Why do people deny evolution?

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

But, FM, as I have noted...if there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

Are you saying there is no possibility of a god?

Or are you saying there is the possibility of intelligent design?

More to come if you choose #2.

In fact, more to come if you choose #1 also.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But, FM, as I have noted...if there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

Are you saying there is no possibility of a god?

Or are you saying there is the possibility of intelligent design?

More to come if you choose #2.

In fact, more to come if you choose #1 also.

The point is, the Intelligent Design of the Creationists who are trying to undermine scientific learing isn't scientific.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

You appear to have overstated Frank's position.
But your take on intelligent design seems on target

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

The point is, the Intelligent Design of the Creationists who are trying to undermine scientific learing isn't scientific.

Except for the spelling of "learning" (unless you actually meant "leaning")...I agree completely. It isn't science...and it doesn't even rise to the level of pseudo-science. It is bullshit...plain and simple.

But my point in response to the question asked in the title, Blue, is that some people deny (parts of the present day understanding of) evolution...because of honest considerations about some of the material. They have what they consider legitimate concerns...and are staying true to their considerations.

They may be right. Major changes in the overall theory may be made at some time...as science progresses.

Under any circumstances, my comment: "If there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design" is NOT a piece of fluff. It is a vital condition to be considered...and it is a space that allow for a meeting of minds that are set in polar opposite directions.

A meeting point for hard-core evolutionists with reasonable creationists (there are many of them)...can be found in that comment. And from there, it might progress to an accommodation with not so reasonable creationists.

The Catholic Church has, in effect, been able to find accommodation with the science in play using a variation of that theme. If the Catholic Church can find that accommodation...anyone can.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

What accommodations would you have scientists make in regard to the Creationists' ideas if those very ideas aren't scientific?

So, the Catholic Church believes in a creator and accepts the Theory of Evolution. So what? How does that advance scientific learning?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

What accommodations would you have scientists make in regard to the Creationists' ideas if those very ideas aren't scientific?

Some people who deny (parts of the present day understanding of) evolution because of honest considerations about some of the material...are essentially asking that science continue to study and revise as appropriate. Scientists can made the accommodation of continuing research and study...and revising as appropriate.

Atheistic scientists can also acknowledge that IF there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design. All scientists can make the accommodation of acknowledging that although it appears the move from "way back then" to "where we are now" is due to evolution..."evolution" MAY BE THE RESULT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

It's not really a big thing. It is perfectly logical, in fact.

Quote:

So, the Catholic Church believes in a creator and accepts the Theory of Evolution. So what? How does that advance scientific learning?

Beats me. Did I say it did? If so...point out where I did.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

scientists can also acknowledge that IF there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design

That is total BS because ALL scientists ,believers or atheists, operate under a work rule of :methodological naturalism'. Otherwise a Catholic or Lutheran scientist would go bugshit and probably wind up in some kind of analysis.

I know many devout and religious scientists . They put all that stuff by the door when they come to work and they "make believe" that their "personal god" is totally transcendent, not immanent. Otherwise, their publications wouldnt pass editorial review if they keep adding that "heres where the miracle happens".

Part of your problem is that, while youre busy patting yourself on the back for being so objective, you spend waaaay too much time thinking on the subject and it really matters not at all.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

What accommodations would you have scientists make in regard to the Creationists' ideas if those very ideas aren't scientific?

Some people who deny (parts of the present day understanding of) evolution because of honest considerations about some of the material...are essentially asking that science continue to study and revise as appropriate. Scientists can made the accommodation of continuing research and study...and revising as appropriate.

Atheistic scientists can also acknowledge that IF there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design. All scientists can make the accommodation of acknowledging that although it appears the move from "way back then" to "where we are now" is due to evolution..."evolution" MAY BE THE RESULT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

It's not really a big thing. It is perfectly logical, in fact.

So how would that advance scientific learning?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
So, the Catholic Church believes in a creator and accepts the Theory of Evolution. So what? How does that advance scientific learning?

Beats me. Did I say it did? If so...point out where I did.

It seemed to have been the point you made above.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

It matters plenty. And if the scientists are a bit more logical than you...

...they would have to acknowledge that IF there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

You are just devoted to your guess that there are no gods.

Sorta like theists who are devoted to their guess that there is at least one.

Agnosticism handled properly frosts your butt, FM.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

What accommodations would you have scientists make in regard to the Creationists' ideas if those very ideas aren't scientific?

Some people who deny (parts of the present day understanding of) evolution because of honest considerations about some of the material...are essentially asking that science continue to study and revise as appropriate. Scientists can made the accommodation of continuing research and study...and revising as appropriate.

Atheistic scientists can also acknowledge that IF there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design. All scientists can make the accommodation of acknowledging that although it appears the move from "way back then" to "where we are now" is due to evolution..."evolution" MAY BE THE RESULT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

It's not really a big thing. It is perfectly logical, in fact.

So how would that advance scientific learning?

Beats me.

I am not speaking to "advancing scientific learning."

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Quote:
So, the Catholic Church believes in a creator and accepts the Theory of Evolution. So what? How does that advance scientific learning?

Beats me. Did I say it did? If so...point out where I did.

It seemed to have been the point you made above.

I have never spoken a word about advancing scientific learning, Blue.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Agnosticism handled properly frosts your butt, FM.

You seem to be pulling this idea about atheists out of thin air. Not that I've gone looking, but I haven't noted anybody here as even the least bit bothered by agnosticism... 'cept you

1 Reply

IMO, intelligent design is nothing but wussified sciobabble.
Either creatures were created or they were not.

Obfuscating any distinction between adaptation and speciation while claiming membership in the Darwin club seems a perfect chicken before egg copout.

0 Replies

@thack45,

thack45 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Agnosticism handled properly frosts your butt, FM.

You seem to be pulling this idea about atheists out of thin air. Not that I've gone looking, but I haven't noted anybody here as even the least bit bothered by agnosticism... 'cept you

I am saying that FM is.

And the fact is, many other atheists are bothered by it also.

How long have you been here? I've been here over a decade...and I've seen plenty of atheist bothered by agnosticism.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Four inches but it's thick

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Frank has to unleash his venom on anyone standing near him so I like to bait him every so often, he is like an old bigmouth bass. He will bite at coke cans qnd bottle tops.

hess all wired up now so , either A accept being caught up in an interminable number of pages of senseless Franko Babble or I just leave him be to play with himself.
.
See ya in another thread that hasnt been hijacked By Reverend Wilberforce .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

There is no venom in what I have been saying to you, FM...but there is venom in this reply of yours.

You like to take on theists...especially extreme theists...people who say things that are easy to dispute. What you do not like doing...and resent...is having to deal with arguments from someone who makes cogent, reasonable arguments...like I am making.

Atheism is not the reasoned, logical, scientific thing you want to portray it as. Reason, logic, and science can never lead to "there are no gods"...or "it is more likely there are no gods than that there are."

You do not like hearing that...because you know there is no argument in rebuttal.

Stop with the venom...and stop tackling only the easy debaters.

Actually discuss what I am saying with me...even if it shows your world-view to be defective.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I dont think any further communications between us serves any purpose. You fail to either listen (or understand) that science is accomplished via an implied methodological naturalism, otherwise nothing gets done. If a god shows up, then it becomes something to report to the literature. Any IDer must, by virtue of their own worlview, claim that everything in the universe is the result of intelligent intervention.Scientists (real ones) report their analyses after a lot of careful testing and comparison. Theres no automatic default to a "miracle of divine intervention"

AS far as the existence of your "possible" gods, they havent left us any evidence up till now , all "evidence" that the Creation lobby has attempted to cobble up , to date, has been fraud and deception. I do mean ALL. The latest is their involvement in Carbon 14 and "doping" their specimens with recent Carbon, by soaking their specimens in Carbonic acid and other "cleaners that soak into the matrix and leave contamination of recent origin.

When our day to day work in our craftt becomes based on fraud and deception, it needs to be weeded out and exposed. No?

Rooting out deception is about the only intervention into the process of ID Ive ever seen science become involved .
Like the Paluxey shale footprints that attempt to show that humans left footprints contemporaneous with Cretaceous dinosaurs.
If this "finding by IDers" was successful, this would have shown that our present stratigraphic column is quite fucked up and we would have had to reassess the entire basis of "deep time". HOWEVER, it turned out that the human fossil footprints were carved by a couple of Christian zealots who thought that science wasnt sharp enough to catch the ruse.
It caused as big a stir as the Piltdown skull of 100 tears earlier.

ID and Creationist "science" requires that our present evidence (of an old world with periodic collapse of life and development of new classes of life) needs to be challenged or , as some are doing, try to make facts "fit" their ID and CREATION tales.

I have no time for that nonsense (and it HAS been nothing but nonsense, despite what our own clueless gungasnake likes to post on this forum). There are all kinds of "Creationist Experts" who can, like the con men they are, convince honest people like you that we must "consider" the possibility of gods and god-like beings.

ACTUALLY WE DONT

.
Your argument that people deny evolution because they truly believe in gods is easily said and accepted. (Many of us actually get it).

Apparently you dont.
Once more, there has not yet been any evidence supporting ID as of June 3 2015. So my acceptance of methodological naturalism is safe for another few days.
When someone comes up with EVIDENCE or ANYTHING to make ID worth considering, they will try to convince us that their arguments are valid. We review them one at a time in other fora, not here
So your attempts at cobbling an argument, besides it being jejune, repetitious and simplistic, are wasted on me.
I really dont need your clownish advice on how to do my job or interpret real data, youre basically an empty school bag.

I suggest that you try to find someone who actually gives a **** about what you have to say, Im just trying to get you off this thread and I know, like Timur, you can keep up your prattle for weeks.
BUT ONLY IF WE CHOOSE TO CONTINUE TO BE PARTICIPANTS.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

What you want, FM...is to avoid the hard truths of your religious conviction vis a vis evolution.

I have responded to the question of the title as best I see it being answered..and I have added that logic and reason can bring us to the point where we cannot rule out the possibility of intelligent design...unless we rule out the possibility of a god.

Even if there is intelligent design...IT HAS TO BE the kind being discovered as having happened.

But you are being pig-headed about not acknowledging the obvious truth.

And, you are looking to get me out of this thread because the truths I am mentioning conflict with your atheism.

I'm going nowhere, FM...even if you find it uncomfortable to see your atheism challenged in ways you don't get from the theists you love to engage and challenge.

So ignore me...which is what you usually do when you realize your arguments are not holding up to the scrutiny I am bringing to them.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

http://witneyman.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/paul-alien.jpg

WHATEVER DUDE

Hey, anybody want a bagel? Hmmm?

2 Replies

Jesus wept, here we go again with Pizza Man "logic and reason" . . . heh heh . . . heh heh heh heh . . . heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh . . . the Pizza Man wouldn't know either if they bit him in the ass. It is possible that winged unicorns may fly out of his pathetic ass tonight, too. Don't bet on it, though. It is a complete failure to deploy logic and reason when one asserts, essentially, "if i can think it up, it could happen."

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Like I said, FM...you only want to discuss and debate with people who are easy marks. And you want to suggest venom in others while regularly spewing it yourself.

You want venom? Allow me to throw a bit at that ugly, obese clown, Setanta, who just managed to throw some of his my way.

Anyway...I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and the existence of gods may be small potatoes in the true nature of the beast, so to speak. The REALITY may be much, much stranger and unimaginable than something like "gods may exist."

But you are one of the atheist here who simply cannot abide anyone questioning your belief system...even though you have no trouble casting sewerage on the belief system of others.

Logic, reason, science will never get anyone to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely there are no gods than there are." Logic, reason, and science all will get a person to "I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and the evidence I have to work with does not allow for a meaningful guess on whether or not there are gods included."

Sorry you are not adult enough to acknowledge that...and I sorta apologize that I find that so humorous. Wink

0 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know