Why do people deny evolution?

@SawyerMentink,

The Big Bang is the most accepted theory. This website is designed for schoolchildren so hopefully you shouldn't have too much trouble trying to get your head around it.

http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/astro/cosmos/bb_evid

0 Replies

@SawyerMentink,

This thread is on evolution. Why should I put evolution aside?

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

There are probably currently about 5 major variations on 'Evolution' . it is not just one thing. In my own lifetime I saw gradualism as the unquestioned dominant view only to see it destroyed by Punctuated Equilibrium

Are you for example talking of everything (vegetable, animal, human) going back to one root on the Tree of Life?

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ,

This new book from Johns Hopkins (very prestigous) says that Creationism is booming and growing in Europe

Creationism in Europe
edited by Stefaan Blancke, Hans Henrik Hjermitslev, and Peter C. Kjærgaard

I have noticed that increased education increases Creationist adherents. Most people are believers in Evolution by sheer default. They couldn't explain or defend it to save their lives !!

This is how Evolution has worked, it passes laws of coercion

Over the past forty years, creationism has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames. Antievolution messages gained such widespread approval, in fact, that in 2007 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a resolution advising member states to "defend and promote scientific knowledge" and "firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution."

4 Replies

@AugustineBrother,

I agree with much you have said there but 'creationism' has been successfully co-opted and defined by (hmmm.. I lack the term to put here, the other side?) to mean an ignorant rejection of facts as typified by the folks that claim we coexisted with dinosaurs and the earth is 6000 years old.

Anytime you use the term you are up against that bias.

1 Reply

@AugustineBrother,

It seems to be true that creationism is growing in (Eastern) Europe.
http://sciencenordic.com/scientists-warn-creationism-rise-europe

0 Replies

@AugustineBrother,

Quote:

I have noticed that increased education increases Creationist adherents. Most people are believers in Evolution by sheer default.

Id like to see the statistic on tht assertion. I think youve got it ass backwards.

1 Reply

@AugustineBrother,

From CI's link:

Quote:

Creationism is not just gaining ground out in the countryside among people who have no education or nothing better to do than go to church and hide away from the rest of the world, says co-author Peter C. Kjærgaard, professor of evolutionary studies at Aarhus University.

See what I mean?

The article spins creationism as a hazard that is spreading from ignorance to educated people.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

'creationism' has been successfully co-opted and defined by (hmmm.. I lack the term to put here, the other side?) to mean an ignorant rejection of facts as typified by the folks that claim we coexisted with dinosaurs and the earth is 6000 years old.

Thats a belief held by JW's and several other Fundamental Christian sects. The entire Creation SCience Park in KY is loaded with people riding dinosaurs nd just totl crapolla that you seem to want to distance yourselves from at the Discovery Institute.

Creationism was the rule of the day until just bfore the SCopes trial. The Butler Laws that enveloped the Scopes trial took another 25 years to repeal. EVOLUTION, as a scientific study, was NOT ALLOWED to be taught in the first publicschools in the US.

The way it is now, is that if it passes several tests of scientific inquiry, and doesnt present a prosyliting curriculum for crap that is NOT EVIDENCED, then its reigious based.

If If you and Augustine wish to argue evidence, Im sure there are many here quite competent to wup yer asses in a debate.
Ill hold your sweaters.

1 Reply

@AugustineBrother,

Quote:

There are probably currently about 5 major variations on 'Evolution' . it is not just one thing. In my own lifetime I saw gradualism as the unquestioned dominant view only to see it destroyed by Punctuated Equilibrium

Then you havent hung around long enough to read how PE is but a minor part of mechanisms and many times is just an artifact of stratigraphy.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"'creationism' has been successfully co-opted and defined by (hmmm.. I lack the term to put here, the other side?) to mean an ignorant rejection of facts as typified by the folks that claim we coexisted with dinosaurs and the earth is 6000 years old. "

Thats a belief held by JW's and several other Fundamental Christian sects. The entire Creation SCience Park in KY is loaded with people riding dinosaurs nd just totl crapolla that you seem to want to distance yourselves from at the Discovery Institute.

I didn't know that about the JW (comments any JWs?) but I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not.

I do want to distance myself from that crapolla but I get the feeling that you are saying that's only a tactic used to fool the unsuspecting public but in reality I totally think riding dinosaurs is how it was. If that's what you're thinking, you're simply wrong.

Quote:

Creationism was the rule of the day until just bfore the SCopes trial. The Butler Laws that enveloped the Scopes trial took another 25 years to repeal. EVOLUTION, as a scientific study, was NOT ALLOWED to be taught in the first publicschools in the US.

The way it is now, is that if it passes several tests of scientific inquiry, and doesnt present a prosyliting curriculum for crap that is NOT EVIDENCED, then its reigious based.

You are still pitching this as a two sided debate. It's not. I won't speak for August but for myself, I view that fight as one orchestrated for the purpose of distracting people from the real issue.

Quote:

If If you and Augustine wish to argue evidence, Im sure there are many here quite competent to wup yer asses in a debate.
Ill hold your sweaters.

Why would we (or at least I) want to get involved in that sideshow? You have already ruled out any evidence of a God so how could we possibly argue about his participation in evolution?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I like things you say, Frank, and this too sounds plausible but it is all out of whack with the facts.

1) Why must you and others always jump from 'I don't believe Evolution' to 'he must believe X or God or some religion'

2) Is Evolution the only scientific statement beyond scientific critique. I follow those critiques and they are many and varied and growing

3) Surely an astute guy like you has noticed that the trend for people with objections like this is simply force. Recently in CA there was a bill introduced to criminalize public statements against Global Warming.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I really havent "ruled out" any presence of gods, spaghetti monsters or aliens. Its just that we do wish to maintain a level of evidence to underpin our arguments. Just cause you say its so dont make it so.

Evidence should be testable , repeatable, and falsifiable, (Just like any other scientific finding)

Quote:

I view that fight as one orchestrated for the purpose of distracting people from the real issue.

What might that "real issue " be?

Quote:

I do want to distance myself from that crapolla but I get the feeling that you are saying that's only a tactic used to fool the unsuspecting public but in reality I totally think riding dinosaurs is how it was. If that's what you're thinking, you're simply wrong.

Better punctuation and writing style may make this sentence, intelligible.
I think that you think that I think that you believe that humans rode on dinosaurs. I accept that you accept an old earth with evolution. (I believe that yours is a theistic ID its just that you dont yet have any convincing data or chains of evidence.
PS, I believe the Creation Park attendance last year was over a million visitors. How many went there as a "pilgramge"??? I have no idea, nor do I give a rats ass. Its onlynwhen the giuys in charge over in Ky decide they want to teach that as SCINCE in public chools, do I get up in arms nd call for my posse.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

its just that you dont yet have any convincing data or chains of evidence.

I've tried to go down that road before but it has gone no where for basically two reasons.

1. Circumstantial or indirect evidence for a God is always dismissed in spite of the fact that this same type evidence is used in science all the time.

2. The criticisms of the implausible and unexplained aspects of evolution are dismissed on the grounds that 'it happened that way even if we don't know the details so obviously it's possible.' This is usually followed by saying I'm arguing for 'the God of the gaps'.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

But you make sense to the sensible !!

Look if you took 100 evolution fans on here and grilled them, 90 at least couldn't say more than a few paragraphs to defend their viewpoint AND if you got an expert arguer for the Creationist side --- I have seeen this -- he would tie them in knots.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

1. Circumstantial or indirect evidence for a God is always dismissed in spite of the fact that this same type evidence is used in science all the time.

Please provide an example of each that you think are equivalent.

1 Reply

@AugustineBrother,

And if you put an expert on evolution against your expert on Creationism, the Creationist would be tied in knots.

Heck.. you only need someone reasonably versed in the science of evolution to tie a creationist in knots.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I am right now getting rid of about 500 of my books but I do remember this: that the highest percentage by social group for adherents to Creationism were new adherents from the sciences. Shocking but I definitely remember that. If I get the chance I will trudge through the sea of literature right now at my feet.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

And I just now came across Berthault's experiments repudiating the claims about Stratigraphy made by Steno. Here I am certainly not grinding an axe as Steno is a declared Saint and I am a Catholic. But I think he was wrong, holy but wrong.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

A fair amount of modern science is not testable (String THeory) , repeatable (Big Bang) or falsifiable (most of the many current interpretations of QM)

2 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know