Why do people deny evolution?

Ive often wondered the same. Was it all "marketing of his brand"?? He is so loved or vilified for basically the same stuff.

Sorta like Howard Stern
People that hate him say , they hate him because they don't know what the hell he is capable of saying next.
People that love him say that they love him because they eagerly anticipate what hes doing to say next

I always liked Howard Stern even though he can be a bit of a bastard. He's reminds me of one of those contemptible characters in a movie that has just enough redeeming qualities to make him likeable..

Me too. I hadda convince my wife to allow me to get Sirius satellite radio in my last truck (I told her I needed accurate weather data). Actually it was just for the Howard Stern show, even though, whenever shes driving it she always has the Martha Stewart Channel on , and there are pieces of paper on the passenger seat containing recipes.

Dont rat me out

I never minded his 'harshness' (hell, even the bible says 'whatsoever you find to do, do it with all your might') but the premise is ludicrous unless you are willing to accept that this many people are delusional.

Sure, most believers have half-assed rationales in their religions but there are enough of them who are clearly not delusional that the premise makes Dawkins look lame. There are other very popular behaviors that would be far easier to explain as delusional.

yes but its Dawkins who claims the views are a delusion, notwhether you believe him. Thats what I find annoying about him. His arguments about evolution aare evidence based, yet his contrarian views of the religious are merely made to stoke up controversy. When there isnt any evidence to support a belief, why make "nyah nyah" noises. Science uses an ASSUMED NATURALISM basis for its research. Therefore its hard to even criticize what its discounted. Dawkins is just doing marketing and guys like Coyne and Dennett use their "philosophical views" to argue the point and just keep it going. They too should just shut up and let science NOT get involved in an area where its not welcomed.

If a counter argument cannot be evidence based, Ive come a long way to wish them well but just avoid anything in which there is not even a basis upon which to argue.

NOW, having said that, I will fight with my last breath to forbid certain belief systems to be taught to our kids as "science"

Me too. That includes the belief system that says 'Science proves there is no God'. It ain't science that says that.

science , honestly, has never said that.(Even though historical vidence supports that opinion) Just because Dawkins or Coyne say it, they are just trying to sell books. I dont think science has pushed its nose under the doors of a Baptist school in order to require them to "teach evolution". Its only ifn a Baptist Biology student applies to med school or tries to get into a PhD program of a research base. Or whether the school is even accredited to teach a certain subject

Its never been a "Oh yeh well what about what you guys do"


Remember, during the early part of the 20th century, public schools could not teach the concept of evolution in science. "Civic Biology" was the principle textbook used in biology and the part of the book dealing with how life appeared and flourished was either inadequately covered or was totally ignored. developmental anthropology was totally racist .
It wasnt till various orchestrated court challenges (the Scopes trial was but one of many) finally dumped the "No evolution" or "teach Creationism in science alongside evolution and teach both as science" out of science lesson plans.

Colleges are accredited within regional accreditation requirements. Even the deep south requires that GREs be taken and evaluated according to the standard curricula of the sciences.

Yes, that is quiet ridiculous and any scientist worth his/her intellectual salt would instantly see the absurdity of it. Science is based on defining terms. 'God' is not a term that is definable, at least at the level of the abstraction (infinity, omnipotence etc)..

However, when the claim comes to the ground. When 'facts' are asserted about what God has done on Earth, we can look at those claims and come to reasonable conclusions about how much merit they have. So, we can, perhaps with a fair degree of certainty, rule out this or that specific God. And this analysis doesn't have to be strictly science based. For example, there is a rational side of me (not strictly science based) that makes arguments for non religious things that 'passes' its reasoning to biblical things.

So, I have a rational based on the 'soft' science of my personal experiences with people that tells me that people, individuals and groups, will do and say things that benefit themselves, their groups. This reasoning passes to religious things so that Jewish people claiming they are God's chosen people without any other evidence than they said so, comes across to me as a group trying to benefit itself. This same reasoning applies to all the claims, the practices of that (and any other) religion.

And that's the rub I discussed the other day. Folks do not use their 'non-religious' rational mind for religious things. Fundamentalist Christians laugh at Mormon beliefs! Without any sense of irony whatsoever!

Again, this isn't an argument about the existence of the abstraction of God. This is an argument about specific claims as to the nature of that God, its likes/dislikes/favourites/activity upon the planet earth etc.

As I see it, these can be discussed though not solely or strictly with science. Its based on a mish mash of things: personal experience (viz a viz the emotional learning of each stage of human development), intellectual learning (which would include hard science and personal observation) which produces logical and rational processes that come out of human maturation..For many, these logical and rational 'instincts' are applied with vigor and integrity to non-religious topics, but are buried when confronted with things religious.

mums the word!

Maybe you ignore this side of the news but there is a concerted effort from the 'no God' science crowd to push their own ideology. They run all the way from social media types (Bill Nye - The 'Science' Guy) to serious academic studies to figure out what to do about the 'problem' of the OP title.

The most popular answer is to move the teaching of evolution to earlier in childhood (age 7 - 9 has been suggested) in order to 'immunize' (they actually use that word!) them against the normal children's tendency to 'see design in nature'. They have to use that phrase to be politically correct but you and I both know what 'infection' they're really afraid of.

You stand by that or are you over-generalizing? That sounds like you are making the same kind of claims as the Jews you criticized for 'just because they say so'.

I am generalizing, not over-generalizing.

I should have used the word many ("Many folks..") before my statement. I try to do that as much as I can, but sometimes I forget.

I say generalizing because this is not in dispute. It is a known condition amongst all of us, for a variety of subjects. So, many religious folks don't use the same reasoning for their religious beliefs as for other non-religious beliefs. Other people do the same thing for non-religious subjects. So, a person will apply his/her reasons for a particular person to not behave a certain way, but not apply the same reasons to themselves for the same behaviour.

The fact that we all do this should indicate that the basis for doing this is not relegated to religious people. However, we are talking about religion here aren't we? I just point out a fact, a statistical observation.

Also, you should note that my criticisms of the people who believe in the 'standard' Christian or Jewish view of the OT isn't based on 'because they said so'. It is that they don't use the same reasoning process as other things to evaluate their own religious claims. There is a chance they could be correct, but I would think I have a better chance of being the Messiah than that.

In fact, from my personal experience with religious people and watching debates between folks with varying honesty and intellectual levels, the definition and explanation of what Christianity is varies greatly: The more intellectual and honest, the less Christianity sounds like what is traditionally presented. In fact, those more honest and 'smart' (meaning they are well learned in not only their subject but their opponents as well) people will bring up these issues I mentioned surrounding motives for beliefs and cop to them saying they are a problem for Christianity. They don't give up their believes but they recognize the absurdities that some of these beliefs present.

I find that funny too that, I think it was the Apostle Paul who said something to the effect of looking like fools/idiots if Jesus didn't die and was resurrected for forgiveness of sins. Why? Because that belief is faith based (wasn't 'standard knowledge') and unless you were "in that know", then Christians appeared very strange people. It only became 'standardized' knowledge when Christianity became the West's defacto religion and hence people stopped seeing the absurdities present in its belief system..When everyone sees the Emperors clothes..

I don't deny evolution, I believe in God. Let me explain: Nowhere in the Bible will you find anything against the idea of evolution, the reason is that the Bible supports evolution! Let me explain. After the flood, God said to Noah: "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth." Why did God use the word replenish? He used the word because everyone else had died in the flood. Now it just so happens that God used exactly the same words to Adam and Eve: "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth." My question is this: who were Adam and Eve replacing? The answer is the apemen. It was God was invented evolution and controlled it. Believe what you want.

you continuqlly seem to deny that the first amendment of our Constitution includes an "Establishment clause" which says that Congress shall make no laws establishing a state religion. The USSC and US district courts have, several times , upheld the strict definition of forbidding this . Weve only gone so far as to make this so for schools and institutions which we pay for by tax dollars. We do NOT forbid parochial schools from teaching whatever they wish, so long as the students are able to perform in standard testing . Id say that that is fair. The public sector doesnt bother that part of the first amendment that assures the "free expression" of ones religion in whatever means they require.
As faras I know, NOONE in the public sector or geo or bio sciences has ever screwed with requiring a parochial school to teach anything that is required for public schools. MOST parochial schools have arrived at the logic and scientific evidence that supports evolution. Catholics have, by papal standards of the curia, determined that God is actually transcendent of all these biological things. Its responsible for "start-up" by means that science is left to futz with.
All I can say is that , in this Republic, we carefully walk on eggs regarding religious beliefs. I think the religious have ample room to practice their beliefs.

You seem to deny that its the anti-science (mostly fundamentalist Christians) who've attempted to bust down the establishment clause's meaning. So be it, as catbeasy said, weve got no way to even get involved in the discussions of evidence FOR a deity and whatever goes along with it. Standards of evidence for the Fundamentalists seem to include hearsay and explanations with no way to test .Rules of evidence for science seems to stand a higher test of validity

"Seeing design in nature" is another of those untestable stories IM HO. To always arrive at design implies a designer and you have NO possible way to even develop one shred of evidence that such design is even a fact.
Mike Behe had, over and over, announced that "irreducibly complex"
sequences "(ie "cascades") of biotic chemicals go back to a single chemical that cannot be tracked any further back in some evolutionary chain of events. So far, everything hes presented has been debunked and its gotten to be a game that wastes a lot of research time.

The only problem is you can't get an entire species from one family. It's impossible. Studies on the cheetah have discovered it nearly went extinct and is riddled with health issues due to its population gene pool haven fallen to just a few thousand living about ten thousand years ago.

How do you know that "god" said anything to "Noah?" How do you know that any of these jokers existed? Essentially, you've surrendered your intellect to obsessive delusion, which means you don't have any evidence, and you don't have anything new to say.

Yeah, I can't account for any particular individuals actions insofar as they are shrill, vitriolic or just being a plain asshole to religion. I personally would advise against that.

However, I get it. Its a reaction against a threat that it is perceived will set us back to where we once were with religion. Not somewhere where i think even you would like to be! Or maybe you would. That world did not exactly celebrate free thinkers..and 'heaven help you' if you were a free thinker that wasn't monied. Darwin got away relatively unscathed due to being white and moneid.

I don't know what the solution is, but i can tell you I don't agree with Dawkins approach and I don't agree with wholesale slaughter. I think you should push back against specific things and try to avoid as much as possible bringing in group disparagements to the group you are pushing against. i.e. I don't think you should 'fight Christianity', you should just probably fight whatever religious thing is being introduced by any particular group and fight against that on its own demerits. Why should IE not be taught in school? Because its bad science. Why is it bad science? Because its not testable. If you are to bring religion into it, you better have good evidence that its indeed religiously based - and then talk about keeping religion out of government social functions..IE is difficult because as I see it, it is so obviously religiously based as to be inane to even suggest it isn't.

These are not easy things to deal with..but you know, those 'science' guys get burned enough and they feel they have to play tough and adopt the posture of the religious people. And yes, I realize that I am making the science guys out to be the ones reacting, but on the whole, I think that's the way it rolls. Religion came first, they had the power and still do. They have the public and their beliefs, IMO, just make them do crazy things including an incredible propensity for disingenuous behaviour.

Mike Pence, the religious nut with Trump? Say it ain't so! Oh wait, Pence probably thinks Jesus told him to go with Trump so that he might witness to him, or kill Trump putting him in charge or mitigate Trump's damage, essentially falling on his sword for the country! Even worse!

And yes, I am generalizing here, but my statement is about the 'war' if you will, between media/celebrity types and so is almost defacto incestuous. Outside of this, well, there are great men and women on both sides of this debate..however, as cool as you might be, not all opinions are created equal..relative to complex issues (that are not moral or subjective*) some of us have more information than others and it should count..

*of course its true that certain moral issues require good information as well..however a good heart will give you half the battle..

Once again you seem to be seeing what you expect to see. I have nowhere advocated doing anything of the kind. Rather than playing this quote every time this subject comes up, try reading what I actually said.

The question is - Do you advocate policies that discourage kids from adopting their own beliefs if they are so inclined? The people I mentioned before clearly do. That's just ******* evil.

I do not see any justification for that in the Constitution. If anything, it guarantees the right to adopt one's own beliefs, a view not shared by the likes of those academics I mentioned. They would like that impulse in children killed as early as possible.

I should point out that I am in no way saying biology should not be taught in school. But is a second grader ready for an actual class in biology? Not really, so I have to wonder what the course those people worried about 'denying evolution' would really cover.