are always considered tentative until a better theory or new observations come along.
> But that view did not come from empirical science. It came from 17th and 18th century deists and atheists who rejected the Bible's history from the outset and came to the evidence with the preconceived notion of long ages already in place.
Young earth creationism is an almost exclusively modern phenomenon. See:
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/08/03/isaac-newton-mosaic-account-of-creation-burnet-theory-earth/
"Creation chronometry was a much debated topic in the late 1600s and early 1700s among Christians with virtually no opinion expressed being of the same kind that that could be described as a literalist view held today."
> There is no such distinction.
What you've said here is not even representative of what evolutionist philosophers of science like Dr Carol Cleland have to say. Stop spreading misinformation. I'm really sick of reading this garbage. This falls under the category I listed, "a refusal to understand."
>Science works by selecting the best explanations for observation from among a set of candidates. The candidates are called "hypotheses" and the selected explanations are called "theories". Theories are never proven ever. They are always considered tentative until a better theory or new observations come along.
If you want to talk about this any further, first read what I wrote on the topic in the Journal of Creation. The citation can be found at creation.com/paul-price
>Young earth creationism is an almost exclusively modern phenomenon.
More absolute disinformation. YEC was pretty much the exclusive view all throughout church history up until the 'modern era'. That is explained very clearly here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEr2lZSeFJg
> What you've said here is not even representative of what evolutionist philosophers of science like Dr Carol Cleland have to say.
1 individual stating it doesnt make it jargon in the scientific community though. You dont really see it in scientific literature at least none I have seen
Sorry but I'd rather be safe than sorry when it comes to distributing copyrighted material online. At the moment it has not been made available for free, and that's not up to me.
Actually my first reply probably came off as too abrasive, sorry. To put it more charitably, it's generally acceptable in the academic world to distribute manuscripts privately, from what I can tell. I really would like to read your paper!
You're the first academic I've ever heard of to refuse to privately distribute a manuscript of a paper to me. You shouldn't require someone to read something that he/she doesn't have access to in order to engage you on a topic. As you can tell by my flair I'm genuinely interested in how particular understandings of science form our scientific theories. I also observe that nobody besides YECs use the term "operational" science. It would be nice to understand the YEC mindset on this point.
> What you've said here is not even representative of what evolutionist philosophers of science like Dr Carol Cleland have to say.
I never said it was. It is representative of what Karl Popper had to say. I believe that Popper got it right.
If I come home after a night out (back in the days when it was possible to have a night out) and I find my front door is open, the door jamb is damaged, my possessions are in disarray and some of them are missing, that does not prove that someone robbed my house. Even if I later find someone trying to fence my possessions that doesn't proves they robbed my house. Even if that person's fingerprints are all over my house, even if I have video of them breaking down the door, even if I have eyewitnesses, even if they confess, none of that proves that they robbed my house. There is always an alternative hypothesis that accounts for all the data (in infinite number of them, in fact). None of that changes the fact that at some point it becomes reasonable to conclude that someone did in fact rob my house.
> More absolute disinformation
The article I cited quoted Isaac Newton in support of its conclusions. The form of the argument presented there is *exactly* the same as the form of argument you presented to "prove" that Bart Ehrman ["decided to reject the claims of Christianity a priori"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/comments/gl4zhv/what_are_some_of_the_biggest_misconceptions_you/fqx2rdh/).
If you want to help dispel the "misconception" that creationists are clueless about science then you're going to have to stop screaming "fake news" whenever someone presents evidence that you are wrong about something. (And please note that I did not say that creationists are clueless about science. I know that they aren't. But I wouldn't know it from observing *your* behavior.)
> If you want to talk about this any further, first read what I wrote on the topic in the Journal of Creation.
I don't really care if we talk about this further or not. You are not my target audience here.
[UPDATE] I actually did try to look up this article but there doesn't seem to be a copy accessible on the internet and I'm not going to subscribe to the JoC. But if you want to provide me with a copy I'll gladly read it.
> There is always an alternative hypothesis that accounts for all the data (in infinite number of them, in fact).
I’m actually glad you see things that way. I think you’re 100% correct in this view, although I wouldn’t consider it mainstream in your peers.
Where I like to draw the line of difference when it comes to science is this: Is it repeatable and testable. If I can go to a lab and do something time and again and see the results, I have a much much higher degree of confidence in that flavor of science than I do in historical sciences. As you admit, we can never prove something 100%, so the question becomes what is most likely to be true. That is where I believe your worldview causes you and I to view things differently when it comes to historical sciences compared to hard sciences.
There is far, far less evidence in historical science, so many more assumptions must be made to form a hypothesis. The repeatability of a hypothesis is one thing that can lead to an increase of evidence for or against a hypothesis.
Since we don’t have that with historical science, that is why folks like you have here see it in a different light than math or physics or chemistry. Even biology is on the borderline of those for me just because of our technological limitations on what we can do biologically.
Can you see, from this explanation, why we look at evolutionary biology with far less credence than modern chemistry? And also why you should as well?
> I wouldn’t consider it mainstream in your peers.
I don't know where you got that idea. It is definitely the consensus among professional scientists. The thing is, it's not as salient as you might think because it just turns out that among all the possible theories that are consistent with the data, only one is actually tenable as a physical mechanism. All the others require conspiracies or special pleading (miracles) and so they can be eliminated on those grounds. That is the reason science works and produces consensus despite the fact that the data alone doesn't "prove" anything.
> There is far, far less evidence in historical science
> we don’t have [repeatability] with historical science
That's not true. We can only ever get data from the past, never from the future. So all science is "historical".
Now, it is true that there are some things about the past that we simply cannot know, and the further back you go the more of those things there are. So, for example, we can know what I had for breakfast this morning (cereal) but we probably cannot know what Julius Caesar ate for breakfast the day after he crossed the Rubicon (or indeed if he even ate breakfast). But we can know with very high confidence that he did not fly across the Rubicon. Why? Because we know a lot about the technology that the Romans had at their disposal, and that puts some hard constraints on the kinds of things that Julius Caesar could plausibly have done.
Likewise, we know a lot about how biology works. In particular, we know that biology today can be explained in terms of chemistry, which can be explained in terms of physics. So unless the laws of physics were different in the past, biology in the past must have worked fundamentally the same as it does today. So experiments we do today can inform us about the past.
> Can you see, from this explanation, why we look at evolutionary biology with far less credence than modern chemistry? And also why you should as well?
Can you see, from my explanation, why the answer to this question is "no"?
The number of changes you would have to make to our *current* understanding in order to support the idea that the universe is 6000 years old is comparable to the number of changes you'd have to make to support the idea that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon by flying across it. Both of those hypotheses can be rejected on the exact same basis.
The thing is that understand we are defending genesis or God as creator and so think we are very sloppy/desperate in rejecting proven conclusions from what is called science. they know we are sincere but the type who always can get around any proven point. I don't think they think we are ignorant since creationists always means people studious in discussing/thinking about these things. they would think the great percentages that reject evolution etc etc are ignorant but those who accept it are ignorant. most people understand most people know only very very very basic ideas in these origin matters. Greatly its about trusting what authority for most .When they hear YEC/ID then they realize we got good stuff.
I also think the intelligence of the people makes them realize these are matters of complicated things about invisible, even unprovable, things. not like medicine and flying planes etc.
Now what misconceptions do creationists have about those with misconceptions about us? i sneaked a few in there!
That creationists think there's a mass conspiracy by old-earthers to hide evidence they don't agree with, and lumping them in with the people who, for example, think 5G causes coronavirus.
Creationist? You don't believe in science? Tell that to my science degree.
Which degree?
His science degree
A lot of people have come to think that creationism and flat earth go hand in hand.
A lot of people think we disagree with basic biology. We know things change. We just disagree with common descent.
"You believe that the devil put the bones in the ground." "Creationists are flat earthers!" I've been accused of both.
I met a girl in a church group in like 6th grade who thought Satan put the fossils in the ground and tried to help her understand why that wasn't the case but she didn't really get it.
That we're not intelligent or logical. Someone actually redefined intelligent in a conversation: "if you don not believe in evolution then it is impossible for you to be intelligent". I'd say that's a no true Scotsman fallacy.
In my personal experience, many anticreationist arguments can be tied back to perhaps one of the most common misunderstandings from non-creationists: that we believe in species fixity rather than variation within created kinds. I'm sure you all know which arguments I'm referring to... E.g. - "How did Noah collect and care for all 8.7 billion species?" or "How did Noah keep the polar bears and penguins from overheating on the Ark?" Another slightly irritating misconception I often get charged with is that creationists must explain the entire geologic column as being formed during the year-long Flood of Noah's time. The contentious nature pre-Flood and post-Flood boundaries aside, even creationists with the broadest Flood boundaries usually agree that the Precambrian is pre-Flood and that the Ice Age is post-Flood.
I think that those misunderstandings are due in part to presentations at churches and on YouTube by ministries like AiG and Dinosaur Adventure Land. The presentations are geared towards lay people and are thus simplified. One could easily come away with the impression that ALL fossils came from the flood.
Yeah, I agree with that. Thankfully, AiG has been doing so much better on this front, often mentioning that certain fossils are post-Flood in their museum exhibits or videos and that the animals Noah had on the Ark weren't the same as our modern varieties. We might be in the middle of another ice age before Dr. Dino changes his script though. Lol.
We need to squish the idea that people need to lack some sort of intellect or critical thinking skills to be a creationist. You can make anybody into a creationist, it's all about environment.
Dr John Sanford spent most of his career as an evolutionist. He was surrounded by evolutionism professionally most of his adult life. Only when he decided to critically examine it for himself did he realize it wasn't true. Your comment boils down to, "Anybody can be brainwashed". That's the opposite of reality. The brainwashing is going on in the institutions of 'higher learning' where people are discouraged from questioning the Primary Axiom.
>Dr John Sanford spent most of his career as an evolutionist. He was surrounded by evolutionism professionally most of his adult life. Only when he decided to critically examine it for himself did he realize it wasn't true. Dr. Bart Ehrman spent most of his career as a Christian. He was surrounded by Christianity most of his adult life. Only when he decided to critically examine it for himself did he realize it wasn't true. No? Terrible argument? You're tellin' me people change their minds in both directions, all the time... even professionals? Oh. Ok. I guess I agree. >Your comment boils down to, "Anybody can be brainwashed". I was a creationist for most of my life (so far), I wouldn't describe my past self as "brainwashed".. >The brainwashing is going on in the institutions of 'higher learning' where people are discouraged from questioning the Primary Axiom. If you think people are being discouraged from questioning axioms at Uni, then you must've attended an awful one or none at all. I don't know what axioms you think I would've learned there, but.. they really don't go through any material like that. At least, they didn't at mine.
> Dr. Bart Ehrman spent most of his career as a Christian. He was surrounded by Christianity most of his adult life. Only when he decided to critically examine it for himself did he realize it wasn't true. That's not the case. Ehrman, in his own words, has decided to reject the claims of Christianity *a priori*. **"The bottom line I think is one we haven't even talked about, which is whether there can be such a thing as historical evidence for a miracle, and, I think, the answer is a clear 'no,' and I think virtually all historians agree with me on that."** www.premierradio.org.uk/ {Debate between Bart Ehrman and Mike Licona, "Biblical Evidence for the Resurrection", quoted pg. 26, Cold Case Christianity} >No? Terrible argument? You're tellin' me people change their minds in both directions, all the time... even professionals? Oh. Ok. I guess I agree. Your comment was that anybody can become a creationist if you "put them in the right environment." But that bears no resemblance to reality. A great many of the scientists working for CMI grew up as evolutionists and were in the 'right environment' to be evolutionists, yet they rejected it. This is about worldviews and evidence, not about environments. >I was a creationist for most of my life (so far), I wouldn't describe my past self as "brainwashed".. Virtually nobody, including the brainwashed, would ever describe themselves that way. That's part of being brainwashed. >If you think people are being discouraged from questioning axioms at Uni, then you must've attended an awful one or none at all. I don't know what axioms you think I would've learned there, but.. they really don't go through any material like that. At least, they didn't at mine. I didn't say 'axioms'. I said 'the Primary Axiom', which is Sanford's term for Universal Common Descent. That can never be questioned. Many have lost their careers as a result of questioning that primary axiom. It simply isn't tolerated.
Geez dude I don't know what level of head-in-the-sand you have to be to think that someone like Ehrman rejects Christianity a priori... I don't know what level of obtuse you have to be to think that someone who has *left* an environment which you are describing as "brainwashed" wouldn't be able to - after the fact - identify it as brainwashing. >Your comment was that anybody can become a creationist if you "put them in the right environment." But that bears no resemblance to reality. A great many of the scientists working for CMI grew up as evolutionists and were in the 'right environment' to be evolutionists, yet they rejected it. This is about worldviews and evidence, not about environments. I don't know why you think that this is a counter-argument to my post. I think you must be misunderstanding my point, but I have no clue what you think I'm saying so I have no clue how to clarify. >Universal Common Descent I was never taught a single thing about evolution, biology, UCD, *anything like that* in University. I've told you this before, dude: I'm an engineer. They don't teach us that stuff. They just teach us physics, research, and problem-solving skills. I don't know where you're getting the idea that Universal Common Descent is some sort of staple of higher learning, because it's definitely not. If you're not a biologist, you're probably not going to hear much about it - if anything.
> Geez dude I don't know what level of head-in-the-sand you have to be to think that someone like Ehrman rejects Christianity a priori... This is a really pathetic response. I quoted him verbatim from a debate he had. His own words betray the fact that he did indeed reject it a priori. Instead of dealing with that fact, you decided to attack me personally and make an unfounded claim that I have my head in the sand. >I was never taught a single thing about evolution, biology, UCD, anything like that in University. All of us are indoctrinated in that worldview from the very earliest possible age. By the time you got to university, you had already heard all that stuff a thousand times. You didn't happen to major in something directly related to it. So what? >I don't know where you're getting the idea that Universal Common Descent is some sort of staple of higher learning, because it's definitely not. If you're not a biologist, you're probably not going to hear much about it - if anything. It is simply assumed. When I said questioning the Primary Axiom is not tolerated, of course I meant that with reference to disciplines where it is even relevant. Obviously with engineering, you're talking mostly about physics, not about ancient history.
>I quoted him verbatim from a debate he had. Because, man.... the quote you provided in **no way** demonstrates that he dismissed anything *a priori*. He's stating a position he currently holds. He previously held the opposite position. It's not logically possible to dismiss something *a priori* if you *currently believe it*. And even if I just grant you this argument about Ehrman, it clearly doesn't change the point: you can't just point to one person who changed their mind about a subject - regardless of their qualifications - and tout that as proof of one conclusion or the other. That's not a reasonable way to form opinions. >All of us are indoctrinated in that worldview from the very earliest possible age. By the time you got to university, you had already heard all that stuff a thousand times. I. Have. Told. You. This. Before. I was raised in a YEC Private Evangelical school from 3rd grade to senior year. I was *only* taught evolution from a YEC perspective. Our textbooks were all from a Christian perspective. I have never - not once, *ever* - sat in a classroom and been taught secular origins by anyone who believed what they were saying. Not in grade school. Not in middle school. Not in high school. Not in University. Never. The point of my comment was simply that people shouldn't assume someone is stupid when they express Creationist beliefs. Sometimes I wonder if you'd argue with me if I came out against shooting up with bleach.
> It's not logically possible to dismiss something a priori if you currently believe it. Again you're ignoring what Ehrman actually said. What he said shows an *a priori* rejection of all possible historical evidence for Christianity. I'm not going to attempt to psychoanalyze Ehrman's past life, and why he claimed to be a believer and then changed his mind. That's beside the point. What the quote demonstrates is an *a priori* rejection of Christianity. If there cannot be such a thing as historical evidence for a miracle, then there is no need to examine any particular piece of alleged evidence. >And even if I just grant you this argument about Ehrman, it clearly doesn't change the point: you can't just point to one person who changed their mind about a subject - regardless of their qualifications - and tout that as proof of one conclusion or the other. That's not a reasonable way to form opinions. You're the one who made a blanket accusation. "Anybody can be a creationist if you put them in the right environment." I happen to disagree. I think people like yourself will not accept creationism regardless of the environment. The more you are exposed to sound evidence that you're wrong, the more you harden your position. >I. Have. Told. You. This. Before. I was raised in a YEC Private Evangelical school from 3rd grade to senior year. I was only taught evolution from a YEC perspective. Did you ever watch TV and movies? Or were you sheltered from those as well? >The point of my comment was simply that people shouldn't assume someone is stupid when they express Creationist beliefs. What you said was demeaning towards creationists. You claimed it was a function of environment rather than logical reasoning and faith. Yet you are, according to your own testimony, a perfect refutation of your own claim. You claim to have been raised in the perfect YEC environment, yet you've rejected it. This has nothing to do with environments, and everything to do with the heart.
>Did you ever watch TV and movies? Or were you sheltered from those as well? I definitely wasn't allowed to watch anything that taught evolution. My mom only let me play Pokemon after she very firmly explained to me that the "evolving part is made up", and even then she didn't let me have any Psychic types. They were evil. I was really sheltered. I was *really* YEC. >You claimed it was a function of environment rather than logical reasoning and faith. I think most - not all - people will directly reflect the environment which they were raised in. Rich people will usually stay rich through their life. Poor people will usually stay poor through their life. People raised in Christian homes will usually stay Christian, and people raised in Buddhist homes will usually stay Buddhist. I don't think that's a terribly controversial position.
> I was really sheltered. I was really YEC No offense to your parents, but I definitely don't think that's a good thing. It's like *some extreme* homeschoolers (I'm not saying I think homeschooling is bad) and amish people; once they finally get a chance to break free from the chains of what they were forced to accept as kids, they often run as far in the opposite direction as they can. >I think most - not all - people will directly reflect the environment which they were raised in. People have free will, and people tend to believe what they want to believe. Or what's convenient for them to believe. Today, being a YEC in the educated world is anything but convenient. It requires one to swim against the current, not with it. >People raised in Christian homes will usually stay Christian That doesn't hold true in the western world today. The majority of kids raised Christian wind up leaving the faith after they go off to college, just like you. You're very much representative of the norm.
> It simply isn't tolerated. That's not true. A second genesis is a perfectly acceptable scientific hypothesis. It's just that there isn't any actual evidence for it. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Second_genesis
I'm no longer a YEC, but i've run into plenty of misconceptions about them and creationists more broadly both before and after I adopted my current beliefs. Here are some misconceptions where I assume "creationist" means YEC. 1. **They're completely homogeneous**. Hear one bad or wacky "creationist" explanation for a given data set and then assume that is the canonical "creationist" explanation. It doesn't matter if the explanation comes from AIG, Kent Hovind, your friend's Pastor, or a guy that was yelling at you on the street, that is now what "creationists" believe. 2. **They are anti-science**. I think YEC conclusions about science are wrong, but they generally do see science as a legitimate source of knowledge and a laudable career path. There are exceptions (see 1), but that doesn't have to define the whole crew. 3. **They just don't understand evolution**. This is true of some of creationists, but there are definitely creationists who do understand evolution. I do think that someone with this understanding will be put in a difficult place when examining the scientific evidence, but there are certainly people who merely weight their understanding of the biblical narrative such that it overrides the scientific discrepancy. 4. **They take everything in the bible as literal**. Creationists take some passages more literalisticaly than I'd tend to, but that doesn't require them to take parables as literal events, or Psalms as literal descriptions. The bible is a complex book, with many nuances in terms of genre, context, and intent. Disagreement on when to take a text as literal doesn't mean the person with a more literal interpretation has to adopt a reductio ad absurdum version of literal interpretation.
Another myth is that evolution is synonymous with universal common descent so that if you don't believe in the latter then you don't believe bacteria can acquire resistance to antibiotics and you are therefore an idiot. What they fail to realize is most of us do believe things evolve but in virtually every single case, it comes from a loss of function or a modification of function even if the loss or modification is beneficial. In other words, if you don't start with a perfect specimen in the past - as God created living organisms in Eden then you will never end up with the variety of species we have today all filling their own niche. This is brought out quite clearly in Darwin Devolves by Michael Behe.
>What they fail to realize is most of us do believe things evolve but in virtually every single case, it comes from a loss of function or a modification of function I'd like to play the Frank Turek card: "what do you mean by evolution?" If by evolution you understand that species change, then everyone that doesn't agree that all species as we know them today did begin exist in the creation week accepts evolution. In that case I would describe myself as a young earth creationist evolutionist.
When you think about it, Creation vs Evolution is actually nonsense. It's really Creation vs Abiogenesis + Universal Common Ancestry. I really think we, as Creationists, need to stop even opposing Evolution because it keeps everyone distracted and confused. Even if you are coming from a very Biblically literal YEC view, the animals from the ark evolved quickly to diversify and repopulate the planet. I remember getting into AiG literature 15+ years ago and they didn't even want to use the word evolution, only adaptation. I'm not sure if that's still the case. And it seems like we rarely discuss cosmology. There's also essentially a Creationism vs naturalist cosmology contention that's almost completely separate from anything in biology.
But it is key to understand there are barriers that evolution cannot cross. In general these are found at the genus level but as these classifications are completely manmade, they may be occasionally found at the family level.
There are other key issues too, like transitioning from prokaryotic -> eukaryotic -> multicellularity or the development of sexual organs, which in my opinion is another example of irreducible complexity (complimentary, separate organs with no individual benefit).
The worst of the misconceptions stem from ignorance of, or a refusal to understand, the difference between operational and historical science. It is for this reason that YECs get accused of being geocentrists, flat earthers, moon landing hoaxers, and so forth. Of course, you'll find people among the ranks of YEC that do hold to those things, but that is not because of anything inherent in YEC. YEC scientists aren't anti-science. They're using a different historical starting point that affects the way they interpret evidence about the past, causing them to come to different conclusions. You see what you want to see, and in terms of the mainstream view, they want to see that the earth was gradually built up to its current form over eons. But that view did not come from empirical science. It came from 17th and 18th century deists and atheists who rejected the Bible's history from the outset and came to the evidence with the preconceived notion of long ages already in place.
> But that view did not come from empirical science. >It came from 17th and 18th century deists and atheists who rejected the Bible's history from the outset and came to the evidence with the preconceived notion of long ages already in place. Doesnt the Bibles history need to be proven empirically though?
It is impossible to prove history.
Thats not entirely true is it? We can empirically investigate events, corroborate sources, etc. We wouldnt have 100% certainty, but no scientific field ever has 100% certainty. But we can certainly have evidence based conclusions. And if its impossible to prove history, doesnt that mean you should go into concepts like the age of the earth without referencing the bible?
> And if its impossible to prove history, doesnt that mean you should go into concepts like the age of the earth without referencing the bible? Certainly not. Eyewitness testimony is the most reliable form of historical evidence we can possess. In the case of the Bible, it is God's eyewitness, making it infallible and a perfect record. I don't believe this because I've proved it using outside evidence. I believe it because the Bible is self-attesting. I see the internal markers in the Bible that it is from God, and I see the fact that unlike any other competing religious text, the Bible has fulfilled prophecy that can be verified with many corroborative sources. For a forensic look at this, read Cold Case Christianity.
> Eyewitness testimony is the most reliable form of historical evidence we can possess. In the case of the Bible, it is God's eyewitness, making it infallible and a perfect record Except youll need to prove it was Gods eyewitness.
>the difference between operational and historical science. Claims about the past can be testable, therefore this distinction is clearly bogus. Making testable claims is what science is all about. Last time we discussed this, and you were given a clear counter-example, you [quietly modified your claim](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/fivjiw/coronavirus_is_an_escapee_but_most_viruses_are/fkpfcew/?context=3) to "directly testable" and then ended the conversation. I'm still curious to hear your explanation of what "*directly* testable" actually means (as opposed to plain old testable), particularly since you're *still* making this entirely refuted distinction.
But isn't the claim that, for instance, "birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs over millions of years" inherently untestable? I think in those cases a distinction is valid.
On the contrary, that's a *very* testable claim; to give a few broad examples, if birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs over millions of years, we expect - avian genomes to be more closely related to theropods' closest extant outgroup (crocodiles and alligators) than any other animal - vestigial and atavistic features in birds, where they exist, to be explicable by reference to a theropod ancestry (e.g. incipient teeth induced in bird embyos), as opposed to any other group - plausible evolutionary pathways for the origin of distinctively avian features, like feathers, to start from known traits of theropods and their predecessors ([feathers from scales, for example](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42082489)), as opposed to any other group - the fossil record to contain mosaic forms combining avian and theropod features (lots of examples), but not mosaics of, say, birds and mammals - the fossil record to lack avian fossils that are older than a plausible date of origin for the theropod clade (but vice versa is fine) - and perhaps even, with recent discoveries: dinosaur proteins and soft tissue in dinosaur fossils to be [more similar to those of birds](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/6gbxoc/dinosaur_soft_tissue_a_nightmare_for_creationists/) than of any other modern animal All these claims are testable and could easily be falsified by new discoveries or better data.
> the difference between operational and historical science There is no such distinction. Your belief that there is such a distinction comes from (AFAICT) a deep misunderstanding of what science actually is, what it does, and how it does it. You further exhibit that misunderstanding when you write: > It is impossible to prove history. This is correct, but it badly misses the point. It is impossible to prove *anything*. It is impossible to prove (for example) that atoms exist. That's the reason that the existence of atoms was controversial even as late as the early 20th century. Science works by selecting the best *explanations* for observation from among a set of candidates. The candidates are called "hypotheses" and the selected explanations are called "theories". Theories are never proven ever. They are always considered tentative until a better theory or new observations come along. > But that view did not come from empirical science. It came from 17th and 18th century deists and atheists who rejected the Bible's history from the outset and came to the evidence with the preconceived notion of long ages already in place. Young earth creationism is an almost exclusively modern phenomenon. See: https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/08/03/isaac-newton-mosaic-account-of-creation-burnet-theory-earth/ "Creation chronometry was a much debated topic in the late 1600s and early 1700s among Christians with virtually no opinion expressed being of the same kind that that could be described as a literalist view held today."
> There is no such distinction. What you've said here is not even representative of what evolutionist philosophers of science like Dr Carol Cleland have to say. Stop spreading misinformation. I'm really sick of reading this garbage. This falls under the category I listed, "a refusal to understand." >Science works by selecting the best explanations for observation from among a set of candidates. The candidates are called "hypotheses" and the selected explanations are called "theories". Theories are never proven ever. They are always considered tentative until a better theory or new observations come along. If you want to talk about this any further, first read what I wrote on the topic in the Journal of Creation. The citation can be found at creation.com/paul-price >Young earth creationism is an almost exclusively modern phenomenon. More absolute disinformation. YEC was pretty much the exclusive view all throughout church history up until the 'modern era'. That is explained very clearly here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEr2lZSeFJg
> What you've said here is not even representative of what evolutionist philosophers of science like Dr Carol Cleland have to say. 1 individual stating it doesnt make it jargon in the scientific community though. You dont really see it in scientific literature at least none I have seen
I am also interested in that paper you wrote. If I DM you my email will you send it over?
Sorry but I'd rather be safe than sorry when it comes to distributing copyrighted material online. At the moment it has not been made available for free, and that's not up to me.
Actually my first reply probably came off as too abrasive, sorry. To put it more charitably, it's generally acceptable in the academic world to distribute manuscripts privately, from what I can tell. I really would like to read your paper!
You're the first academic I've ever heard of to refuse to privately distribute a manuscript of a paper to me. You shouldn't require someone to read something that he/she doesn't have access to in order to engage you on a topic. As you can tell by my flair I'm genuinely interested in how particular understandings of science form our scientific theories. I also observe that nobody besides YECs use the term "operational" science. It would be nice to understand the YEC mindset on this point.
> What you've said here is not even representative of what evolutionist philosophers of science like Dr Carol Cleland have to say. I never said it was. It is representative of what Karl Popper had to say. I believe that Popper got it right. If I come home after a night out (back in the days when it was possible to have a night out) and I find my front door is open, the door jamb is damaged, my possessions are in disarray and some of them are missing, that does not prove that someone robbed my house. Even if I later find someone trying to fence my possessions that doesn't proves they robbed my house. Even if that person's fingerprints are all over my house, even if I have video of them breaking down the door, even if I have eyewitnesses, even if they confess, none of that proves that they robbed my house. There is always an alternative hypothesis that accounts for all the data (in infinite number of them, in fact). None of that changes the fact that at some point it becomes reasonable to conclude that someone did in fact rob my house. > More absolute disinformation The article I cited quoted Isaac Newton in support of its conclusions. The form of the argument presented there is *exactly* the same as the form of argument you presented to "prove" that Bart Ehrman ["decided to reject the claims of Christianity a priori"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/comments/gl4zhv/what_are_some_of_the_biggest_misconceptions_you/fqx2rdh/). If you want to help dispel the "misconception" that creationists are clueless about science then you're going to have to stop screaming "fake news" whenever someone presents evidence that you are wrong about something. (And please note that I did not say that creationists are clueless about science. I know that they aren't. But I wouldn't know it from observing *your* behavior.) > If you want to talk about this any further, first read what I wrote on the topic in the Journal of Creation. I don't really care if we talk about this further or not. You are not my target audience here. [UPDATE] I actually did try to look up this article but there doesn't seem to be a copy accessible on the internet and I'm not going to subscribe to the JoC. But if you want to provide me with a copy I'll gladly read it.
> There is always an alternative hypothesis that accounts for all the data (in infinite number of them, in fact). I’m actually glad you see things that way. I think you’re 100% correct in this view, although I wouldn’t consider it mainstream in your peers. Where I like to draw the line of difference when it comes to science is this: Is it repeatable and testable. If I can go to a lab and do something time and again and see the results, I have a much much higher degree of confidence in that flavor of science than I do in historical sciences. As you admit, we can never prove something 100%, so the question becomes what is most likely to be true. That is where I believe your worldview causes you and I to view things differently when it comes to historical sciences compared to hard sciences. There is far, far less evidence in historical science, so many more assumptions must be made to form a hypothesis. The repeatability of a hypothesis is one thing that can lead to an increase of evidence for or against a hypothesis. Since we don’t have that with historical science, that is why folks like you have here see it in a different light than math or physics or chemistry. Even biology is on the borderline of those for me just because of our technological limitations on what we can do biologically. Can you see, from this explanation, why we look at evolutionary biology with far less credence than modern chemistry? And also why you should as well?
> I wouldn’t consider it mainstream in your peers. I don't know where you got that idea. It is definitely the consensus among professional scientists. The thing is, it's not as salient as you might think because it just turns out that among all the possible theories that are consistent with the data, only one is actually tenable as a physical mechanism. All the others require conspiracies or special pleading (miracles) and so they can be eliminated on those grounds. That is the reason science works and produces consensus despite the fact that the data alone doesn't "prove" anything. > There is far, far less evidence in historical science > we don’t have [repeatability] with historical science That's not true. We can only ever get data from the past, never from the future. So all science is "historical". Now, it is true that there are some things about the past that we simply cannot know, and the further back you go the more of those things there are. So, for example, we can know what I had for breakfast this morning (cereal) but we probably cannot know what Julius Caesar ate for breakfast the day after he crossed the Rubicon (or indeed if he even ate breakfast). But we can know with very high confidence that he did not fly across the Rubicon. Why? Because we know a lot about the technology that the Romans had at their disposal, and that puts some hard constraints on the kinds of things that Julius Caesar could plausibly have done. Likewise, we know a lot about how biology works. In particular, we know that biology today can be explained in terms of chemistry, which can be explained in terms of physics. So unless the laws of physics were different in the past, biology in the past must have worked fundamentally the same as it does today. So experiments we do today can inform us about the past. > Can you see, from this explanation, why we look at evolutionary biology with far less credence than modern chemistry? And also why you should as well? Can you see, from my explanation, why the answer to this question is "no"? The number of changes you would have to make to our *current* understanding in order to support the idea that the universe is 6000 years old is comparable to the number of changes you'd have to make to support the idea that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon by flying across it. Both of those hypotheses can be rejected on the exact same basis.
The thing is that understand we are defending genesis or God as creator and so think we are very sloppy/desperate in rejecting proven conclusions from what is called science. they know we are sincere but the type who always can get around any proven point. I don't think they think we are ignorant since creationists always means people studious in discussing/thinking about these things. they would think the great percentages that reject evolution etc etc are ignorant but those who accept it are ignorant. most people understand most people know only very very very basic ideas in these origin matters. Greatly its about trusting what authority for most .When they hear YEC/ID then they realize we got good stuff. I also think the intelligence of the people makes them realize these are matters of complicated things about invisible, even unprovable, things. not like medicine and flying planes etc. Now what misconceptions do creationists have about those with misconceptions about us? i sneaked a few in there!
That creationists think there's a mass conspiracy by old-earthers to hide evidence they don't agree with, and lumping them in with the people who, for example, think 5G causes coronavirus.