Why do people deny evolution?

Not to mention his embrace of all the assorted whackjobs who've recently joined.

I honestly thought he wanted people to take him seriously.

Horseshit, racists used his name in a vain attempt to garner some respect for their pseudoscience. The only people they convinced are other pseudoscientists.

Most people 2000 years ago did not have the ability to read or write. Communication was mostly through verbal which can change from one person to the next to embellish it. Most of the religions were based on mysticism. Virgin births were common before the Christian Jesus was created.

So Jesus is responsible for the Spanish inquisition and tele-evangelists, huh?

Whenever newer discoveries re made in bio, the ID/Creationists all need to assert that it "disproves nat selection'. EPigenesis , in NO WAY disfavors anything about evolution. In fact, when you really analyze it, the relationship between environmental effects gets closer and closer to presenting us evidence for "taking what youve already got and doing something new with it" (a simplifiction of nat selection by Dr Ken Miller)

Also, Darwin , in two books, the earliest being EDITION V of "..Origin of Species"... gave full credit to Herbert Wallace for coining the "survival of the fittest" phrase, ( an economics version of which , in 1851 first appeared in his "SOcial Statics" )

epigenesis gives us a clue of just HOW micro evolution and even "adaptive" radiation can occur quickly (in several generations) and macro evolution can occur in the 100 generation "guesstimate" made by Gould and Eldredge

I know about the human zoos. Your sneering contempt for those who don't believe as you do is (or ought to be) embarrassingly apparent. You have more straw men there than one finds wheat sheafs in a newly harvested field. You don't, of course, know what I believe in in my heart. I have no soul, no one has one. Charles Galton Darwin cannot be blamed for the enormities of those who used his name to cover their greed. None of that, is of course, relevant to a discussion of why people deny evolution. It is, however a wonderful example of christian snottiness, and their constant assertion of moral superiority over anyone who does not think as they do. Good job--talk about tipping your hand.

Aretha Franklin describes evolution/evolutionites...

And, regarding morality:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=xat1GVnl8-k

‘ you and me baby are nothing but mammals, so let’s do it like they do on the discovery channel’

That bears repeating, but let’s put it more accurately. Methodological Naturalism is a philosophy and has nothing to do with Science or the scientific method.

M.N. takes an a priori position before hypothesis, observation or experiment. It cannot possibly be based on anything but a philosophical or religious position.

I don’t know why it took me this long to fully grasp this. I've called it a flaw in science before but that was not right, M.N. is pseudoscience. It is absolutely not a part of science at all.
The usual criticism that without it science would go willy-nilly in every direction is absurd.

well then you should better understand. I said that your thinking about an IDer is revalatory not conclusional. You apparently do NOT unerstand how ID as a belief, isnt even a methodology. There is NO way in hell that you can even evaluate all the packs of evidence except to say ( a priori) that your conclusions have already been made. Thats not even close to being science (which is a- posteriori).
If you merely continue in your delusion, its gret cause you offer no rel hallenges of actual evidence in anything you say. Youve only attempted (nd poorly, I may say) to sully the evidence based conclusions (and the evidence itself) that science produces by discovery, investigation and experimentation.
Id be really happy to engage you in some real differences of opinion where your opinion is actually based on some real tactile evidence.
Ive patiently requested of you, over and over, and all I get are your "victim" claims (delivered as insults mostly about my scientific integrity ) .

Lets return with a visit back to one of your more creative statements. It was the one about how an IDer would actually post fossils and geologic strata (I think you implied the geology ) so that it would be smart enough to provide humans with enough "Salted" relic and evidence so that we would be fooled to believe that we are the observers of a truly natural world. How could you arrive at that hypothesis in a fashion that sustains a fully scientific methodology? You hqve NO way to prove, disprove, or even test that statement, you realize??
So why is it even up on the table as something rational.(I assume we are striving for rational thought? (Or have you moved on to another plane??).
I watched a show about the Chihuahuan desert of N Mxico. There exist on that desert plain, a myriad of sinkhole ponds (cenotes) that still contain fish , (cichlid species that were seeded in the area by an inland lake that was drying as the cenotes formed), Im not certain of the exact geomorphology. The main point is that, of the hundreds of cenotes, full of cichlid genera, No two cenotes contain the same species. ALL species provide DNA evidence of having split off from a common ancestor cichlid when the cenote began forming and the fish were trapped. adaptive radiation took over and the many new species have developed into new and wondrous forms, ch with separate "jobs and hobbies"

Coulld you come up with a work plan that , by research, would provie some kind of evidence and mens of falsification so as to discern ID involvement? Or are your earlier beliefs about ID enough for you??

Too bad you dont have any science background. Maybe then youd understand how science continuously discards and has to change theories based on newly found, repeatable evidence. SO, please try not to argue when you are obviouly unarmed for the argument

Of course the sinkhole pond fish Adapted into different species of the same ‘KIND.’
Genesis chapter 1 tells us that God created life forms according to their kinds. The dog kind, the cat kind, humankind, the monkey kind etc.
Genesis also reveals that the creation, although created vegetarian had The ability to adapt into flesh eating creatures, And although being created harmless, even bushes began to evolve Thorns, bees with stingers etc.

Then again, Maybe some of those fish evolved legs or wings rapidly overnight Because they were tired of being trapped🤔
Just like maple trees were tired of just plopping seeds to the ground, and thought to themselves, hey! What if I engineer helicopter design to flutter 🤔
Or simple burr bushes thought ‘what if I get creative and instead of plopping seeds to the ground I engineer Velcro’.... or spiders that got tired of walking, and decided to use their webs to build parachutes and harness the wind like dandelions.

And so on....

Here we go with that again.
The actually theyve evolved into separate GENERA and , in one case (at least) a sub family. Fishies have evolved into many many shapes unique to each cenote. If you want em to evolve into something more distant from cichlid parents, we will have to wait.
The evolution they display seems to me to be primarily adaptive, the "kind" tag i "Kinda" meaningless.

Genesis " reveals" very little. Its so laden with nothing that anything is open for consideration.

What genesis cant tell you is How was this done and when and with what cause. Science is interested in that alone, you can have the myth base to play with because theres nothing that the Bible can offer to help us understand anything other than stories of an Abrahamic/Oopistic world.
Truly you really must understand that your Bible offers no opinions assistance or direction about the best ways to study nature. Its a big story laden science-free void.

Without any additional learning I can vry quickly read and understand fully about what youre preaching. You, without putting in the quality time to learn and experience it, can never really understand sciences role in gathering knowledge

Not muh different than Leadfoots belief in the Almighty's Easter egg and fossil hunt beliefs.
Trouble is, you guys are just engagd in story telling, "Just So Tales " about how the giraffe got his neck. No evidence yield s fictional stories. Plants didnt copy velcro, the guys who invented velcro looked at burdocks and thought thy could design such a hook and eye setup.

Of course I cant prove the burdock wasnt designed butneither can you prove that it was. Science is only interested in seeing the evidence for what most probably is th pathway of life, the Bible doesnt seem to give a squat

The idea that the Universe can be rationally interpreted is indeed a "belief system", a system upon which we all rely on a daily basis just to survive, but which many are still in denial of.

You're getting worse about addressing the subject.

Do you notice here that you said nothing about what I was talking about (Methodological Naturalism). In spite of your vitriol, we have no disagreement about 'science'.

It's that unscientific concept of MN, that you are unarmed for and unable to defend. But I'd love to see you try.

That's all well & good, but you (also) changed the subject. The one I addressed is Methodological Naturalism, which I maintain has nothing to do with science. Nor does it have anything to do with rationally interpreting the Universe.

MN was conceived long ago, well before we had today's picture of a universe that is governed by laws and consisting of forces and particles that would be considered 'supernatural' at the time. So how can we say that now we know enough to hold to MN? You want to give supporting that idea a whirl?

But I'm glad to see you understand the necessity of 'faith' for any functioning sentient being.

A lifetime of driving in the U.S., on well-engineered streets and highways, would lead people to take it on faith that cross traffic will stop when they have a red light. Early one morning, after delivering a homeless family to a motel until we could get them into a homeless families shelter, I was cruising east on a main drag of Columbus, Ohio. The light had turned green more than 200 yards before I reached the intersection. Vehicles coming in the opposite direction were standing on their brakes, and I caught a flicker in my peripheral vision. I stood on my brakes and cranked the wheel hard to the left. Time perception alters in such situations, and as I pulled the wheel to the left, I saw the roof of a car as it flashed past the passenger side window.

One swallow does not a summer make. I still have faith that cross traffic will stop when they have a red light. One incident in 50 years of driving has not eroded that educated faith, reinforced by thousands and thousands of examples which confirm that faith. Scientific naturalism has given us penicillin and other antibiotics, sophisticated medical and surgical technology and methods undreamed of when I was a child. It has taken mankind to the moon, it has taken us to the bottom of the oceans. What a sneering christian characterizes as faith is amply supported by the track record of that faith. As FM has pointed out, the method is self-correcting--no religious faith ever admits error or attempts correction.

That is a far cry from the blind faith that there is a magic sky daddy who created us all and everything in this vast cosmos--a truly absurd contention about clever apes on a cosmic speck of dirt circling a not prepossessing star on the galactic fringe of one of the billions of galaxies to be observed. Comparing those two attitudes, and asserting that the one is equivalent to the hilariously improbable other is at best pathetic self-delusion, and at worst an arrogant attempt at deception for the purpose of manipulating and controlling others.

You just seem to cherry pick by ignoring the initial responses. I try to make some sence out of your

brand of logic, but following my reply you quickly try to assemble some argument always based on invective

Perhaps you should favor me with what the hell you think youve got thats factual.
One more patient plea, for some damned evidence that states your case.