[LegibleCrimson3]

I'm a little shocked at the number of creationists on here. I thought it was a joke at first. Does this happen for every submission about evolution? Do we have young Earth creationists doing the same thing on posts about Earth's distant past as well?

[zamadatix]

The number of creationists here is probably higher than you think but also keep in mind a small single digit percentage that feels strongly about something would more than enough to create the number of comments you see in the thread. E.g. if you posed the question of whether animals have evolved by natural selection to a group of 1000 biologists you may still well end up with a handful of comments denying it for creationism vs the majority not really commenting much because they consider it a mundane question despite supporting evolution fully.

I'll also add creating a throwaway account to mention you thought other comments were jokes doesn't feel in particularly good taste, regardless of how surprised you were about it. Just asking how many here hold different creationist views suffices to start the discussion.

[LegibleCrimson3]

That's a fair enough point. A minority with more fervently held opinions is more likely to voice them. I am mostly surprised because of where we are. The hacker mindset is far more compatible with evolution than creationism, so I'd expect vanishingly few people who consider themselves hackers to be creationists. Creationism is kind of an antithesis of intellectual curiosity (even from somebody who has read lots of creationist philosophy and apologetics; there's always a logical leap of faith to God).

Not all new accounts are throwaways. I did create an account for this purpose, but not to avoid association with any main identity (I habitually delete or permanently abandon social media accounts on a regular basis, when I feel that my behavior is becoming too addictive, to enforce a break on myself). I did actually think the comments were jokes at first. I took the first one I saw as sarcasm. I didn't think the microevolution/macroevolution argument was still seriously peddled around. The last time I saw that one was in a Chick Tract, but I don't tend to see evolution discussed in places where creationists hang out often.

And though I am curious about the numbers, I'm also alarmed and dismayed that such intellectually dishonest positions are being seriously posited here, and I don't think they deserve to be treated as neutral and valid positions. They are offensive and extremist, and in many cases, actively harmful and disruptive. Almost every comment here is directly or indirectly debating the existence of macroevolution as a result.

[zamadatix]

Don't forget about the decent chunk that believe evolution occurs/occurred but was done or guided by a creator rather than natural selection as the mechanism (ignoring the subset that believe it's natural selection as designed by a creator, as they'd be in agreement in this particular case). Nobody really has a solid & reproducible answer for why the laws of the universe are the way they are, why any of it exists at all, or whether or not we'll be able to figure those things out with science or not. Just ways to try to figure out and assumptions at some point involving a leap of "and because that's just how it started and works. This reason it's that way makes the most sense to me so far". Personally I lean towards the belief and hope we'll one day be able to answer how things started in a reproducibly testable way using science but I don't necessarily consider that a prerequisite to thinking like a hacker. A hacker mindset, to me, is just that of one who wants to try and tinker with something to make it what they consider better or fun. You don't even need to be "correct" at your approach to figuring things out or successful in the outcomes, just believe you can try and tinker to make something better. I think certain types of other mindsets will make a more successful hacker, and they may disagree with what others think, but they aren't what I'd consider pre-requisites to thinking like a hacker.

Fair point on throwaways. I always call them throwaways out of lack of taking the time to think on what else to call them. "New accounts" feels wrong, even though technically accurate, as it can cause conflation with "new users". "Anonymous account" might be better phrasing for this case? I don't know if there is a more established term you/others use for accounts that hide community identity though. If there is please drop it in a reply so I can use that in the future.

However much I disagree with their reasons I don't necessarily think their comments make for bad discussion here or steer things in off-topic direction. A debate on what exactly this experiment is providing evidence of is good and healthy discussion of this article regardless which interpretation is correct, with those disagreeing the most likely to provide the critiques to consider. While they certainly aren't neutral positions (or ones I'd consider logical) that's not necessarily a mark of what's bad discussion or an excuse to announce I thought their comments were jokes/peddling. To us, some ideas offend, viewpoints alarm, or strike us as extremist - we don't have to treat those positions as neutral or valid but we should treat them kindly instead of always assuming the worst and commenting about it separately. That, ironically, is actually a distraction from discussion on the article (if you make a sincere Ask HN post about it some may be interested though).

[LegibleCrimson3]

> Don't forget about the decent chunk that believe evolution occurs/occurred but was done or guided by a creator rather than natural selection as the mechanism

I'd wager that represents the majority of religious scientists. I'm not disparaging faith itself (not here at least), just creationism and denial of evidence because it is contrary to preconceptions. Why I consider creationism as contrary to the hacker ethos is precisely because being a hacker involves thinking outside boundaries and engaging in playful curiosity (often with a disregard for established authority). Creationism is mental gymnastics to support an established orthodoxy. It's excessive effort spent to explicitly avoid exploring the boundaries of one's own beliefs.

Honestly, I don't know on the throwaways and I don't blame you for the assumption. By all accounts, this would look like a throwaway. I don't think there's a great word for it, and my pattern of social Internet use is admittedly uncommon.

I disagree that they aren't off-topic. It's an article about a specific observation of evolution, and their response is to question the entire reality of evolution as a whole. It's like the people who go into a programming language update announcement to complain and trash talk the language (which happens a lot in Rust submissions in particular). I also think it's inordinate. It's likely a tiny minority of people who think this way, but because they are the loudest, they still managed to determine the topic for the entire comment section. Thus there is much argument and disagreement over something that the vast majority of scientists and commenters here already agree on.

Edit: I also find it funny, in retrospect, that this is an exact example of Poe's Law as originally stated.

[hzcummi]

The Bible does not contradict itself. The male and female in Genesis chapter one was not Adam and Eve, but was the third advent of mankind (of six) that God created. Do a search for the "Observations of Moses".

[yrxuthst]

> Creationism is mental gymnastics to support an established orthodoxy.

As a creationist, if I believe that God as described in the Bible exists, and I have a statement from Him on how the world was created, that also matches every observation I have made of the world around me, isn't it ridiculous to believe in something else that contradicts the Bible?

[LegibleCrimson3]

Yes, it is, if there is literally no evidence to the contrary, you have never heard any consistent claims otherwise, and you have never experienced anything that would cast it into doubt. That's not the reality we live in, though. The Bible can't even keep from contradicting itself, so external evidence isn't even necessary to doubt the literal word of it.

[beardyw]

Two long comments by the same person as far as I can see.