I suppose from their perspective they do but from my perspective they are just going to raise scientifically ignorant people. I was raised young earth creationist Lutheran and understand this world quite well.
On the other hand, my sister is a firm Creationist Christian, has a PhD and had a brilliant career in research (albeit nothing directly related to 'The Beginning of All Things').
Chances are she is less "scientifically ignorant" than many people around here, myself included.
Just like my sister's, yours is a specific case. It's sad that they didn't teach you Creation in a way that wouldn't cancel out Science, as Science itself is something profoundly Christian as well.
"O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee!..." - Johannes Kepler
Are we talking young-earth creationist or "God triggered the big bang and guided evolution" creationist? Because there is a huge difference between them!
Young earth creationists are scientifically ignorant by definition.
Young-earth creationist, as in "God created everything from scratch in 7 days".
There are many scientists out there that believe in that. They are not scientifically ignorant, they just believe different stuff from you, which, mind you, unless you've seen all proof and understand everything about it to the very last detail, you just hold a faith-based belief of what you're told about by a specific bunch of people/books.
People forget that we often know a lot about stuff, but then we discover more stuff which totally changes the stuff we knew and so on.
Not intending to start a flamewar here or anything, but the fact is that even if there's a lot of evidence for many claims about it, the THEORY of Evolution is not failsafe let alone definitely proven.
You can choose to go with it until we have something better, that's your choice.
Allow that same choice for the rest of the people out there.
"There are many scientists out there that believe in that. "
Not any GOOD ones.
"They are not scientifically ignorant, "
They are actually.
" they just believe different stuff from you, "
They believe very stupid things directly at odds with all evidence. All of modern technology is a result of the exact same logical thought that led to the theory of evolution. If you reject it where do you draw the line? Do you reject fusion in stars because there is no reason for them to last so long?
"People forget that we often know a lot about stuff, but then we discover more stuff which totally changes the stuff we knew and so on."
> Do you reject fusion in stars because there is no reason for them to last so long?
No. Why would I?
You see? You're jumping to absurd conclusions. The fact that I don't believe in Evolution does not mean I reject the Scientific Method, or technology, or reasoning, or logic.
I'm an engineer. I like and enjoy Science, building things, researching, learning, understanding, reasoning, creating. Don't try to make it incompatible or exclusive.
> Not any GOOD ones.
Maybe you should review a bit your history of Science.
I think the gp's worldview doesn't allow for such a person to exist. It's an anomaly and, therefore, must be fake. Otherwise, I can't make sense of the way they have been arguing in this thread.
I think it's you who doesn't understand how science works, making claims like the fact that Evolution needing something like nuclear fusion to explain longevity of stars, and nuclear fusion existing, must then mean Evolution is real.
According to the Scientific Method (which I obviously must not understand) an honest researcher would posit an hypothesis (which ideally should be falsifiable, unlike Evolution, or Creation for that matter) and then should rather try to prove that hypothesis false. That's what I do at my SE job. If you are unable to prove a falsifiable hypothesis as false, chances are you're right.
You see, because Evolution and Creation are not falsifiable, they need a certain amount of faith to be accepted. I acknowledge my faith in God, and I acknowledge that I cannot scientifically and undeniable prove the existence of God or Creation through purely empirical methods. That's actually a necessary aspect of it. I do, however, see a lot of evidence which points me to that way, and it points me to that way because of where (or rather, on who) my faith is placed.
You, like it or not, do have faith too, but it is placed in a different set of persons and scriptures. You have faith in Modern Science. It's a faith, a 'trust' if you will, you choose to risk having in a lot of data that, by the way, you cannot possibly have had the chance to validate personally.
I invite you to honestly reflect on that.
This will most likely be my last response because at this point I am not sure this conversation is constructive at all.
Are you arguing that religious people are scientifically ignorant?
Such religious people like Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galileo, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Blaise Pascal, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, René Descartes, Gregor Mendel, Georges Lemaître?
Our times are like they are in part thanks to their work.
Yes, there is much more knowledge at least content-wise nowadays than then. Does that make their contributions ignorant, or invalid? Remove what they did in their day, what are we left with?
no. I don't really understand what your point is. Are you trying to argue:
> They were Christian, thus you can be a scientific genius in your time and still Christian.
? You have to keep in mind, these people were scientific geniuses in a time where people had recently established that the Earth orbited the Sun. The first periodic table wasn't compiled until 1869, hundreds of years later. Given they had no alternative explanation, is it any wonder they were content with answers from religion? I'm not sure you realize this, but the whole separation of religion and science is a recent phenomenon. They used to be the same thing, just explanations for how the world worked. It was only when empirical evidence and scientific theories started explaining the world better than "the gods" that religion began claiming a separate sphere of influence.
So you're suggesting that religious people who home school have some sort of intrinsic characteristic that causes them to raise scientifically ignorant people? It just seems a bit far-fetched to me for someone who claims to be pro-science, especially given the number of respected religious scientists in the world.
"So you're suggesting that religious people who home school have some sort of intrinsic characteristic that causes them to raise scientifically ignorant people?"
Not intrinsic but very highly correlated with WHY they are home-schooling in the first place.
I'm not sure you understood my comment (despite quoting it). Otherwise, why would you assume any religious person who is home-schooling is automatically an Evangelical young Earth creationist? What about Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or practically any other religious person who home schools?
Your thesis seems to be that religious people are anti-science, which is a very outdated and frankly wrong stereotype to be pushing in 2024.
Do you think there are many religious parents who choose homeschooling because it lets them reinforce their worldview? GP says he was raised in such a household, I have friends who were homeschooled for that reason. There are probably many religious people who just find public schools uncouth, but I think there are more who homeschool primarily for easier indoctrination. I don't think GP is automatically assuming anything about individuals, they're just pointing out that a significant fraction of the homeschooling population will come from Evangelical Young Earth Creationists.
Based on your comment, I would assume you are religious. Quite frankly, religious doctrines are anti-science, or more accurately anti-epistemology. The Young Earth Creationists are a dim example of this, but even your generic Christian believes in lichs based on two-thousand-year-old hearsay. You say this
> is a very outdated and frankly wrong stereotype
but why? It seems more true than any religion. I think you could make an argument that it's impossible to convince people they're wrong, so to avoid fighting you should avoid making such comments, but that's empirically not true.
I was being absolute in my language because I was trying to understand the extent of GP's views on this subject. Sure, it's entirely possible that it didn't translate across and that we're talking about a "significant fraction" of religious people raising scientifically ignorant kids. Even then, it's almost impossible to prove because we're not operating with a well-defined meaning for "scientifically ignorant."
However, you've now moved the goalpost by stating that "religious doctrines" are anti-science. That wasn't the original argument. We're talking about whether or not religious people, who homeschool, will necessarily produce scientifically ignorant children.
Nonetheless, the more I think about this, the more the conversation is pointless because we'd spend an eternity working out what scientifically ignorant looks like. A person may agree with 80% of the scientific theories in the world and disagree on 20% and someone might say that makes them "scientifically ignorant." Which I find amusing, considering the amount of fraud going on in modern scientific journals.
I want to make it clear that the main issue is anti-epistemology. Trusting authority figures on "the science" isn't much different than trusting authority figures on "the gods", but there is a big difference between how the two schools of thought investigate new ideas. Religions take their axioms as inviolable, while science usually treats them as convenient beliefs until better ones come along.
I'm less worried about people being scientifically ignorant than people who lack the ability to think through ideas (specifically, most religions have built-in thought-stoppers such as "doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith"). For example, Socrates was a great thinker, and even though he was terribly ignorant by today's standards, I wouldn't be worried if our society was composed of people like him. I am worried about people who have literally been indoctrinated out of the capacity for reason.
Well, regarding that concern, we are in total agreement. However, I have many religious friends, and none of them have demonstrated being indoctrinated out of a capacity to reason (and yes, a few were homeschooled).
I'm not suggesting these individuals do not exist, but I find it very troubling to make blanket statements like the GP's. As I said, it's a stereotype I often see on HN, and I think it's very distasteful as it eliminates an entire group of people from the conversation because "they can't reason."
Ah, I on the other hand have met many individuals who have been indoctrinated out of a capacity to reason. I grew up in a town with a relatively high population of Mormons. Their reasoning capacities are mostly fine when it comes to science/work/etc., but very stunted when it comes to discussing their religion (which is important because it defines their politics). You'll essentially get conversations that go like this:
- Why do you think gay people shouldn't kiss?
| Because it's wrong.
- Why is it wrong?
| Gay people can't have children / homosexuality is bad.
- Why is that bad?
| The Bible says it's important to have children / The Bible says so.
- So, if you didn't think God was real, or the Bible was accurate, you would think it's okay?
| Eh, but I know it's true. I know acting on gay feelings is wrong. [Counterfactuals don't make sense when the counterfactual is impossible.]
- How do you know this?
| Well, I prayed about it.
- Okay, but lots of people pray and think their religion is the right one.
| Yeah, but you'd expect the TRUE religion to have <specific features about Mormonism>. And only Mormonism has that.
- Couldn't a Muslim or Hindu say something similar?
| No, they don't have all the <specific features>, just some of them. Like, sure, other religions have some of the truth, but we have all of it! Aren't modern prophets great?
- Well, I'd expect a true religion to not have <specific flaws>.
| Those aren't true. Our founder didn't have sex with a bunch of teenagers.
- The second guy, Brigham Young, did, didn't he?
| Um, well, that was normal for the time.
- It really wasn't. You can look at the census data, and even though some teenagers married other teenagers, almost none of them were marrying men 20 years their senior.
| Well, God commanded it, so it must have been alright.
- How do you know God commanded it, and your leader didn't just make this up?
| Because I know the Book of Mormon is true and I have a testimony of Joseph Smith!
- Okay, why do you think so?
| It says right there at the end of the Book of Mormon that you can pray about it to know it is true. And I did, and I've had so many personal experiences that reaffirm my faith.
- Okay, but lots of people pray and think their religion is the right one. Couldn't a Muslim or Hindu say something similar?
| No, they don't have all the <specific features>! Look, I don't know what you've been reading about Mormons, but you can't expect to get accurate sources from random internet sites. If you want to know the truth, you have to read the Book of Mormon and ask God. The devil will try to lead you astray, but you just need to cultivate a seed of faith and hold onto it until it grows into an unshakeable foundation.
- Um... that's circular reasoning. How do you know that's how you can get the truth?
| Oh, I see. You're some anti-Mormon, aren't you? You were never interested to begin with, you were just trying to trick me up. Well I don't want to hear your bigotry anymore. All my friends/family who are Mormon are the best people I know, and even if you don't believe in my religion, you have to acknowledge its fruits are good.
- Didn't we get into this conversation because you said gay people shouldn't be allowed to kiss each other? That isn't a "good fruit".
| No, according to my religion it is. God has a plan, you just have to open up your heart and believe.
" Otherwise, why would you assume any religious person who is home-schooling is automatically an Evangelical young Earth creationist?"
Because in the US this is largely true. And young earth creationists are most empathically anti-science. I know because that is how I was raised and I have rejected all of that nonsense.
To be fair most high school graduates might recite the “right scientific facts” while having no basis for supporting them.
The earth is 4 billion years old. Survival of the fittest drives evolution. Why? How do you know?
Basically just another form of indoctrination. Children are not taught science so much as science appreciation.
Under what circumstances would it matter? As long as people believe the earth is older than around 3,000 years they are going to have more of a problem with general background ignorance than their misconceptions about that specific fact.
If a group of people believing a random untrue fact is a threat, there are a vast number of threats out there. Far more than the school system can possibly deal with. Misidentifying the age of the earth is harmless compared to things like economic misconceptions and there aren't many school systems making a credible effort to correct those.
The neat thing about science is that all the explanations have to fit together. The explanation for why the sun shines so bright for so long can't contradict the explanation for why birds can fly. When you reject an explanation as fundamental as evolution and the ages of the earth you really put yourself at a disadvantage in understanding many other things.
I actually had a young earth creationist say that the sun doesn't use fusion and thus its lifespan is more in line with the creationist worldview and I responded with neutrinos emitted from the fusion reactions in the sun.
