Why do people deny evolution?

My remark was addressed to the phenomenon of cultural dissociation in the United States. Try to pay attention when you read a post. I don't try to pontificate on global cultural attitudes when i know i don't know enough to do so. I guess that's a major difference between you and me.

Jimmy I don't believe in evolution in the way one needs to in order to understand biology. I believe that a greater power had all the makings of this universe and created the physical world as we know it. I believe that evolution has a gaps of time in it that cannot be explained and why don't we have wheels for feet? Although there is carbon and hydrogen and god particles and the like, I believe a higher power created them. Just works better for me. And remember it is still the theory of evolution.

I'd love to see you trying to scramble out of a box canyon, with a lion breathing on your ass, and you with wheels for feet. That would make you Mr. Lion's Lunch. The god squad cracks me up.

As a matter of fact, your remark was not addressed to anything or anyone in particular. And if you could try and not pontificate AT ALL, it would do you a lot of good.

Shouting match aside, it is important to realize that denialism is NOT a survivance of the past. Rather it is a very contemporary, modern phenomenon. Prior to WW2 it was o my knowledge limited to the people denying the historicity of Jesus or the value of the number Pi... Now it is universal: there isn't one single topic which doesn't have its 'hyper-doubters'. I do believe it is linked to post-modernism, which debased the idea of an objective truth. Now everyone has his or her version of the truth, and they are all equivalent... **** that. Of course Internet also plaid a role.

I'm not remotely interested in any problems, enigmas, puzzles or conundrums you feel fit to pose. So far the only thing you've managed to point out is the flaming obvious, you're the only one who seems to think there's any sort of mystery going on.

I know you think you're awfully clever and all that, but I really couldn't give a ****. (Bet you get that a lot.)

Another major difference between us, on this particular thread at least, is that your argument is interesting.

Indeed, Mr. Know It All, Mr. Scientific Culture, "denialism" has been going on since 1859, when On the Origin of Species was published. You are just too eager to blather about post-modernism and any other silly cultural claim you can dredge up.

There's no shouting on my part. I can calmly point out your conceits and errors without shouting.

It' in't really denialism when one opposes a theory is newly proposed, and for which there isn't yet a ton of evidence, and therefore there is still a reasonnable doubt. Denialism is about not trusting a well-established scientific theory strongly supported empirically, against all evidence and beyond reasonnable doubt.

Of course one can find pretty old versions of such a lunacy, but they remained isolated cases. I dare say that the proliferation of these anti-scientific, hyper-doubtist views in society is modern phenomenon. And it's not just in the US.

Take guys like Qehog as remnants of the past if you so wish. I won't make that mistake. They are not a dying breed, they are on the rise.

In science, it's only a theory if the ton of supporting evidence is already there and it has become well established. Until that happens, it's just a hypothesis.

When someone is opposing a genuine theory, s/he is engaging in denialism.

I'm not sure everybody would agree to your definition of what separates hypothesies from theories. Maybe you're technically right but the point I am trying to make is that there is something in scientific consensus that attract their ire like a rod attracts lightning. What's the common factor between global warming, evolution, the Hollocaust, the big bang, the number Pi, and (yes) the historic Jesus, apart from the fact that they are all 'fatefull' in their own way or field (they matter a lot, mathematically, politically, religiously or 'cosmically')? They are all consensual among the concerned scientific community. And that consensus tends to tick on in some people a paranoid sense of distrust: if they all say it, it must NOT be true.

Assuming that hyper-doubters are to scientific knowledge what paranoia is to a healthy mental life, it is logical to conclude that they will tend to grow in numbers as science grows in knowledge, in socio-economic importance and in ideologic proeminence.

Yes, I was pointing out that the word "theory" is used differently in the vernacular than in the scientific context. Since this thread is about science, seems it would be better to stick to the definition used in science in order to avoid ambiguities.

I was reading recently where someone hypothesized that people engage in denialism for emotional reasons and suspend reasoning in those special areas where reasoning leads to uncomfortable conclusions. A person might not be able or willing to analyze religious/magical thinking objectively because, for example, it challenges cherished family traditions or social identity. Rejecting religion might feel like rejecting loved ones who are believers.

Or it might lead them to confront the inevitability of their own mortality, which makes a lot of people uncomfortable. Fear of death is a great motivator, and when someone promises you immortality if you just believe hard enough (and send in a check every now and again), well, a lot of people take the bait. It's much easier, of course, if you were brought up in a religious family.

There are all sorts of mental tricks one can fall prey to, also. Confirmation bias, certainty bias, apophenia, pareidolia, etc. People tend to find what they're looking for, see what they want to see. Especially if they're undisciplined.

genuine?? lol!~lol!!!

So, if we are critising bollocks it is denialism? Right?!

Who decides? Question rise, answers fall wether known or not, whatever you say is merely in response to what I say. You are compelled to talk, just as I am, but What of it. You wake up in the morning, see the necessity to eat and do your work. My point is if you don't see the necessity to question your existence how can you answer in any case and to what ?



If you do not know yourself as you are, then the only thing you can be pretty sure of is that you know nothing but the dream. Apparently it would stand you in good stead if you were to be a bit more critical of the image you project of yourself. It is merely a case of knowing that which is actual and that which is remembered.

Surely you are not that unintelligent as to realise that it is only an image that you project, based on the inevitable and contained in memory. It would serve you well into the long to scrutinise such a rendition of character as to study the mechanism of its inadvertence.



Then you must unplugged it and trace the connection. See yourself apart from this matrix of information that is intravenously being fed to you whilst you of unaware. Unless you do you will remain a sock puppet plugged into the socket of your own dream world. The plight of of a man who wakes up every morning only to shuffle about aimlessly is a very sad state of affairs indeed

Before you came into this embodied consciousness, you knew nothing. Now you have the knowingness, the ability to know. If you switch on your lights you will be in a better position to see what's actual going on but first you must get out and unplug your sock-ket and the puppet master will not be able to operate.

LSD is a helluva drug.

yep, tha Ad Hominem again. Proving these people have no arguments and can't think straight.


What else is new?

Not seen any of that. Plenty of talking bollocks on your part though,

sister is going to try an entire career without having once even mentioned the topic of this thread except by tangent.

OK, you lost me there...

He's referring to Ellease, who has not actually addressed the topic of the thread.