Why do people deny evolution?

Just an experiment to demonstrate how empty this rhetoric is.
Jus by substituting the names my faux reply is as good or bad (you decide) as your original.

I could have substituted 'theism' for 'ID' and it would be just as valid.



But why do some Neo Darwinists care about ID so much? It's a bit as if they resented the human ability to observe and reason... Or perhaps it's the (wrong-footed) idea that Darwinian evolution has some sort of monopoly on observation and reason that bothers them? Or perhaps it's just like the Darwinist backslash against ID at the beginning of 21st century: they are afraid of new ideas because they contradict their old ideas.

I'm really trying to understand the motive for anti-ID here, the ax that these anti-ID guys want to grind. To me investigating the unexplained is primarily a profession or personal interest, and it seems stupid to disparage any group of people, other than jokingly e.g. when people joke about lawyers or politicians.

I know science is not a trial-and-error process, (very different from Darwinian evolution's claim), but that can't possibly be what those poor anti ID souls object to...

And by the way, 'trial and error' is a really inaccurate description of the scientific method. I had to change tha a bit.

I don't know if I'd class myself as a Neo or any sort of Darwinist. I don't like stuff that's anti science, anti intelligence. ID is a religious viewpoint, not a scientific one and as such it has no place being taught in Science classes. I have no problem with it being spoken about in RE.

If it was just ID it wouldn't be so much of a problem but it tends to be packaged up with a load of other nonsense. Look at Grumpy's other posts/threads. He's started one attacking vaccination, one scientific advance which has been credited with saving more lives than anything else.

The big fear are for those people whose medical condition is such that they can't be vaccinated, they rely on herd immunity and if people are going to stop vaccinating their kids they're putting those lives at risk.

My particular gripe with trying to find proof of God in evolution/big bang is that it's pointless. There is no definitive answer, certainly nothing to indicate that God was behind either.

Conversely there's nothing to disprove the existence of God either. It boils down to Faith, and trying to find proof one way or the other seems a complete waste of time.

Just like evolution is faith based.

They say imitation is the best form of flattery, but I take exception to my writing being described as "empty rhetoric". I've always taken a lot of care to write stuff that means something and provokes further thoughts. I'm not in the business of empty words.

That there is much anti-science rhetoric is a fact; it goes way beyond evolution, into denying the moon landing or climate change, etc. It's also a pretty serious problem. I don't see IDers or flat earthers as doing much real harm; however your and my grand children may well fry as a result of some idiots' war on climate change. Efforts to debase science in Western societies are akin to collective suicide.

Ultimately, everything we think or do involves a number of leaps of faith. Not all leaps of faith are equally worthwhile or doable though. It's advisable to put some amount of faith -- limited as it may be, not absolute -- in our human capacities to observe the world, to reason meaningfully about it, make some sense of it and predict parts of it. It's also advisable to have some form of spirituality, IMO.

What's less advisable IMO is to take literally a book written 3000 yrs ago BY MEN as authoritative and written by GOD(s).

"What's less advisable IMO is to take literally a book written 3000 yrs ago BY MEN as authoritative and written by GOD(s)."

Oh man, o man, I don't !

So what's the status of the book of Genesis in your theory of how we (humans, animals, plants) came to be? A pure legend? A metaphor?

duh? why you are asking me??

I just want to know where you come from on the topic.

Why? You people make things way too complicated.

I am just critiquing the stupidity of the religion called 'evolution'.

That is enough on itself. You people just can't see the forrest for the tress.

You people are way too confused into the absurd theory.

Do you happen to have a better theory?

oh no, always the same! Not having a better theory doesn't make another theory right of course! 'evidence', which is greatly lacking in et, does!

So you have no particular idea, no inclination nor clue about how the universe, life, or humans came into existence. Aka no "story of creation"... Interesting.

And what so hard to understand or reconcile with facts in the theory of evolution?

"So you have no particular idea, no inclination nor clue about how the universe, life, or humans came into existence. Aka no "story of creation"... Interesting."

of course not. Nor have 'scientists'.

"And what so hard to understand or reconcile with facts in the theory of evolution?"

Among other things, it's mathematical improbability.

Besides that, just a little thinking can show that people didn't come from a rock.

lol, the sheer absurdiy of it all. And how people that belief in evolotion ( I know), take themselves so seriously. That's even very funny.

Attack the religion of the evoluut and they get angry!

Hmm we still have a long way to go.

You're the first person I meet who has no story of origins. Scientists have a lot of them. They call them theories. They test them, too, to the extent they can.

To calculate accurately the probability that evolution occured as it did (rather than in a different way or in no way at all) would be a challenge, me think. How would you go about it?

And people come from apes, not from rocks.

I have to glom on of your responses to Ole Fart ,sez it all so concisely Hope ya dont mind.

I'm trying, thx. Not sure the guy is more than a troll though. The focus on trying to anger other posters, the lack of alternative to offer...

yeh but that post of yours was pure poetry of reason. Im sure it went over his head like a missile.
Troll, maybe. One of our olies posing as a newbie, maybe. Just a hillbilly dummy, maybe. So many hypotheses. not one theory.

I assume you are referring to OldGrumpy here?
On what basis do you call him a 'God freak'? I see nothing to indicate that.
It sounds like ad hominem (again).

Squirming = thumbs downing and name calling without a substantive reply. Lots of that going on here.

Naah, hes a Creation junky. He buys and uses only Creationist arguments and claims that hes "non-partisan". Sorry, no buy.