The answer is a lot simpler than Nathaniel Jeanson thinks. It’s because creationism is bullshit.
The gentleman to the left is Nathaniel Jeanson, a guy who went to all the trouble of getting a PhD from Harvard, only to use his diploma to lend some authority to his young earth creationist beliefs. He’s not a serious person. He is employed by Answers in Genesis, and made a short video to answer the question, “Why 99% of Scientists Believe in Evolution”. He’s going to fail.
Why work so hard to keep creation science out?
We don’t. Creation science is so patently silly that we don’t have to work very hard at all to keep it out of our classrooms. It’s also so trivial that…what would we do? A single semester is 15 weeks long, with about 45 hours of lecture time. There isn’t enough substance in creationism to fill that amount of time, while evolution is so data- and concept rich that we can’t cover it adequately in a multi-year program.
The answer is simple. Evolutionists must believe that scientists become evolutionists if that’s what they’re taught.
Well, yes. We teach students to evaluate the evidence and see the utility of sound, testable explanations, and then when we teach them about evolution, they should accept it. We also think that if you’re properly taught about calculus or chemistry, they should accept mathematics or chemistry.
What is Jeanson’s problem here? Does he think it’s abnormal that students can learn?
I see no other explanation for the evolutionists’ behavior. Evolutionists must believe with all their heart that students adopt the position that they’re taught.
What behavior? I teach the subject I’m trained to teach, and that I have long experience in studying. What other explanation does he need?
As for the idea that students adopt the position they’re taught…he’s clearly never been a teacher. Students resist learning new ideas. Teaching is hard work on both the instructor’s side and the students’ side, and no, we don’t expect students to accept as fact everything we tell them. They have to think it through critically, and test ideas against the evidence.
In short, there is a simple explanation for why 99% of scientists reject my young earth creation position in favor of evolution. It’s because evolution is all they’re ever taught.
That claim falls with a loud clunk. A simpler explanation: we reject your young earth creationism because it’s bogus and unsupported by any credible evidence.
It’s also not true that evolution is all they’re taught. Most of my students were brought up Christian, have read at least bits and piece of the Bible, are soaking in a credulous culture where Noah’s Ark, for instance, is a familiar meme. Most scientists are entirely familiar with the mythology common in their society, and we’ve heard it all. It just doesn’t hold up to any critical scrutiny.
Is this all you’ve got, Nathaniel? Accusing everyone who disagrees with you of having been indoctrinated into a dogma, while you yourself are employed at a business that demands unquestioning obedience to a statement of faith?
Why do 99.9% of scientists believe in…
…evolution?
…germ theory?
…quantum mechanics?
…entropy?
…orbital mechanics?
in a way it almost makes sense? like, before natural selection & common descent became accepted, they were mostly not taught. so just hit science in the head with a brick so hard it forgets everything after 1860, and there’s room for creationism again.
Let me guess. The syllabus for his advanced biology class would go some thing like:
— God Did It
Not just scientists, most people reject the notion of YEC because it is entirely unsupported by physical evidence.
I do wonder if the dopes at AIG are aware that Charles Darwin originally intended to become a Clergyman in the Anglican Church? He obviously knew his Bible, yet still managed to follow the evidence that led to evolution becoming a well proven concept.
I notice the soft-pedalling, too.
99% of scientists refers to the set of all scientists.
If one took the subset of scientists in biological disciplines, that proportion of biologists would be radically smaller.
—
What the proportion of theologians may be is unknown. :)
As a fan of God Awful Movies, I think we should encourage Answers in Genesis to burn their money on making a film that spreads their message…
And not just a ‘documentary” like “Flat Earth Clues”. A fictional narrative preaching Cristianity, like The Bells of Innocence or the Nigerian series Vultures of Horror. It would be awesome!
In short, there is a simple explanation for why 99% of creationists reject evolution. It’s because creation is all they’re ever taught.
Fixed that for you.
Birger, ahem. They’ve been doing that for years.
https://www.answers.tv/movies-documentaries
or
https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?companies=co0258427
Jeanson is a joke. Doesn’t even know how to root a phylogenetic tree.
Is his degree related to biology, life sciences, or similar? If so, did Jameson hold YEC beliefs before he enrolled at Harvard? If he was already a YECer, did he lie on his application and/or interviews, disguising his beliefs, in order to be accepted into the program? If his degree is in a totally unrelated field, then fuck off, dude. Your academic credentials are of no use in espousing YEC.
99%? Seems low. There are more scientists named Steve than there are creationist/ID scientists.
AFAICT he doesn’t understand that there is no such thing as creation science to teach in the first place. Counting generations of people who supposedly lived for hundreds of years is not an accepted scientific methodology.
[Totally OT — I just can’t resist]
1,000 Ants vs. Obstacles – TerraGreen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgN5OqLzfBo
(justification? ummm… ah, right. Shows God complex ;)
Only 99% of scientists believe in evolution?
Would’ve thought the number who don’t would be a rounding error 0.0001 or something. (Are we counting engineers as scientists now or something?)
Creation science is an oxymoron – it fails to disprove or embrace contradicting evidence.
Because of that, it is fundamentally dishonest.
Before anything “scientific theists” say is accepted as true, they should be based on an empirical model (with evidence) for ensoulment, life after death, divine reward, and retribution. Prove to me that “souls” exist before you waste my time arguing that evolution does not make a good case for explaining change and diversity over time.
I do not worship your ignorance and maybe it’s time you also stopped.
John Morales @ 8
We need to get them to sink their money into proper religious films, with actors and everything. The unintentional entertainment value will be great. I was thinking about a Christian version of this:
.https://youtube.com/watch?v=bxt3cTN3gOU
“Day (sic!) When Sun Rises in the West, Film That Shock (sic!) The World.”
I see #11 larpar beat me to it.
FWIW did google finding:
Although in fairness later in that article it also notes :
Source : https://ncse.ngo/how-many-creationists-science
Plus also wikipage :
Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
In addition to :
Source : https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6219/are-only-700-out-of-480-000-life-scientists-creationists
Kinda suprrised there isn’t much more recent and more definitive here although obvs scientists generally do have far more serious things to worry about & obvs all polls have their issues and are but snapshots of views ata single moment.
Still the very overwhelming consensus is clear.
As, more importantly, is the evidence.
Ashley Ottesen makes a compelling case for Intelligent Design with this Arachnid
Angel Steve Compilation
@14 StevoR
Oh, creationist scientists do exist. I’ve met a few of them along my career path.
There was the molecular biology grad student who thought the Earth was less than 10,000 years old. His position was clearly rooted in his religious upbringing, not in the scientific evidence.
There was the postdoc who had a soft spot for ‘Intelligent Design.’ He didn’t want to dig any deeper into the topic because he was afraid it would upset his family life.
I have met a few others, but they were engineers, not actually scientists.
The Young Earth Creationists also have to contend with the Old Earth Creationists. They believe it’s all God’s doing, but have a problem with the idea that God would create an Earth that looks ancient when it’s only 6000 years old. So their take is that the Earth and Universe is ancient, but that there was a gap between the days of creation, and that God only cooked up humans recently.
And if it’s any consolation to Jeanson scientists don’t teach the “Aliens did it!” theories some of the UFO crowd believe in either. That humans were either specifically created by aliens, or that we were planted here by aliens. (And some of that lot are into cosmic mystic silliness that makes “God has a kid but no wife, who is part of him just like his co parent the Holy Spirit” seem credible.)
Jeanson is wrong about everything. Including this statement.
We teach students science and the facts and theory of evolution.
Whether they believe in the Theory or Evolution or not is up to them. We can’t make them believe anything. Your thoughts and beliefs are your own.
Most of us would hope that the students in particular and the population in general would adopt a reality based view of reality.
But if they don’t, we don’t spend a lot of time worrying about it.
Not much other than teach that we can do and we have a huge amount of other things to deal with and worry about, especially these days.
I find the “99% of scientists believe X” argument unconvincing on its own. Also it’s relatively easy to attack as a professional conspiracy, which is probably why an AiG bot chose to make a video about it.
More convincing, and interesting on its own, is the preponderance of evidence for the theory of evolution, from several independent fields. Biologists could be mistaken, but all that evidence is still there, and it demands an explanation — something creationism in all its forms is wholly unequipped to explain without an appeal to miracles.
I agree with @2 Bebe, creationists just want to break apart science education until it resembles a heap of garbage not unlike church-approved education, and claim victory based on that.
@21 raven
Yes and no.
If the students care they will do their own research and come to a fuller understanding of the material, and that would inform their belief.
Belief is not voluntary, however. What ends up doing the convincing could be a straightforward process, or a long road full of cognitive dissonance and deprogramming from their cultural upbringing.
Unlike PZ and other rational academics, this guy’s degree stands for Piled high Detritus.
This clown said: ‘Evolutionists must believe with all their heart that students adopt the position that they’re taught.’
I reply, WRONG! Evolutionists are convinced with all their mind that students should adopt the results of careful factual research. Intelligent people think with their mind, not their heart!
Very long ago there was an article in eitherScientific American or American Scientist that suggested creationists should be required to defend creationist ‘alternative’ theories in toto.
As those theories are utterly ridicilous, it would severely ruin the ability of creatiinists to recruit more followers.
Jeanson doesn’t seem to, or want to, understand a simple point: Teaching science is much more than saying “these are the paradigms we accept”. Much of it is about acquiring the skills to interrogate those paradigms. Those are the skills which enable modification, and sometimes total replacement, of those paradigms, i.e. scientific progress.
Those who depend on the Old Testament to understand reality need to read this comic based on a story in the bible.
.https://www.facebook.com/share/18xgy3oPGo/
All y’all are confused as to what the guy Jeanson means when he thinks of ‘pedagogy’. If education is slavishly repeating what has been TOLD TO YOU, then he is absolutely correct.
As for #10 Larry
In my geology department of about 100 fellow students at the time I got my degree forty years ago, two of these students were very specifically there because they were creationists. The state university I went to did not require ‘disbelief’ or ‘use of your degree is only how we like it, according to us because we are the boss of you’ as requirements.
FWIW one of them was very intelligent. The other one, his boyfriend, was so pretty.
@ 18 M.A.
Slightly OT, but Ashley really is a treasure! So glad to have stumbled across the channel last year.
Tethys @4:
Yeah, funny how that works. Maxwell was a devout Christian who wrote “Nothing is to be holy ground consecrated to Stationary Faith, whether positive or negative. All fallow land is to be ploughed up.”
It’s almost as though faith isn’t necessarily a deal-breaker when it comes to science. Depends on the individual.
Rob, true.
Some people go further, of course.
cf. https://christinscripture.com/2022/02/16/how-god-sustains-and-rules-the-universe/
(The claim being that Christian belief in a divinely ordered, law‑bound universe is inherently suited to scientific investigation)
The thing that drives me bat-shit insane about the religionists is that they always try to frame the “debate” (as if there actually were one), is as an either-or proposition, which is stupid.
“Oh, you are an atheist? So you believe that we evolved from monkeys/worms/mud/etc./etc.” — which is a stupid way to frame the question in the first place.
I patiently have to explain every fucking time that I’ve been an atheist since I was nine years old, and didn’t know jack-shit about evolution at that age, if I even was aware of it all. The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with me being an atheist, and I would be an atheist even if nobody ever came up with the theory of evolution. Atheists existed before Darwin. I became an atheist a few years after I figured out that Santa Claus was bullshit, and have spent the last 50 years waiting for any religionist to give me a good explanation as to why they believe what they believe. Evidence to back up the religious claims would be nice too, but I don’t even ask for that — I simply want a good explanation as to why they believe what they believe…..Still waiting after 50 years.
Evolution doesn’t have a goddamn thing to do with it.
In elite circles, belief in creationism is near universal. Don’t believe me? Ask Razib Khan.
I neither believe you nor shall I ask whoever, troll.
bah.
Quote from Razib Kahn
“To give a concrete example of how far this goes, there are many liberal Left people who won’t even accede to the proposition that men are, on average, stronger in terms of upper body strength than women. A few years ago this came up on social media, where a friend who has a biology background from an elite university, even expressed skepticism at this, when I was trying to get her to be open to behavioral differences between the sexes by starting with something I thought she would at least agree with as reasonable. When I saw the lack of unequivocal acceptance of this point I decided to opt out of the conversation. This was basically face to face with Left Creationism.”
Palpable stupidity.
Khan’s alleged anecdote about a left‑leaning elite‑trained [heh!] biologist friend of his who supposedly couldn’t accept blokes are stronger than sheilas somehow becomes evidence of leftists’ refusal to accept basic biological facts.
Stupid attempted B&S coining “Left Creationism” without any warrant.
More to the point, the intent of this risible anecdote is to redefine “creationism” so broadly that left‑wing resistance to a popular and self‑evident claim becomes “creationism.”
Do elaborate, troll. Want a bit more rope?
This particular framing comes from Chick Tracts creationist cartoons, and I too find it tedious. I tell them no, DNA proves quite conclusively that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of their genes, so we are mutant naked apes. Monkeys have tails. Humans have a fused chromosome.
It is unfortunate that many scientific textbooks used a terribly misleading evolution of man illustration that starts with something like a gorilla, then a chimpanzee, then a chimpanzee with fire, a caveman, and finally an upright modern man.
@33. Eromon Msicsaf : “In elite circles, belief in creationism is near universal….”
Elite what circles? Which elite groups that are elite in what area(s) precisely?
Also why should we care?
No and no and who?
Hmm.. This klown?
Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razib_Khan
Hadn’t heard of him before. Seeems lik a racist kook. You think Razib Khan a good role model and someone who is reliable and trustworthy? Why?
Note that genetics aren’t everything, Nature and environmental factors are at least as important if not more so.