Why do so many people reject creation in favor of evolution, despite the complexity of dna?

I have to admit a selfish motive in participating in all these EVo/Creation threads . My motive is to track the response "build up" that is tagged onto the ends of Creation blogs and web sites that are involved in "huckstering" of the Creation/ID worldview to kids and young adults. These folks are in HS and college science programs where many of these websites are as freely available as pepperoni pizza for kids to "clip " and use as "TECHNICAL RESOURCES" to their learning programs.
Mostly its at the HS level where some idiot school board members would quote these bogus blog about how a huge schism of opinion exists among scientists.
We have one here now. Im giving him the doubt, that maybe the person doesnt realize his participation in making it appear that the schism is growing, but I feel that hes fully aware and a willing partner in the sales pitch.

In 2016, The actual arguments against the IDiocy of the technical views are less important than " stirring up" a belief that an insurmountable controversy exists among scientists who, by hypothesizing for personal hypotheses on biological mechanisms makes it appear that vast numbers of scientists are beginning to "doubt" that evolution occurs. Without understanding that "THIS IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS", it threatens to "break down " the credibility of the sciences involved in the interdisciplenary study of evolution among naive but interested students and adults.

However, Its really gratifying how the folks here are able to quickly spot and poke some nice truck-sized holes in all theCreation huckstering. I rely on many of the folks here to actually communicate BETTER by using their great skills at writing and presenting really good arguments to the Creationists.

Unfortunately many scientists involved in their work are really NOT great communicators or else, in the cases of Gould and Dawkins, they are, "Fine writers" who use weird analogies , irascibility, insult , and obscure literary devices(or even baseball references that fail to "click") in their own writing. The "Creation/ID establishment" looks for this kind of poor writing style and is able to cherry pick some dumb statements these guys make and use it against the overall science by posting these clips with a sense of incredulity in somebodys blog that is funded better than a lot of university study notes.

Youll see a growth in Creation blogs of well vesred amateurs as well as researchers who post responses that get "through" blog filters and are able to post responses that make good points at how the "above post about the validity of Noah's Ark is a fantasy"

You should, sometime, look for these ID blogs and (so-help me) even the good science blogs and , if someone ,makes NO sense , let em know that you were born , just not yesterday.

I've always loved debunking the Noah's ark story on the improbability of the exercise. You've got a geezer and his geezer wife, and his geezer sons and geezer daughters-in-law, who are supposed to have built this "ship" and successfully sailed in it for months. Leaving aside the hilarious bilgewater about all the animals in this boat (what about the plants, were they supposed to survive months of immersion in salt water?), the boat as described in Genesis is suicidally un-seaworthy. It would have sunk in a storm on a horse pond. As well, the bobble seems to be obsessed with incest. How did Adam and Eve populate the world when their entire progeny was two sons? Did Mom get it on with Cain? (Abel, of course, didn't live long enough to have any children.) Where did the descendants of Noah's sons come from? What about that old lecher Lot screwing his daughters, while claiming he was asleep and didn't know it?

Our resident creationist at the time basically sneered that god can work miracles, so that's how Noah pulled it off. In that case, what was the point of the exercise? If Noah and his sons and their main squeezes were the only people around, for whom was this a lesson? He was a creation warrior, but not a very clever one. He once tried a bit of quote mining, but i did a literal word search and found the article from which he had extracted his quote. He was sneering that the scientist in question could not have known how old the find he made (a metatarsal) was, and suggested that he could not have seen the bone and known right away what it was. By finding the article, though, i was able to point out that he is a paleoanthropologist and has spent his entire professional life looking for such bones, and that he was working a slope which had already been dated by stratigraphy. I suggested that he leave the quote mining to those who were much batter at it.

I do love the ID crowd, though. They always fall down on the question of who or what the designing intelligence is. They'll change the subject, or attempt to claim that it doesn't matter. The one thing they will never do is admit that it is closet creationism.

But their arguments have gotten a whole bunch more sophisticated since the mid 2000's.
"The controversy"
"irreducible complexity"
"downplaying a deity while up playing "Self assembly" and specified information
neutral theory is equivalent to "Sudden appearance" and Darwin is cut to pieces.
"Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism as religions" _

Actually, if it were just the technical issues presented by DNA it would be a piece of cake because derived species, convergent species, and daughter species have been sequenced and the relationships shown by genes clearly
shows how the species are related by time and geography

To my mind, their insistence on incredulity while producing no actual evidence themselves just undercuts their argument as a whole. I understand that they're basically just playing to the creation crowd, and hoping to rope in waverers in educational institutions. Those are people, however, except for some percentage of the waverers, who are just looking for reasons to continue to believe in their magic sky daddy superstition, and who will never admit defeat.

By the way, i am not dismissing or demeaning the effort that many people make in the curriculum wars when the religious nutters try to get the camel's nose under the edge of the tent, and slip that ID BS in. Somebody has to get into the trenches and fight the good fight, and i honor them for it.

Free will is not limited by repression of any kind. A skilled torturer can likely make you do or say anything but only you decide what you will to think.

That people often 'will' to give up that privilege is a pity.

That would make it all too easy to figure out, and what's the fun of figuring out a puzzle with only one piece?

Everything is complex until it is fully understood. And no thing is fully understood.
Evolution is a scientific term for critereal-progression.
Creation implies conscious design.
Neither can be proven, but evolution does occur.
You could ask - "How did a creator manage to construct elemental particles - When evolution does it naturally?"

Well put Mark

Permit me to repeat my contention that the principal reason for all the confusion is that our present languages, built around the humanoid as they are, don't posses the tools for a deeper analysis, stuck as they are with dualistic assertions such as insisting on a fundamental diff between the concrete and the abnstract. The pantheists have a grasp of its coattail, maintaining that She/He/It is a natural phenom encompassing All

...avoiding most of the contradiction and paradox so characteristic of Creation by maintaining She didn't need to create 'cause She has always existed on one form or another

Many voluntarily give up free will by participating in any religion.

So true.

That is just one of many ways of 'going along with the crowd', succumbing to peer pressure, doing whatever you have to do to gain acceptance among those you seek it from. Atheists are not exempt from any of that.

True. Atheist only means freedom from religious belief. There are many other things individuals can become a slave to.

Not so.
Religion (Often mistaken for (Deity/deitic attachment/worship/idolisation) actually means 'ritualism' routinely-based (adherement) "Way of life" Doesn't require a god-construct.
Religion is ANY ritualistically-based adherence 'football' for example - Sing anthem, shake hands, project mascot, etc....
All relative to the indoctrinated.

There is no such word in English as "adherement." The word religion derives from a Latin root which means "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods." It's very easy to sound clever and knowing if one just makes **** up as one goes along.

"Relidion" at the Online Etymology Dictionary

Referring to one's adherence to a non-theistic belief set or an obsessive devotion as religion is using the word by extension, and not in its original sense.

I am a composer of new words, Setanta. You unaware of this?
Poetic licence (yank-format - license)
Have recently, (And fk-me sideways - You are so lureable (New word too) 'Broomery' - storage area for brooms - Use of 'artistically' "BROOMAGE".
You like?
Come on, sir. 'Artistically'?

All of which does not alter that you routinely attempt to make yourself sound wise and knowing by just making **** up as you go along. "Yank" is a disobliging term, you great, braying Saxon jackass.

And you find that 'making **** up, as you go along' to be inapt?
You'll read this - My friend (Brother) is, currently, undertaking his Masters' in theology - He's an outstanding person - He's undertaking this 'procedure' to develop broaden his horizons (Doesn't give a toss for the certificate/silly cloak/hat/prestige...
blah). Had exhausted christian teachings, philo, josephus, etc - And assures me that modern 'academia' is based on timestamp, quote and reference bollux - More concerned with structure/presentation and layout, than content.
That's you, Setanta.
And the world needs you, and those like you, in order to remind the rest of us how (you're going (gonna) love this) ACADEMICALISED one can become.
If I pop into a shop and fancy a marathon "US-snickers" I say " can I have a marathon, mate, how much? Cheers."
And leave.
You Say "I'll take a snickers, buddy - One created by Mars confectioners, founded in 1878 by Brad mars, formerly connected to lucretia borgia industries, comprising of a 'chocolate to milk' ratio of 70%...... blah, blah, have a nice day, buddy".
Sorry I'm not you, Setanta - I just, would rather be me.

Yes, i do consider it silly and the expression of a ridiculous conceit. And no, i won't be reading that.

You already did - And shall do so, at least, once more.

Do you think what you do despite your experiences or because of them?