Why do people deny evolution?

Of what?

Either magic or, if you're matching Ionus' claim, a list of physicists who profess belief in it.

.

Read the wiki articles I cited, or just google "Everett's many worlds theory quantum mechanics, eh?

From a PBS presentation called "The Many Worlds Theory Today:"



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/many-worlds-theory-today.html

Evolution is spooky in action. The spooky causing form change as death.

I started a thread on string theory a while back. It too has a "many (infinite) universe solution to some problems that crop up. I quoted some physicists in that thread too, if you want to look at it.

Also from the PBS (Nova) page I cited:

If evolution is supernatural then statistics must also be supernatural. So that the present situation as to the event regs evolution already knows what the future will be from present imfomation. There is a plan in randomness of evolution put there by the supernatural. And death is supernatural. It means winston Churchill was always going to exist at the same time as hitler did.

I'm trying to find where it says "magic." Help me out here...

Heh, FBM, just keep looking for your magic word, "magic." You'll look for an eternity before you hear a scientist call his own magic, "magic."

If you can't understand how these preposterous supernatural speculations are totally divorced from everything natural, empirical, falsifiable, plausible, etc. then just go right on ahead with your bad self. You've already demonstrated your willingness to accept rampant contradictions as plausible, so long as you think some scientists advocates it. You have great faith in science, but, it seems, little knowledge of it. Mainly faith, based on your presumption that it is objective, strictly evidenced, devoid of speculation and, of course, true.

So you're just making a bold assertion without supporting evidence. OK.

So you're just being a wise-ass who ignores the import of everything I say. OK.

No wise-ass-ness intended. I'm just calmly point out that you're not presenting any evidence that anything is either magic or that physicists believe in it. Rhetorical word-wrangling isn't evidence. Nor are ad hom attacks.

Your only evidence of "magic" is seeing the word magic. Nothing more, nothing less. No "word-wranglying" there, of course.


Then you're just demonstrating your willful attempt to remain ignorant by refusing to read, understand, or acknowledge any of the direct quotes I've have provided, or the articles I have referred you to. No one who knew the first thing about QM interpretations would ever need, or ask for, any such "evidence" to begin with.

The wiki article I cited you to a long time ago, just for example, says this in the first paragraph:



If you have no clues as to what's "magical" about it, then maybe you should try to understand it's premises and conclusions.

I was gainst the entire trial because it was jut as much a "set-up" spectacle as was the SCopes trial.
The only difference between the two , was that in SCopes, the defense WAS NOT allowed to bring any technical evidence or scientific information into the body of the trial. Therefore it was pretty much a loss for Scopes from the get-go.
In the Dover trial, it was all based upon the scientific validity of ID . This drew all kinds of expert testimony from all sides and the concept of the "Supernatural" and what is a "Theory" in science, were all examined and placed on the table to see whether they met the definitions of what constitutes religion in the "Establishment Clause" of The First Amendment of the US Constitution.

The entire trnscript has some fascinating and also, some really idiotic moments of reason that were offered in evidence.
The entire basis of the case was earlier adjuticated in Louisiana and, finally, by the US Supreme Court . In that case, the phrase "Scientific Creationism" was under inspection BY USSC. The teaching of CReATIONISM was found unconstitutional and the state of Louisiana lost (and by virtue of the USSC decision, the US was also instructed to "Cut it out".
In Dover, the SAME GUYS (with a few new members) tried to have the new term INTELLIGENT DESIGN taken under insection by the 3rd Fed District Court.

So, it was basically the same case, different phrase . different day.

Yeah, I woulda been bummed had the court voted that "Intelliegent Design is science ". BUT, reason prevailed and the court saw that th entire concept of ID was pretty much bullshit.As many writers commented at the time"Intelligent Deign is merely Creationism wearing a lab coat"


Court cases can be wonderful in grinding out a definition of any concept.

Stupid-ass Christians only posit a couple of unknown, unseen realms of existence such as heaven and hell. Not to be outdone, modern day physicists, in sub-specialties ranging from quantum mechanics to astrophysics and cosmology, resort to positing INFINITE numbers of 'multi-verses" to explain just exactly how and why their wild-ass speculative "theories" can actually work.

They don't stop there. M-theory, aka string theory, aka the "theory of everything," posits 8 unseen, unknown, and undetectable extras dimensions (11 in all, beyond the 3 that we can sense). But of course this is all very "scientific." Nothing even remotely unfalsifiable about it, eh?

It sure makes for a good bedtime tale. Almost as good as Kipling's "Just So" stories, ya know?

Believers in the occult will tell you that ghosts won't come out of their graves when you're looking (which explains why we don't see them do it). Physicists, with the standard Copenhagen interpretation of QM, say events ONLY happen if we observe them. Nothing anthropocentric about making external events completely dependent on subjective human observation, eh?

Religious tales really can't hold a candle to some of these "scientific" theories when it comes to speculative creativity and insistence that "anything is possible." There simply are no constraints put on it.

Need something to explain why our theory of gravity doesn't seem to apply in distant regions of the universe? How about this, let's make up some **** about a *special* kind of matter that does not, and cannot, in any way react with or to normal matter. It cannot, by definition, be known or detected, see? That way no one can't accuse us of not verifying it--how can we, given what it is? We'll call it "dark matter," which gives it an appropriate sense of mystery. How's that? Yeah, that's the ticket, sho nuff!

Need to explain why galaxies are receding from each other at superliminal speeds when our theory says the speed of light CANNOT ever be exceeded? How about this: Let's turn space into a malleable substance and say that these galaxies are not, in reality, moving at all. It's just that the space in between them is expanding? Work for you? Sho nuff, that's the ticket!

By comparison , such mundane proposals as "maybe random mutation and natural selection can't explain macro-evolution" start sounding super-scientific, know what I'm sayin?

Or that, "life is so somplex that , yatta yatta yatta...
NOME SAYN?

Exactly, Farmer.

Let me ask you something, Farmer. All living creatures, even bacteria, exhibit "purposeful" behavior. Take, just for instance, a very, very simple example of a spider building a web.

That is not just random, accidental motion by the critter, running around (or pushed around by external forces) banging into things, and ****. It serves a definite purpose, don't you agree?

Assuming you do agree, do you think the spider "knows" what it's doing? Is it making a plan, and implementing it? Does it know the purpose it's web-spinning activities will serve?

Theres at last seven different glands and tubules in spider spinnerettes(sp?) that control different kinds of silk (structural, v cocoon etc). Using "knockout genes" , theyve been able to, at least say that the types of use and patterns of uses are genetically controlled.

I was at an evolution seminar last year and there were these folks doing spider evolution, and, despite as how creepy it sounded, it was interesting because it was another area where these knockout genes were used to provide some understanding and predictive capacity.

So theres people orking on beaver dams, bird nests, termites ants, etc.


Heres a short wiki article on gene "knockout"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_knockout