Why creationists will never accept the theory of evolution

Creationists don’t trust scientists’ expertise because humans are imperfect. They don’t believe in evolution because it’s an evolving field of science (do you like the pun?), meaning much of it is still yet to be uncovered. So the creationists have doubt because they don’t have confidence in science.

Creationists feel more confident in the Bible because the Bible doesn’t evolve (pun again), which means that the accuracy of its narratives cannot be improved. This gives creationists confidence in the book because there is no room for improvement, which means to them that it is either perfect or close to perfect.

Fair enough

Alas, if only it were that simple!

Ask any YEC if they have their children vaccinated against disease & I think they'll admit they do. Ask them if they accept on trust a course of antibiotics if they contract an infection. But why if they have no faith in science because medicine is precisely that - a branch of science applied to the health & welfare of our species.

And when do you ever hear YEC's challenging Relativity, Quantum Mechanics or the Periodic Table of the Elements, or even our understanding of cell Biology? Never, that's when!

Why? Because YEC's don't have a problem with science as a whole, they have a problem with anything that contradicts their precious scripture. That's why they spend so much time trying to discredit the Theory of Evolution - that's the  'grit' in their eye.

If our species had never existed on this planet, the Theory of Evolution would still explain to a very high degree of confidence how the diversity of living forms had come about.

In that sense Evolution does describe a part of the natural order of the Universe.

But if humans didn't exist, where exactly is 'God'?

I don't think I'm quite following you yet... What exactly do you mean?

Am I being ambiguous? In the absence of any conscious creatures in the Universe, what argument can be made for the existence of 'God'?

I'm ruling out the faith argument (& any support that scripture might give of course) because it's an aspect of conscious thought, so what else can you point to that provides evidence of any deity?

My point being - take human beings out of the picture & any model of a created Universe falls apart. However, the description we have of evolution would still apply to all other forms of life on Earth.

Looking at this another way - imagine a virulent disease reduces our species to a few hundred individuals. In the centuries it takes to recover, all memory of science, technology & religion is forgotten & all record lost. Where then would religious belief be?

But it's not unreasonable to believe that given enough time, scientific knowledge would be rebuilt because it's an evidence-based process & the evidence would not be lost. But all religious history & the belief that went with it would still be lost forever.

Since you ruled the Bible out, yes. But, there will always be Christians, due to God speaking to us humans, so there would be Christians. 

And, if there was just animals, then there would just be animals. God would've created them, and they would just act normally. But you made a good point. God made us to commune with him, which is why we have the Bible and why there are Christians. Why would we evolve to bind ourselves with "religion" and make it so that we have to rely on someone who "supposedly" created us?

Th at is why there are not just animals.

The point I was trying to make was that all knowledge of scripture could well be lost, so people wouldn't know who Jesus was.

They might well come to adopt religious beliefs again but they wouldn't be Christians & they might reject monotheism & take up polytheism.

Having had many discussions with a flat Earther over a couple of years, I am well aware of how no rational argument has much hope against deeply held beliefs.

@JayHunterBrickwood, how is it possible to test the difference between someone holding your belief in a world where it is correct to someone holding it in a world where it is not?

Purported knowledge can be evaluated based on what it tells you that you do not already know. That is central to the scientific method, but it is valid for any other general propositions as well.

There are people who think beliefs must be right if they make them feel good, but this is quite similar to people thinking drugs are good.

I know, it feels like chipping away at a granite mountain using only a teaspoon 

I'm not your average Joe.

You will be able to give an answer to my question in the first sentence of #13 then.

I'll get back to y'all after my tablet is charged, so I can use my keyboard.

Sure. I'll come back tomorrow.

I can’t say that either of us is wrong. Yes, creationists are against ideas and fields that go against the religious texts. And this makes them in a large part anti-science. We’ve seen evidence of not only disbeliefs of evolution, but also about geology and physics. I haven’t observed anyone here say something against climate change, but I know that a lot of fundamentalist Christians believe that climate change is a hoax. And when it comes to vaccinations, a lot of people opt out because of religious reasons.

I don’t understand why we are arguing with each other. We both support science in its entirety, and we both think creationism is crap.

WHY creationists will never accept evolution is because it is dumb. Use common sense: An explosion makes something good, beautiful, better? People use bombs to hit enemy towns and destroy them, do the people that have been bombed thank them? When you try to settle on an island, do you drop bombs on the island? If your Christmas lights get tangled, to you roll dice to decide which wire to untangle them? How much less for something bigger?

Well I'd say we're discussing this rather than arguing but doesn't advocating the scientific method put us under an obligation to examine whatever evidence is available & draw the most reasonable conclusions from it?

Young Earth Creationists believe by definition in two things - our planet is less than 10,000 years old & was created, along with all life by a super-being they call 'God'. So they feel compelled to reject anything that points to the Earth being ancient & anything that claims that life evolved by purely natural processes.

In that respect, their preoccupations are really very narrow & they seem to be totally unconcerned on the whole with branches of science that don't challenge scripture. At least I can't ever remember a YEC trying to cast doubt on any other areas of scientific research. And all kinds of people are skeptical about climate change so I'm not sure there's much of a correlation there?