Why do people deny evolution?

I find this debate, which has continued here for a very long time, to be a bit perplexing.

In the first place Darwin's theory indicating that species survived over time by the, usually slow, physical adaptation to their environment and the various survival threats they faced - a process he called "natural selection" is confirmed by a host of experimental, and even ordinary, observations.

In this sense evolution is an observable fact, and not a theory at all.

Indeed, even at the microbial level, such natural selection can be observed among bacteria and viruses, which, over time, adapt to evade the effect of medicines we apply to destroy them.

The tests and scriptures of nearly all religions are involve largely metaphorical references to creation and the spiritual live & consciousness associated with it. To use these details to imply a conflict with this, or other works of science, or, alternatively, to suppose that science refutes all ideas associated with a creator is to seek a conflict where none exists. My impression is that there is a lot of pretense and folly on both sides of these questions.

There's a lot termed "Chaos" or "chaotic" in both science and engineering. In concrete applications such as fluid mechanics, or as is increasingly arising in the various DNA & genetic analyses, Chaos simply refers to something that can't reliably be predicted, even in situations in which the model for it (or the differential equations involved) are well known. In short it arises from shortcomings in our ability to solve the governing equations or reliably predict a specific outcome. It's a fascinating topic.

My first involvement in it was an early attempt to numerically model the (highly non-linear) Navier Stokes equations for viscous flow at high Reynolds numbers. My model did its work crunching the numbers and yielding an unfolding picture. However the slightest change in initial conditions quickly yielded an entirely different detailed result. I had stumbled on "Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions" - a hallmark of the Chaos Theories that were very soon developed by smarter folks than me.

Thunderstorms are chaotic, but if there's a God I think he knows how they work.

Darwin's argument about "only slow changes" may be needing a major cleanup.

Old Grumpy appears to be fascinated by his own vague bits of hyperbole and non specific criticisms.

Old Grumpy appears to be fascinated by his own vague bits of hyperbole and non specific criticisms.

The knowledge explosion predicted in the Bible is here and it has backfired. If there is a God he knew it would.

PS, george ob, you are way too kind.

The Grumpter visits under various names, but all with the same fascination with his own brand of untestable science. The fact that we can repeat, predict, and model and design, means nothing .
I think he started off as a science major, flunked out, and has been trying to validate his own shortcomings on the backs of those whove worked hard to contribute

[trying irrelevant ah's again, farmerboy? won't work.