Why do people deny evolution?

@JimmyJ,

Denial of evolution is based on religious beliefs, not scientific evidence. However, contrary to the pointing of fingers at atheists, many who believe in G-d, myself included, have no problem with accepting evolution as the valid scientific theory that is is.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I knew he was stationed at Some Southern Baptist U and he denied a "Worldwide Flood" because he agreed with science that evidence was just not there. That got him into trouble, BUT that was like 8 years ago. He just seems to have disappeared.

I knew he was a single dad with several kids, two of whom were challenged in some fashion so He needed employment to keep up their care. I assume his kids are more independent and grown by now.

Having kids to take care of probably causes lots of people to deny the truth.

What's your excuse for being a science denier, farmerman?

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

We've never had segregation over here. If you do a bit of research first you're less likely to post such inane nonsense.

"Although racial segregation and discrimination were never mandated or sanctioned by law in the United Kingdom, it was not until the 1960s that laws were passed that specifically prohibited the practice."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_Kingdom

Sometimes, Izzy does half truths, other times he likes full blown lies.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Im really curious, does ID/Creationist thinking even get about the planning stage to conduct any meaningful research with that huge" methodological mythology" hanging over its head??.

You really have to carefully think about that before trying to respond with something merely snappy. If we critically look at it, all the "research" that the IDers have tried to unertake is nothing more than trying to fond fault with scientific methodology and results.

I've answered this criticism several times before. In general, ID advocates do not conduct original research due to the enormous costs involved. They do closely follow the factual results of those who do the research and fully accept them. Why do you keep repeating the falsehood that they don't?

ID does not dispute the scientific evidence. It is in the conclusions and inferences drawn from that knowledge where ID advocates and Methodological Naturalism differ. And if you will be honest, it is the MN side that has more artificial restrictions on what can be concluded from the evidence.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Enormous cost? Churches rake it in, tax free, in bushel baskets. If they saw any hope of conducting meaningful research, I would think they had it over scientists.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Neither I nor the ID movement have a 'Church' to rake in the kind of money involved in fundamental research in either cosmology or biology.

There are 'Churches' focused on money/prosperity that pop up from time to time and they implode rather quickly. I noticed that one of the biggest (the Crystal Cathedral guys) went bankrupt awhile back.

And do you have any idea what the cost of building and operating the Hubble telescope or the what Human Genome project cost? Not even the biggest mega-church could put a dent in that figure.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

But they don't need to build a Hubble telescope. They can access information from the one that's there. Just as you don't have to build a Buick to drive one, you don't have to build things already built. Just make use of what they provide.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I've answered this criticism several times before. In general, ID advocates do not conduct original research due to the enormous costs involved. They do closely follow the factual results of those who do the research and fully accept them. Why do you keep repeating the falsehood that they don't?

Is this a recent change you are describing because I recall some legal cases wherein these very issues were discussed. Now I didn't follow them religiously, no pun intended, but I thought that much of the issue was that ID did NOT "fully accept them", them being that which science was advancing.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Quote:

I thought that much of the issue was that ID did NOT "fully accept them", them being that which science was advancing.

I don't really know the full history of the ID movement. I got interested in it around 2004. Farmerman says there were a bunch of religious fundamentalists pushing 'Creationism' in the early days of ID.

I don't know or care if there were. I'm looking at today and the scientific data, inferences and conclusions ID is working with since I started following it and I don't see the unfounded religious motives that farmer does.

Do the Discovery Institute founders have a belief in God? Most probably do. So do I. That does not prevent them or me from looking at the data objectively and concluding that something other than blind chance and the laws of physics lies behind our existence.

I do understand that 'real scientists' are not allowed to 'believe' in anything else but chance and physics. They are not allowed by their scientific mantra of Methodological Naturalism to believe anything else. (especially if they want a government research grant : )

AFAIK, it is only the end conclusions drawn from the facts that ID disagrees with. Do you have an example of scientifically proven fact that you think ID does not accept?

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I don't really know the full history of ID. I got interested in it around 2004. Farmerman says there were a bunch of religious fundamentalists pushing 'Creationism' in the early days of ID.

Hmm, 2004, Someone else will have to handle this as I neither care or want to do research on more of these types of folks.

Yup 2004 was when the ID crowd was in the thick of the lawsuits. Funny you don't know more about it.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Farmerman says there were a bunch of religious fundamentalists pushing 'Creationism' in the early days of ID.

Actually, what I said mostly was tht the modern ID movement begqn as an outgrowth of the Edwards v Aguillrd case that struck down teaching "Scientific Creationism" in Louisiana during the 1980;s. The IDers, who emerged as a daughter species of Cretionists used the very same textbooks wherein the actully changed the word "creation" to Intelligent Design.

Lazy Fuckers.

When The Discovery Institute began as the "mouthpiece" of the IDers, their original logo was "The hand of God creating Adam" as painted by Michelangelo Buonarotti on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. They dropped that logo and substituted a specific segment of DNA emerging from the same cloud as God. They thought tht this would be less "discoverable" as to what they really were, which was a shill organization for Fundamentalist Christianity .(They shoulda had a rabbit coming out of a hat instead). It was all a trick to "fool the Constitution.

Quote:

That does not prevent them or me from looking at the data objectively and concluding that something other than blind chance and the laws of physics lies behind our existence.

I always shrug at that term "objectively". If youre of their ilk you hve not CONCLUDED that ID was operant, you actually went Into
the program saying merely that"life appears to complex to hqve risen by evolution-then they inserted the term "blind evolution" when they saw Bob Behe get his theories greased .
SO, by time and mini changes the entire ID movement has evolved from YEC's into Theistic Evolution believers .
I hve no idea what your flavor of tomorrow will bring, perhaps as layman has been recently spouting(by hanging onto low hanging fruit) that "panspermia is really ID". News flash is that pqnspermia has already gotten severl scientific "spec" papers that are in the same realms as the "Drake Equation" or the "Fermi Paradox" . Many many real Scientists acknowledge them as possibilities because of the evidence that life hqd begun and was smooshed out several times on this planet before it eventually "took". However there is no data other than that to support the speculations. As I said many times in other threads, we will probably learn whats up when we visit other earth like planets and investigate how life is slapped together in the next galaxy

But I think you said you knew all this?? and were just trying to rattle me because of my insistence that you read some more.

0 Replies

@camlok,

Quote:

Yup 2004 was when the ID crowd was in the thick of the lawsuits. Funny you don't know more about it.

Funny that I'm tied to something I consider irrelevant. For me there is no connection.

That happened to be when I started getting interested in the subject of ID, I was not interested in legal squabbles and I didn't hear about K vs Dover until much later. I still don't care much about what goes on in a courtroom as it regards ID.

Farmer et al keep trying to make the discussion about religion. If you want to infer religious motives, carry on without me. Maybe this tactic is why some might wonder about evolution if it's defenders keep changing the subject to legalities and religion.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Creationism is religious based. God created.....
Who created god?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I'm not making any attempt to tie you to anything because we both obviously know little about the court cases.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Farmer et al keep trying to make the discussion about religion

I have a rural mind, you are wanting to mount the podium of reasonableness, yetYou have not drawn the connection between the history of modern ID and its delight at upestting the Bill of Rights to create a "Christian Sharia State"
The Constitution is supposed to be SILENT on religion. The state does not deny your rights of worship, but it also does deny your attempts at imposing your religious beliefs into my breakfast cereal.

The ENTIRE Scientific Creationism/ID movements have been built around a religious worldview.

Im sure its gonna sink into your had sooner or later.
You keep saying over and over that the Dover case was ""irrelevant" Thats the same wy that your whiner-in-chief Lyman uses an epithet of "cheese eater". I guess if ya say it enough and people buy it. (DCourse I love cheeses all kinds of cheeses).

If you think Dover was irrelevant then you should view the country qnd see what the various Fed Districts are doing wrt this issue since 2005. NO cases are imminent, yet the main ID players are tuning up and creating "model legisltion" that seems to be considerably watered down wrt bringing God back into the schoolroom.

I understand how you and others want to discount the Dover decisions relevance, as well as that of the previous Louisiana decision of the USSC. LAw only defined what is, or is not, religion that comports with the "free exercise and the establishment clauses " of the First Amendment. To have Creationist or ID views be declared religious (while it IS a fact) , theyre probably a bit deflated when trying to have these views open as real science and therefore open for inclusion into HS science curriculum.
As I said to you recently, Ive seen the modern ID positions slowly morph more and more towards "Theistic evolution" so its not spending as much time on butting into the school room but is trying to figure out how to live within the system. (Thats where I think the big push for "Charter SChools" has come from), although many states have closed the "Charter schools can teach whatever they wish" door.
Here in Pa, we pay for 1/2 the charter schools budgets and we tie requierements of skill levels attainment to those bucks. I think over half the nations school systems operate under that rule or some variant of it.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I don't think it's going to sink into his comprehension. It would destroy their lifelong belief in their god. A scary prospect. All my siblings are Christians, and they give credit to their god for all their blessings. When anything negative happens, they say it's god's plan.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Everything you say, farmerman, screams, "I am a raging hypocrite!"

Im sure its gonna sink into your had sooner or later.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

And you can't see your own stunning hypocrisy, CI.

It would destroy YOUR lifelong belief in YOUR god. A scary prospect. for you, indeed!

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Leadfoot is now"on the road" to the flatirons of Colorado for the summer.Im gonna hang up my posting on this thread and respond to him when hes able to discuss in an up to date fashion.

However,Many of my relatives are very religious(Jews and Catholics a match made in heaven), and their professions are pretty much "compartmentalized". They see the world in colder eyes of whatever science evidence of which I and two cousins (who are also in the sciences) can provide . Holiday meals are always animated and fun. Fortunately We dont have any raging cellar-dwelling loonies who make crazy evidence- free
Fundamentalist assertions ( sorta like our 9/11 "boffins").

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

We dont have any raging cellar-dwelling loonies who make crazy evidence- free
Fundamentalist assertions ( sorta like our 9/11 "boffins").

They got you, farmerman. On top of everything else, you are a coward.

0 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know