Why do people deny evolution?

@OldGrumpy,

If not evolution, then what? ID? It's not clear what it means, and it assumes evolution as a fact wanted and driven by God. As for creationism, it's proven false.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

whenever the Discovery Institute lifts and quote mines an article for its "evolution News" mag, I always have to read it and spend some time in argument city to see where they fucked up.
Its easy here because the value of massive evidence (as ignored in the Discovery Inst article) has a large part of the responsibility when Gould first wrote th articl about "Evolution as FACT as well as THEORY".
The overlapping support from all sorts of related scientific disciplines unquestionably supports what Gould said.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

PS, why did you try to make it appear that , between your quote blocks , were YOUR thoughts when they too were lifted from the article in Discovery Institute?? Were you trying to make it appear that the Discovery Institute had nothing to do with your quotes???
By doing such an apparently innocent act, youve become an offishul cherry pickin quote miner.

CONGRATULATIONS, you have joined the August ranks of those who lift from real science and ignore those paragraphs that arent ID "friendly" but are part of the entire theses of the original author(s)

1 Reply

You’re mainly interested in getting people to disbelieve Darwin-skeptics and to accept evolution:

Quote:

Given these issues, it is possible to conclude that the discourse was never meant to properly explain scientific terminology to the public. Associating the term ‘fact’ with evolution is instead a means to attack antievolutionist claims and arguments, despite the negative consequences of a minority scientific terminology, ignoring established scientific consensuses, and creating a morass of contradictory and confusing explanations for how evolution is a fact. In his detailed analysis of the issues involved, the biologist Kirk Fitzhugh (2008: 112) dismisses the discourse, referring to it as a series of ‘catch phrases that promote misunderstanding.’

Ultimately the article aims to streamline the public discourse and encourage scientists who are Darwin advocates to stop abusing terms like “fact” or “theory” simply for the purpose of advocating evolution. That is a fine goal, and good luck with it. Cat-herding might be easier.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

BTW heres the article herein Stephen Gould first stated that evolution was a FACT as well as a THEORY (Actually it more like "Its a fact because its a theory" (But Dr Gould is Still Dead and he wrote this in 1981)

EVOLUTION AS FACT AND THEORY

0 Replies

Gould gives himself away here and establishes the accuracy of the article in 'Sage'.

Quote:

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

What a transparent attempt to use his 'authority' in order to get the public to buy this claptrap. After all, who wants to be considered 'perverse' by a real live scientist like Gould... Do people really fall for that?

The only thing perverse here is the motive behind trying to promote the theory of evolution as 'fact'.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

now now, he was waay more knowledgeable of the subject than are you. His "authority" actually carries pretty hefty weight.

The article in "Sage" as rejiggered by the Discovery Institute and finally, you. Very Happy

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

If not evolution, then what? ID? It's not clear what it means, and it assumes evolution as a fact wanted and driven by God. As for creationism, it's proven false.

if one has no alternative, that doesnn't make another THEORY right, eh?!
Evidence does that.

2 Replies

@OldGrumpy,

yeh , the grumpster would rather not think about anything.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

yeh , the grumpster would rather not think about anything.

Oh, and exactly where is it that you feel I don't think?

Or just another hollow ad hominem?

We know the answer to that eh?!

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

Im open to any real discussion with facts and no ad hominems (like telling everyone that Im casting ad hominems while using your own batch of ad hominems)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Im open to any real discussion with facts and no ad hominems (like telling everyone that Im casting ad hominems while using your own batch of ad hominems)

Well, you really don't get it, do you?! But you are (too) deep steeped into the ridiculous of 'science' , hence can't see the forest for the trees.

But rest assure that every 'scientist' has this problem. They really can't think straight anymore, which was the whole plan of 'education' right from the start.
I see you as a victim of a very malignent system and I do feel sorry for you.
But no, you are not open at all for anything that leads you away from your religion (scientism).

0 Replies

@OldGrumpy,

Quote:

You are confusing technology with 'science' and no
the two are NOT intertwined at all! See my other thread on this topic

You seem to have run away from this post, I did ask for some more from you. You really shouldnt just post lies and then try to get away with it by averting my focus, Your not the present president.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Your not the present president

Well, we are all one, right?! lol

No, I didn't run away, just put your posting there, but I would rather you don't:

But seriously, bro, I really can't take your postings too seriously.
You are really too deep into your 'religion'

so, bro, please please do ignore me, will you?!

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Where did Gould get his authority. His concepts like punctuated equilibrium have very little support from biologists.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

its a paleontological hypothesis. How would you xplain its failure??

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

Quote:

so, bro, please please do ignore me, will you?!

'Naah, my goals in life include de-ignoranting the defiantly ignorant and I aint lost one yet. Youre a challenge Quahog.

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

No, it just means some people have a theory of how so many species came to be, and some people don't.

0 Replies

@OldGrumpy,

Yes, many of these people on here are religious extremists, very deep into evolutionism. Well said.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

its a paleontological hypothesis

so is ID.

The problem is biological organisms cannot make the evolutionary changes fast enough over the large population that is necessary for punctuated equilibrium. It is a paleotological theory that doesnot fulfill the biogenetical and information changes without intelligent guidance. Evolution happened but, the evidence looks like someone had some really good ideas that helped organisms afapt quickly.

0 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know