Why the sudden spate of Creationists on the anthropology section?

Question

Since only about 0.14% of scientists (in relevant fields like biology and earth sciences) support Creationism, and even fewer support the 'Young Earth' Creationist theory, why do they feel they should be posting these questions in anthropology, and insisting that the scientists are wrong at a ratio of 700 to 1?. Wouldn't the R&S section be better place, or Folklore and Mythology?

If you feel like arguing the numbers, I have a couple of sources for them. If you want to argue Creationism with me, show me evidence for it, and don't quote the bible, or bang on about how brainwashed 'evolutionists' are.

Answer 1

I think that the problem has to do with serious science being such a recent event.  Mostly, a little over a hundred years old.  There is still a long way to go. A lot of people have a problem thinking that they are animals.  I don't think it is a religious problem but an identity problem.

Answer 2

If the moon hoaxers can be in the space section, the creationists can be in the anthropology section.

Just report loaded questions on both sides that basically ask, "How does it feel like to be a loser, loser?" and all should be reasonably mellow.

Answer 3

i love how they claim to be scientists when the only reference they can use is a holy book which itself has no source reference... it is hardly a "study" of anything...

Answer 4

I suppose they're here for the same reason there are all those misogynists in the Gender and Women's Studies section--the more threatened they are, the louder they have to yell at those they're scared of.

Answer 5

The root meaning of science is knowledge.  What is the study of the unknown?  Nonscience - Nonsense.  Also, by it's very nature, science must always start from an assumption of complete ignorance, so you should welcome with open arms all the ignorant 'Creationists' who stray these pages.  Since science is the study of knowledge, and scientists purport to know, it is rather unscientific to demean knowledge regardless the source.  Unfortunately, what passes as scientific inquiry is severly limited in scope because the focus is mainly on what can be direclty observed with our limited senses (regardless how sophisticated the measuring apparatus seems).  Fie!  In the end, because of the way we have been created, all questions regarding faith or science come down to a question of faith.  You need a reasonable assumption as a starting point.  You need faith to hold a thought in mind.

Answer 6

It really seems to me that a handful of "evangelists" come on these science questions and are often the first to answer as if they are sitting there waiting.  They invariably reveal their lack of knowledge yet claim they have a greater knowledge that the rest of us don't share.  I don't like arguing religion because I have respect for them but when they come on the science site, I usually don't hold back since I agree that they are more appropriate on other categories and I would hate for misinformation to be spread to those trying to learn about a subject.

Answer 7

Scientists are only a very very small proportion of the population and are anything but experts on any given subject. and of course we all know from recent court cases, what expert evaluation can do to people. However, population wise, the amount of Creationists would far outweigh the Evolutionists! and that's a fact.  As regards to the question,; Why the sudden spate of Creationists on the Anthropology section?  I see no Creationists, but I have noticed a slight increase in anti evolutionists. However,  I don't know about numbers, and I don't profess to be a mathematician but if you put up your facts with evidence to back them up,  I will gladly knock them down for you, or I will kow tow, and become an Evolutionist. How does that suit you?

Answer 8

NOOOOOOOOOOO.

I came to this section to get away from them. ;-)

They cause all sorts of havoc in R&S. Folklore and Mythology is probably the only section that's safe from them, as they're so very certain that their stories are the only possible truth.

They have some very creative ideas about evolution as well. Like it's the religion of atheists.

Try to have fun with it.

Answer 9

I suspect many were brain damaged by drugs taken to "improve" their ability to examine their inner self.  I'm from a much older generation with a different set of values.  We valued knowledge & education, saw no task as impossible, felt a responsibility to provide a better world for coming generations and above all valued ethics & moral values.  

I've long been concerned about the purveyers of the supernatural & their propensity to foist their ignorant views on others.  To them nothing is worth while but their views & these views are set in concrete.  When I was younger, religion was a private matter, not a control mechanism for your neighbor & the government. I have great grandchildren & worry they will face the ignorance of religious tyranny while they are dragged  back to the dark ages of religious mumbo jumbo.

Attempting to use logic to appeal to these brain damaged people is futile.  I sometimes wonder if I'm becoming senile, because I still attempt to use rational scientific arguments when dealing with these people.

Answer 10

Science also assumes evolution in its philosophical parameters.

If you believe that the cosmos is an absolute (as science does) then you have already assumed self-creation.  

Why do so few people understand the concept of science as conditional truth?  So annoying.

Answer 11

God don't do statistics, our kid. If they want to come on here, that's their prerogative. No-one is surely suggesting for one second that the proportion of peeps on here asking questions or posting answers is representative of the rest of the world.

Answer 12

Wow, how interesting - you find all sorts here!

Answer 13

Well, By now, I must have convinced most people that I am NOT a creationists nor any other religionist, so my opinions, which are just as important (or as un-important) as anyone else's', should be accepted as totally unbiased.

It seems to me that BOTH Creationism AND Evolutionism (yes, "ism") should be in the R&S or Mythology sections, because both base their 'beliefs' on 'theories'.  It's just that evolutionists have a pile of fossil bones that can be waved about as 'evidence' for their belief, even though, no matter how hard they try to ram it down everyones' throats, or 'bend' the evidence to fit their beliefs, they have no unequivocal 'mediatory' fossil evidence to back up their claims.  Therefore, the theory of evolution is still a myth, with its followers behaving more and more fanatical with every question of it.

O.14% (your figures) of the hundreds of thousands of scientists connected to this particular field, that see evoltuion for the myth that it is, is an awful lot of very intelligent and educated scientists.  If evolution was so "factual", EVERYONE would HAVE to  believe it, surely?

Both evolutionist and creationists, waste so much time arguing against each other, instead putting ALL their energy into trying to discover the REAL origin of man.

Answer 14

Creationism as a scientific fact is a calculated move put forth by a small majority of radical Christians trying to force their agenda upon the population at large.  It has no basis in fact.

The swarm of so called Creationists who seek to swamp all genuine scientific query is this category is just further proof of brain washing by the radical leaders of this group.

Answer 15

You are right creationism should be in the mythology section rather than any science section.

The data speaks for itself..

I always find it amusing how (christian) creationists only want to discuss their creation myth and ignore all the other religions ones... I'm a fan of the ancient Egyptian creation story!