Why do people deny evolution?

I sincerely hope that other a2k'ers noticed that.

How could anybody not notice. It's a lovely word is "many".

You can't have evolution without scientific facts James. It doesn't exist until science shows it does. Before science "**** happened".

Before you even try please note that this question is not to debate the validity of evolution. Regardless of whether or not you want to believe in it it's pretty much been solidified by hundreds of years of scientific research and evidence. It's basically impossible to teach Biology without it.

I DO want to hear from people who don't "believe" in it, though. I want to know what your reasoning is. The evidence pretty much speaks for itself, so why do you deny it?

You should go play with your idiot brothers. Noone here is that stupid to believe that you even know of what you speak.

I realised, too, that the procedures used to date rocks were circular. Rocks are used to date fossils: fossils are used to date rocks. From here I began to think the unthinkable: could Darwinism be scientifically flawed?"
"I became an almost daily visitor at the Natural History Museum, looking more closely again at all the famous evidence I had been taught about: the evolution of horses, Archaeopteryx -- half-reptile, half-bird -- the peppered moth, the Galapagos finches and all the other totems of Darwinism."
"One after another they crumbled as I subjected them to even routine journalistic scrutiny. At first I thought I must be mistaken -- then I began to discover one by one the many scientists around the world who had already realised the emperor has no clothes, but who cannot speak out without jeopardising their careers and even their jobs."

Quote:

I realised, too, that the procedures used to date rocks were circular. Rocks are used to date fossils: fossils are used to date rocks.

"One after another they crumbled as I subjected them to even routine journalistic scrutiny

many scientists around the world who had already realised the emperor has no clothes, but who cannot speak out without jeopardising their careers and even their jobs."

The ad hominem abounds on threads related to evolution.

That is because the subject has become intimately entangled with the seemingly felt necessity to justify behaviour which infringes the Christian and Islamic teachings on sexual matters and thus a very delicate sensitivity exists, unadmitted of course, which results in science being defined in a narrow and conveniently restricted manner and a striking loss of objective "cool". The "Paradigm Police" in action.

You should bear that in mind if you intend continuing in the debate. It really matters to some members here and they have a tendency to thrum with indignation.

A good example of indignation being the three-wived, I can only guess whether temporary concubines are a factor on speaking tours, Oxford evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who so stylishly described a book by the author you mentioned, as "twaddle that betrays, on almost every page, complete and total pig-ignorance of the subject at hand".