Theists, if you don't take my word for it, and you REFUSE to read peer-review by experts, what am I to do?

There are many religious people--specifically fundamentalists--that treat modernity and many of its elements, such as a secular worldview, as an enemy. Any attempt to refine or promote this secular worldview is automatically seen as wrong-minded.

When science is studying something that doesn't necessarily advance elements of a secular worldview, they have no problem. For example, if scientists want to probe the inner structures of an atom, they have no real beef. But when something advances the elements of a secular worldview that contrasts with their religious worldview, they take issue. For example, evolution: it must be wrong because they already think otherwise. Ditto with other theories.

The worldviews are tied in to a religious identity, which for fundamentalists is a primarily community-based, or social, identity. A person might see themselves as partaking in several social identities. They are a citizen of their country. They are a member of their family. They are employees of their company. They are a member of this faith. Identities define themselves in contrast to what they are not, and certain fundamentalist groups define themselves in terms that are anti-modernity. They are of a particular group, the rest of the world is not.

This automatically leads to stereotypes of both the ideal member of their group (which they strive to be) and the stereotypes of non-members. Why can somebody who's never met an atheist think that atheists must be evil, close-minded, and deluded? Because they're the opposite of the group that the person holding these attitudes must belong to.

And, since any fundamentalism is automatically a minority in the world, because modernity marches on and progresses further, they seem themselves as under attack. They don't really feel "threatened," but they do feel that there's a battle taking place between the ultimate good (which they serve) and the ultimate evil (which everybody else serves by not being a member of their group).

It's a social phenomenon, not a phenomenon based on facts. That's why some people find science, not so much threatening, but something that must be responded to: because it's different from what their group believes, even if they have no hard evidence to hold up that contradicts the mainstream theories. It doesn't even matter whether or not they understand what the theory really says, because the very impression that it says something that the group disagrees with is enough to trigger this reaction. By thinking that they battle against evil, they further cement their own religious identity. It isn't important that they win, just as long they did or said something instead of nothing.

EDIT:

That's actually what my post is saying: there isn't any standard of proof, there isn't any observations or conclusions, etc. It isn't about facts. It's a completely social phenomenon, divorced from the facts of reality. There is no way to convince them, because when a person is basing his/her conclusions on things other than evidence and reason, no amount of evidence and reason will persuade them. It's truly a sad state of affairs.

First of all, why does it matter so much to you what someone else thinks about evolution? You are sure it is true, and most of the scientific community agrees with you...what else do you want, fevvinsake?

Second, did you know that the truth doesn't really need anyone to believe it, in order for it to be true? For all any of us know, the truth might be something none of us has even thought of.

Evolution might be a fact...maybe. But since it evidently takes eons for one species to mutate into another species, I guess we will never know for sure.

It seems to me that the most pressing question is...how did life get started in the first place? Puddles of muck being acted on by lightning? Really?

Then it is true...God really did start with the dust of the ground. Now, that is amazing.

See, I am someone who believes to the depths of my being that there is no conflict at all between God and science. After all, God invented science in the first place.

I absolutely guarantee that science will never discover anything God didn't put there in the first place. God already knows all about it.

Science is a cool tool to help us learn more about the fascinating world God created for us...

Don't you people ever get bored of the same subject?

Honestly, I would question evolution more for scientific reasons than anything about religion. The reason it can be a subject of debate so long as atheists drag it out so endlessly and monotonously (Id guess because they don't have any more powerful arguments or are just too mentally lazy to develop them as much) is because evolution involves such an overwhelming amount of time and events in its explanation. Leaving so much a place for question. It just no E=MC^2 or F=MA where possible arguments against them being standards are limited. no one argues all of evolution, but looking at an explanation encompassing millions of years and millions of events, its a quite hard to think all such has been tested to see if wrong conclusions have been made. Evolution is a very complex explanation. It can be validly questioned. Recent experiments have even brought the theory of relativity under scrutiny in the scientific community. It just not all that strange to question evolution. There's no reason for atheists to so treat it like is their version of a blasphemy or religious like sacrilege Science is not a replacement god. Its a human practice. People aren't perfect. Questionable things, get questioned. Let's face what the real atheist argument concerning evolution, is. Its what they think to be a matter to invalidate the belief in God. Its not a scientific debate. Its an atheist attempt to highjack the credibility of science in and toward its argument to try to persuade people out of the existence of God, because atheists have no credibility of their own with anyone, but atheists. Its a stupid attempt, because plenty of religious people believe in evolution, even thinking of it in ways they do not believe to be contrary to their religions standards. Its just not gonna persuade anyone that God doesn't exist. Ain't that just a kick in the pants? Even if you did persuade people of evolution, it not going to persuade them out of believing in God. So, find something less boring and monotonous to at least attempt an argument that is actually going to be a challenge.

Hello and good morning,

I am a Theist that actually reads scientific papers and documents. I have read several famous books by Richard Dawkins to expand my knowledge of what I am arguing against. Not all Theists are stupid, and not all Fundamentalists "deny" science. I question the scientific "proof" for evolution because there are many other scientific laws that "cancel" it out; one example being the Law of Social Entropy. I would *like* for you to provide some links for those papers, I love reading them, and it doesn't hurt to learn a little bit about the opposition.

God bless, and in Christ,

Q

Here some peer reviews for you:

Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there.

--- David Coppedge

Speaking of Science, Creation Matters, May/June 2003.

"Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice. In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status."

To say "that the theory is phoney, and always was phoney, and this is why it so singularly fails to predict reality is regarded as simplistic, crass, merely a sign of lack of sophistication. And anyway, there are... the reputations of numerous scientists who are now successful and powerful on the back of the phoney theory, and who by now control the peer review process (including allocation of grants, publications and jobs) so there is a powerful disincentive against upsetting the apple cart."

"Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down." "Zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda. Zombie science is deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally. It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses some kind of rhetorical attempt to shape mass opinion. Indeed, zombie science often comes across in the mass media as being more plausible than real science."

Charlton, Bruce G. 2008. Zombie science: A sinister consequence of evaluating scientific theories purely on the basis of enlightened self-interest. Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 71, pp. 327-329.

If they truly wanted an answer, they'd ask in the science section.

The only reason they ask those questions here, is they want another believer to affirm their beliefs and agree with them. That's what happens when you're insecure about beliefs you doubt are true.

Their pastors will not allow them to look for the truth or even consider it. They are locked up in the chains of religion. They could free their minds if they wanted to but do not.

It might be like making friends with an animal.

You have to establish one thing before another.

Pretty soon the preconceived ideas and prejudices fade away, and are replaced with trust.

Maybe.

Their self delusion prevents them from questioning their childish beliefs.

It's admirable that you try and educate them, but as my dad used to say "you can lead an idiot to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think."

Many complain that theist act stupid on purpose, I don't think they are acting.