How Can She Deny Science?

[MandyLaLa]

A woman in my group therapy program is a creationist. She told be carbon dating can be disproven among other typical creationist propaganda.

What I can't handle is that she's a nurse! She has a background in science, a lot of it. I don't get how you can you can have a job that had tons to do with science but deny something so basic.

[lizziesmom]

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

[yewnique]

A woman in my group therapy program is a creationist. She told be carbon dating can be disproven among other typical creationist propaganda.

What I can't handle is that she's a nurse! She has a background in science, a lot of it. I don't get how you can you can have a job that had tons to do with science but deny something so basic.

I know a doctor who is a Young-Earth Creationist. His wife, who has a nursing background, is also a Young-Earth Creationist.

[chaotic life]

Nurses don't deal with the kinds of science that would challenge their YEC ideas. They accept micro-evolution without every grasping that it is part and parcel of macro-evolution. They also tend to believe that science which disproves their beliefs is merely a challenge to their faith, not a reason to reevaluate what they believe. Nursing students are required to take basic Biology, possibly basic Chemistry, anatomy and physiology and microbiology. None of those are strong challenges to the idea of Creationism in and of themselves. All of the other science that a nurse would undergo is specific to nursing and human biology.

[thekate]

I used to work with a YEC digging archaeological sites that were 10K+ years old. He accepted carbon dating because God could make things appear older and it was good for relative ages.

I asked him once if he thought the site was really 10K years old, and he said in his professional opinion it was, but personally he wasn't sure.

At least he admitted his cognitive dissonance?

[YPestis]

Among educated people, creationist beliefs can persist as long as they don't work in basic research or lack advanced coursework in the science field.

Part of it is the cognitive dissonance associated with anyone educated who believe in pseudo-science but part of it is simply the lack of in-depth science and research background it takes to properly teach someone of the scientific principles. One can take basic biology and micro and still come out a creationist. I think the issue here is that those trained in the applied sciences are far more likely to remain creationists than those trained to do basic research. Basic research requires an understanding of what makes up a "theory" vs hypothesis. It means one has is trained to understand the scientific process. Someone trained in applied usage (be they engineers, nurses or surgeons) will not allocated as much on theory coursework or basic research as someone who participates in basic research (clinical researchers, biologists etc). If someone was born a creationist, they would require a high level of training in the scientific process and advanced coursework to ever be convinced otherwise. Not everyone in STEM or medical profession will receive that level of exposure, hence you get educated people who utilize science but fail to understand it's underlying principles.