Why do people deny evolution?

@farmerman,

Quote:

But thats neither here nor there, growth in science means to not hold on to your beliefs (and theories) too hard and question your own biass frequently.
I think youre actually beginning to do that. Never to old

And back atcha.

I've said before that we would not settle the matter and it would have to wait for science to uncover enough details for Neo Darwinists to see the obvious. I'm satisfied with progress.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

would not settle the matter and it would have to wait for science to uncover enough details for Neo Darwinists to see the obvious. I'm satisfied with progress.

I am not sure what "matter" there is to settle in science. Im just glad that you appear to be seeing facts and evidence in a less religious fashion.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I am not sure what "matter" there is to settle in science.

that is an eye opening sentence! lol

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Im just glad that you appear to be seeing facts and evidence in a less religious fashion.

I just wish the same were true about you. I've never been able to discuss evolution with you when you didn't keep bringing up unrelated religious beliefs. I never do when discussing evolution unless specifically asked about it. For example, someone asked me why would an intelligent creator/God waste all those eons with millions of species being wiped out before creating man. I didn't ignore it, I offered a rational answer. That doesn't mean I assume the creator/God a priori.

There is a name for it when you invalidate another's argument based solely on unrelated things. People generally get this when it comes to race, nationality, gender, sexual preference, etc. but for some reason you think anyone who has a theological belief is incapable of objective thought on the subject of evolution or abiogenesis.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

my entire acceptance of evolution as a theory based on fact is not a religious belief. Its a conclusion based upon evidence . such is not the case in anything that ID presents. Ive asked you numerous times how you would conduct a study to establish evidence of n IDer and youve consistently side -stepped that. Are you now denying, by using some trick of phrase, that your initial beliefs were NOT religious??

But if you say that no they are no longer,, I do accept that but that makes the methodology to determine what science based evidence supports ID even more critical.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I just wish the same were true about you. I've never been able to discuss evolution with you when you didn't keep bringing up unrelated religious beliefs. I never do when discussing evolution unless specifically asked about it. For example, someone asked me why would an intelligent creator/God waste all those eons with millions of species being wiped out before creating man. I didn't ignore it, I offered a rational answer. That doesn't mean I assume the creator/God a priori.

There is a name for it when you invalidate another's argument based solely on unrelated things. People generally get this when it comes to race, nationality, gender, sexual preference, etc. but for some reason you think anyone who has a theological belief is incapable of objective thought on the subject of evolution or abiogenesis.

yep, I wrote this before, fm is stuck in black & white thinking.

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

And you're stuck in that multi-coloured, tripped out brain's gone on a package holiday to Margate with Tracey Emins' spunky bed and ain't never coming back, thinking.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

And you're stuck in that multi-coloured, tripped out brain's gone on a package holiday to Margate with Tracey Emins' spunky bed and ain't never coming back, thinking.

something I wrote? Smile

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Are you now denying, by using some trick of phrase, that your initial beliefs were NOT religious?

I assume you are talking about my beliefs concerning evolution.

You have me at a disadvantage in that I have always had an aversion to repeating myself and I listen carefully to what others are saying. I'll make an exception for the first part which is probably in vain because of the second part but I'll do it anyway.

My beliefs about the evidence for ID are unrelated to any religious belief.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

yeh, NOW they seem to be!! Your past posts are so loaded with Discovry Institute memes and cherry picked quotes that its difficult for reasonably analytical minds to say that their (and by association, your) earlier statements wre NOT religiously bsed.

After all, even Discovery Institute changed their logo and wording in their " wedge document" about 2003 in order to "hide" their original religiously affiliated organizational pronouncements given by Dr Dembski (ie "any scientific theories not based on Christ are of no value ...")I, paraphrase because Ive forgotten the original quote as it appeared in the 2001 book Intelligent Thought.

So, I think you are being purposefully obtuse in trying to polish up your claim that your bases of interest were ALWAYS purely scientific. Im here to say that ya cant fool evryone all the time, and that your acceptance of many of recent findings are looked at with an open mind and not only with a Fundamentalist ID leaning are very welcome but dont blow smoke up my ass by claiming youve maintined a purely objective view of evolution throughout.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

What is a Fundamentalist ID leaning. Even fundamentalists disagree on what is the correct literal meaning.

Quote:

fun·da·men·tal·ist
/ˌfəndəˈmen(t)ələst/Submit
noun
1.
a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion.
"religious fundamentalists"

I haven't seen any scripture in Leadfoot's responses.

Quote:

re·li·gious
/rəˈlijəs/Submit
adjective
1.
relating to or believing in a religion.
"both men were deeply religious, intelligent, and moralistic"
synonyms: devout, pious, reverent, believing, godly, God-fearing, dutiful, saintly, holy, prayerful, churchgoing, practicing, faithful, devoted, committed
"he was a very religious person"
noun
1.
a person bound by monastic vows.

Belief in intelligence is not religious. My belief in your intelligence would have to be religious then.

I have never seen Leadfoot claim that a monastic God is a prerequisite to a belief in ID.

Why do you act likehe is requiring such things?

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Belief in intelligence is not religious. My belief in your intelligence would have to be religious then

Your, and his use of "Intelligence" is as a proper noun (which is a noun that needs no further modifiers.

You guys are playing a "Hide me" game . Leadfoot would announce that his "Intelligence" would play evolution out in the way we discover it because the "Intelligence" is smart enough to fool with us where we would believe its all natural (I assume he means that "cause its not")

LF and you conflate scriptural references and scripture itself, which, in my mind just sells out any pretext of being "cientific in inquiry'"
Yoiu guys aint busy trying to objectively discover things about nature, you just want evidence to uphold your preconceived beliefs.

I dont think Im going to continue engaging with your underlying argument. I think Judge John Jones did that so damned well in his 120 page decision in Kitzmiller v Dover School District . Hes modified and presented the well known "If it quacks like a duck" argument as the basis of his legal opinion. SO far its stood without challenge.

Ats about it.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

I think and believe that LF has made some strides to replace much of his early stuff with more careful looking how science works in this issue. I think his arguments are waay more powerful when he limits his ID (propr noun) references and is slowly embracing what many of us have been saying all along .

You, on the other hand, are merely trying to underpin your basic beliefs (evidence-free) with some pizazz

0 Replies

Quote:

Farmer quote:
I think Judge John Jones did that so damned well in his 120 page decision in Kitzmiller v Dover School District . Hes modified and presented the well known "If it quacks like a duck" argument as the basis of his legal opinion.

You keep ignoring the last two words there, or else you think the laws of physics are equally subject to the capricious whims of our law makers.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

our, and his use of "Intelligence" is as a proper noun (which is a noun that needs no further modifiers.

Thanks for pointing that out. That does look like bigotry. I will make sure to refer to Intelligent Designer/Designers next time.

Quote:

LF and you conflate scriptural references and scripture itself, which, in my mind just sells out any pretext of being "cientific in inquiry'"
Yoiu guys aint busy trying to objectively discover things about nature, you just want evidence to uphold your preconceived beliefs.

Well if there are to references referring to the same topic how else should you do it?

Quote:

I dont think Im going to continue engaging with your underlying argument. I think Judge John Jones did that so damned well in his 120 page decision in Kitzmiller v Dover School District . Hes modified and presented the well known "If it quacks like a duck" argument as the basis of his legal opinion. SO far its stood without challenge.

I always say, "If you disagree with someone's speech, outlaw it. It's the American way".

What if some non religious it/things ends up being the Intelligent Designer/Designers. Are people in Land Grant Research Universities going to be able to us Government funded facilities to do the research.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

You keep ignoring the last two words there, or else you think the laws of physics are equally subject to the capricious whims of our law makers

show me where Ive presented my own opinions as Physical constants or something that cannot be changed subject to better arguments and evidence???

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

dont lead with your conclusions.

AND,
I think Ive said that "YOUR as well as LF 's use of intelligence" is as a propwr noun. (thats the difference I was alluding to regarding your opinion of otehers"intelligence" v an"Intelligence" out there doing the design/building. Just a note .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I think Ive said that "YOUR as well as LF 's use of intelligence" is as a propwr noun. (thats the difference I was alluding to regarding your opinion of otehers"intelligence" v an"Intelligence" out there doing the design/building. Just a note .

So did you like my reference to it and things in my previous post?

Would that pass the Jones smell test?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

I dont have any control over how you use our language. I jut remain free to comment

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

show me where Ive presented my own opinions as Physical constants or something that cannot be changed subject to better arguments and evidence???

I never mentioned anything about physical constants (in the current discussion), but if you can't see the blindness in your statement below when applied to a scientific argument, then glasses won't help. The exact same blindness was/is in your beloved judge. And yes, the evidence will eventually cure this blindness. Arguments, not so much.

Quote:

Farmer quote:
I think Judge John Jones did that so damned well in his 120 page decision in Kitzmiller v Dover School District . Hes modified and presented the well known "If it quacks like a duck" argument as the basis of his legal opinion.

Both you and the judge are demanding that ID advocates prove that they are not thinking of God when talking about 'intelligence'. That's a ridiculous demand.

2 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know