[Belowski]

For example, a global flood didn't put seashells at the tops of mountains. Fossils are usually many millions of years old. The earth itself is (+/- 500,000) 4,500,000,000 years old. Hominids (which is the group of animals we are in) have been around for some 2,000,000 years.

How can we help fill the gaps in their knowledge?

[Gofre]

First and foremost they need to be willing to receive that knowledge. The vast majority of creationists I've dealt with are creationists because that's what they think that's what scripture dictates rather than actually finding arguments against evolution convincing.

[Martyn*]

I think someone on this site previously mentioned that religious people played different language games (see Wittgenstein). Appeal to reason, common sense, and scientific evidence, may just be a case of banging one's head against a brickwall.

[Alpharius]

The majority simply will not listen. In their eyes, their scripture is the word of God, anything that contradicts that is the work of the Devil.

Society should simply ignore them, and not put their opinion on a stage they are undeserving of.

[Pinkhead]

I honestly don't understand how anyone can take a book full of claims, with no evidence backing these claims, and believe it word for word.
I mean, how can fundies repeatedly ask for evidence for evolution (and other theories) and say it is not proven (lol), but then go back to believing in their holy book and its stories, for which there is no proof.
Why don't they apply their amazing detective skills to their own beliefs?

[E.Blackadder]

(Original post by Pinkhead)
I honestly don't understand how anyone can take a book full of claims, with no evidence backing these claims, and believe it word for word.
I mean, how can fundies repeatedly ask for evidence for evolution (and other theories) and say it is not proven (lol), but then go back to believing in their holy book and its stories, for which there is no proof.
Why don't they apply their amazing detective skills to their own beliefs?

they ask for proof because they think we don't have any. that way they can equate a belief in evolution with a belief in god. they don't mind so much that we believe it (as long as we don't tell anyone), they just want an even playing field.

it is easier to defend your religion against another religion than science.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by Gofre)
First and foremost they need to be willing to receive that knowledge. The vast majority of creationists I've dealt with are creationists because that's what they think that's what scripture dictates rather than actually finding arguments against evolution convincing.

This...

hard to convince unless you have something in your face

[geetar]

I had a pop-up book about dinosaurs when I was younger, maybe we could get them to read that.

[maturestudy]

Why should we care? This isn't an access to knowledge issue. There are many ways they can choose to find out about evolution (many of them publicly funded) from attending a Biology class, reading a science book, visiting a natural history museum or watching a BBC documentary. If they choose not to believe in evolution, I could not care less. They can believe what they like, it's only when they try to convince me of their claims that I will demand evidence.

What we do have a duty to do is to prevent them from teaching creationism in schoolchildren's science lessons because this is an abuse of trust. Creationists that think they have a right to force their unfounded beliefs on innocent children need enlightening to the fact that that is not acceptable in our society.

[E.Blackadder]

(Original post by maturestudy)
Why should we care? This isn't an access to knowledge issue. There are many ways they can choose to find out about evolution (many of them publicly funded) from attending a Biology class, reading a science book, visiting a natural history museum or watching a BBC documentary. If they choose not to believe in evolution, I could not care less. They can believe what they like, it's only when they try to convince me of their claims that I will demand evidence.

What we do have a duty to do is to prevent them from teaching creationism in schoolchildren's science lessons because this is an abuse of trust. Creationists that think they have a right to force their unfounded beliefs on innocent children need enlightening to the fact that that is not acceptable in our society.

but don't you see those two things are not mutually exclusive. it is because they are ignorant of science that they want to teach creationism in schools. you can't teach them it isn't acceptable because it'd be like telling you that teaching mathematics isn't acceptable. when you believe you "know" something, acceptability goes out the window.

http://youtu.be/8hTZ5AYzs8o?t=1h32m46s

they are quite willing not to just push for creationism in schools, but to get it in there by any means necessary. they are beyond enlightening, they need to go back to square one and retake high school biology and geology.

[maturestudy]

(Original post by E.Blackadder)
but don't you see those two things are not mutually exclusive. it is because they are ignorant of science that they want to teach creationism in schools. you can't teach them it isn't acceptable because it'd be like telling you that teaching mathematics isn't acceptable. when you believe you "know" something, acceptability goes out the window.

http://youtu.be/8hTZ5AYzs8o?t=1h32m46s

they are quite willing not to just push for creationism in schools, but to get it in there by any means necessary. they are beyond enlightening, they need to go back to square one and retake high school biology and geology.

Yes, but the point I was trying to make was that they are not 'ignorant of science' because there is a lack of good teaching or information. If they are indeed ignorant of science, it is because they are wilfully ignorant - in other words, they simply do not want to know. If this is the case then there is no way we can, as the OP put it, "help to enlighten creationists".

Thanks for the link - will try and watch later.

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by E.Blackadder)
but don't you see those two things are not mutually exclusive. it is because they are ignorant of science that they want to teach creationism in schools. you can't teach them it isn't acceptable because it'd be like telling you that teaching mathematics isn't acceptable. when you believe you "know" something, acceptability goes out the window.

http://youtu.be/8hTZ5AYzs8o?t=1h32m46s

they are quite willing not to just push for creationism in schools, but to get it in there by any means necessary. they are beyond enlightening, they need to go back to square one and retake high school biology and geology.

There's nothing wrong with teaching Creationism in schools. There is something wrong with teaching it in science lessons: namely, it's not science.

[SEHughes]

The evidence is out there, whether they ever come to accept it is a matter for them because it ties into so many other parts of their worldview and ultimately their sense of identity.

The best thing you can do is just to lay it out in an utterly dispassionate way, not get haughty about it and all the while show how you are much more similar than you are different. Gotta be ecumenical about these things.

[navarre]

I just don't see how, despite the overwhelming evidence for evolution, anyone can identify as a creationist and keep a straight face. Evolution is the defining part of biology; without it, you can't have biology.

[Aphotic Cosmos]

If you took a creationist to the Jurassic Coast of Dorset and went for a five minute walk out on to the beach next to Lyme Regis, and showed them ammonites still embedded in the rock, they would still quote scripture at you.

Not much can be done for these sorry sods, best leave them to their delusions and smile and nod whenever they start talking.

[QuantumOverlord]

(Original post by TurboCretin)
There's nothing wrong with teaching Creationism in schools. There is something wrong with teaching it in science lessons: namely, it's not science.

Its wrong, how can you justify wasting time teaching children something that is blatently incorrect.

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by QuantumOverlord)
Its wrong, how can you justify wasting time teaching children something that is blatently incorrect.

We also teach Greek mythology, which is incorrect by definition.

[QuantumOverlord]

(Original post by TurboCretin)
We also teach Greek mythology, which is incorrect by definition.

We teach greek mythology from a historical context, we don't have someone saying believing in zeus is valid and should be respected.

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by QuantumOverlord)
We teach greek mythology from a historical context, we don't have someone saying believing in zeus is valid and should be respected.

So because some people believe it to be true, we shouldn't teach it, but teaching something which nobody believes to be true is fine, because we can say that nobody believes it? You're not arguing on the basis of truth or falsehood in that case, but the attitude or sincerity with which the ideas are conveyed. I raise the following objection: R.S. lessons aren't sessions in indoctrination. There's nothing wrong with teaching children "Creationists believe x". Teaching them that the world was created in six days as a matter of fact is a whole different story, and doesn't happen in mainstream schools.

[QuantumOverlord]

(Original post by TurboCretin)
So because some people believe it to be true, we shouldn't teach it, but teaching something which nobody believes to be true is fine, because we can say that nobody believes it? You're not arguing on the basis of truth or falsehood in that case, but the attitude or sincerity with which the ideas are conveyed. I raise the following objection: R.S. lessons aren't sessions in indoctrination. There's nothing wrong with teaching children "Creationists believe x". Teaching them that the world was created in six days as a matter of fact is a whole different story, and doesn't happen in mainstream schools.

No Im fine with people saying "X believes in Y" I have no problem with that, but it is conveyed in a manner that this view such as creationism is valid. For example in GCSE RS I was taught that the cosmological argument was valid, when scientifically its nonsense.