Last modified on June 23, 2016, at 20:59

Ignorance and disbelief

This is the current revision of Ignorance and disbelief as edited by DavidB4-bot (Talk | contribs) at 20:59, June 23, 2016. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Ignorance and disbelief are often mistaken for one another, particularly by liberals - who frequently claim that Christian disbelief in Evolution indicates ignorance. This is odd, in view of the enormous number of practicing scientists who disagree with the theory. How can 45% of all scientists be "ignorant"? [1]

More likely, they are using the word ignorant as an epithet; they are just engaging in name-calling.

Disagreeing with a theory is not the same thing as "being ignorant", but someone who applies that label is like someone who disagrees with President Bush's policies and so calls him "an idiot". Taken literally, it's obviously untrue, but liberals are accustomed to having people avoid analyzing what they say closely - some conservatives theorizing that the liberals think that the general public are morons.

In science, the cure for ignorance is to be taught the leading theories, along with the opposing theories. Then, as an exercise, the students ought to try and determine which is correct. Teaching them only the leading theory is a form of indoctrination (teaching them what to think rather than how to think). Ironically, what liberals accuse Christians of doing is rather what they do themselves.

It is an argument from ignorance (or circular argument) to say that the evidence leans to evolution. If there is evidence, it ought simply to be given. If it's simply enough for a child to understand, then it can even be taught to schoolchildren.