Why do people get so personal about defending evolution?

[Homie]

Seriously, I don't get it? One might think evolution is the correct theory of the origin of species, but why would one be upset, and at times offended, when someone says it's wrong?

It makes sense that religious people get personal about evolution's claims, because it discredits God as the creator. But why would evolutionists get upset about creationists, ID followers and the like? Why would they care?

 

[C~G]

In what context we're talking here?

And what you mean "get upset" or "offended"?

 

[Urederra]

What is upsetting is when people don't allow you to teach evolution because it is in conflict with their religious views.

 

[Asher]

Seriously, I don't get it? One might think evolution is the correct theory of the origin of species, but why would one be upset, and at times offended, when someone says it's wrong?

It makes sense that religious people get personal about evolution's claims, because it discredits God as the creator. But why would evolutionists get upset about creationists, ID followers and the like? Why would they care?

Same reason I get upset when people prance around saying the world is flat and we're all going to hell for believing otherwise. Monumental stupidity is aggravating.

 

[Warman17]

I think it has to do with the idea that if you care about knowledge and the spread of it, you can't just sit by and let people disseminate what you consider a lie. For example if someone was talking about how Ronald Reagan was a goat-lover and enjoyed making love to men I'm pretty sure a lot of people would get upset because its a blatant lie, an attack on something they hold dear. Maybe the person honestly believes those things about Ronald Reagan, does that make it any less harsh of a lie? Not to me. Of course most people wouldn't care, heres some guy spouting bull, but there will always be the people who don't want this thing to be disrespected with what they think are pish-posh ideas.

 

[JollyRoger]

It makes sense that religious people get personal about evolution's claims, because it discredits God as the creator. But why would evolutionists get upset about creationists, ID followers and the like? Why would they care?

If religious people can get upset because someone is calling their understanding of the universe into question, why should someone else having their understanding of the universe being questioned be expected to act better than the religious person? After all, many religious people believe they tend to be morally superior to non-believers, so really, you would expect the religious people to not give into anger in such debates rather than non-believers. Nonetheless, to me, it seems to be that more of the anger is coming from the religious end. Frustration would more accurately describe what comes from the scientific end of the debate.

 

[Elrohir]

Seriously, I don't get it? One might think evolution is the correct theory of the origin of species, but why would one be upset, and at times offended, when someone says it's wrong?

It makes sense that religious people get personal about evolution's claims, because it discredits God as the creator. But why would evolutionists get upset about creationists, ID followers and the like? Why would they care?

Because to some people it isn't just a scientific theory. Its the basis of a whole worldview, a whole philosophy, that focuses on the natural world to the exclusion of God and anything beyond the material. Simply put, if you believe in Creation, then you must believer in a Creator, and in the possibility that He might just have an opinion on how we should act.

Honestly, I think this is really what has caused the backlash inside Christianity (And to a lesser extent, fundamentalist Islam) against secular society in general and evolutionary theory and scientists in particular. It isn't so much the theory itself - ask the average Creationist to explain carbon dating, or how oil formed, or how fossils work, and he'll probably only be able to give you a rudimentary answer. It isn't the science itself people have a problem with, it is the implications and the philosophy that others have brought with it. Many evolutionists have an almost religious fervor in their defense of the theory of evolution, and it is kind of disturbing.

I think it's a shame that what should solely be a scientific issue has instead become a religious and philosophical one. How exactly we came to be, biologically, isn't really important to most people, or to Christianity - shouldn't you still love your neighbor, even if he is descended from an ape like you? - but the materialistic God-denying philosophy that unfortunately so often comes with it is definitely a threat, and is what causes so much trouble. I don't think science is the problem - as I've said, most people don't understand the science involved, and don't care too much about it - it's what has been unfortunately and unnecessarily added to it.

 

[CartesianFart]

Because to some people it isn't just a scientific theory. Its the basis of a whole worldview, a whole philosophy, that focuses on the natural world to the exclusion of God and anything beyond the material. Simply put, if you believe in Creation, then you must believer in a Creator, and in the possibility that He might just have an opinion on how we should act.

Honestly, I think this is really what has caused the backlash inside Christianity (And to a lesser extent, fundamentalist Islam) against secular society in general and evolutionary theory and scientists in particular. It isn't so much the theory itself - ask the average Creationist to explain carbon dating, or how oil formed, or how fossils work, and he'll probably only be able to give you a rudimentary answer. It isn't the science itself people have a problem with, it is the implications and the philosophy that others have brought with it. Many evolutionists have an almost religious fervor in their defense of the theory of evolution, and it is kind of disturbing.

I think it's a shame that what should solely be a scientific issue has instead become a religious and philosophical one. How exactly we came to be, biologically, isn't really important to most people, or to Christianity - shouldn't you still love your neighbor, even if he is descended from an ape like you? - but the materialistic God-denying philosophy that unfortunately so often comes with it is definitely a threat, and is what causes so much trouble. I don't think science is the problem - as I've said, most people don't understand the science involved, and don't care too much about it - it's what has been unfortunately and unnecessarily added to it.

Not a bad neutral position coming from a Christian.

 

[bathsheba666]

Easy peasy.

There is long documented history of religious nutjobs defining what god did or didn't do, and then systematically setting fire to the tortured remains of the people who either disagreed with them, or failed to agree quickly enough.

Given the chance, this will happen again.

So shout them down while you are still allowed to.

 

[Elrohir]

Not a bad neutral position coming from a Christian.

The thing is, I'm more neutral than most. (And I say this honestly. ) I don't have a vested interest in convincing anyone that God created the world in seven days, or that the world is really four billion years old and we are biologically descended from simpler animals. It doesn't particularly interest me whether we're descended from Adam and Eve or lower life forms going all the way back to a primordial soup - either way, I'm still supposed to follow Christ and be the best person that I can.

I'm neutral because I'm equally exasperated with both sides. Evolutionists are being stupid because they're mixing in philosophy (If not secular religion, if you'll allow me to use contradictory terms) in with science. And creationists are being stupid because they won't ever try to see this as anything but a Crusade - and both sides refuse to shut up about it and go do something useful with their time instead of wasting it all arguing about whether the Earth is six thousand or six billion years old.

 

[Atlas14]

Because the theory of evolution is constantly being attacked by religious Creationists that have taken maybe one biology course in their entire life, and it is impossible to take people like that seriously, especially when they whip out their handy-dandy Bible verses and start citing Corinthians or some other NT stuff.

There are people that have careers based upon the foundations of science, and evolution is a general principle in this foundation. When you have people trying to undermine the sciences, which are based upon our understanding of facts, observations, and the scientific method- in order to require the teaching of ID as an academic alternative/equivalent, then the entire concept of schooling becomes quite meaningless.

Seeing ignorant people spout out creationist/ID crap is not only annoying, but counter-productive in any enviornment that cares the least about the truth, and academics.

 

[Leonel]

Because it's offensive to the Atheist Religion!

 

[joycem10]

Why do people get pissed about anything that doesnt concern them. Got me, I dont care. Poeple wanna believe in Fred and Wilma hanging with Dino the Dinosaur, its not my problem. Hell its probably good for me, makes me a more marketable and attractive person in comparison.

Why do people get pissed that you dont believe in thier god, why do people get pissed that you believe in a god. Why are people incapable of letting each other be as stupid as they want? Why do people feel the need to debate esoteric issues and try to jam their points down each others throats?

Answer those questions and you've got the key to human nature.

 

[WillJ]

What Asher and Warman said. Evolution hardly bears on scientists' lives in the way that religion bears on religious people's lives --- it's not personal, like you say --- but there's still the matter of knowledge vs. ignorance, and it's hard not to get passionate about that, whether the topic is biology or history or physics or anything else.

Because to some people it isn't just a scientific theory. Its the basis of a whole worldview, a whole philosophy, that focuses on the natural world to the exclusion of God and anything beyond the material. Simply put, if you believe in Creation, then you must believer in a Creator, and in the possibility that He might just have an opinion on how we should act.

Honestly, I think this is really what has caused the backlash inside Christianity (And to a lesser extent, fundamentalist Islam) against secular society in general and evolutionary theory and scientists in particular. It isn't so much the theory itself - ask the average Creationist to explain carbon dating, or how oil formed, or how fossils work, and he'll probably only be able to give you a rudimentary answer. It isn't the science itself people have a problem with, it is the implications and the philosophy that others have brought with it. Many evolutionists have an almost religious fervor in their defense of the theory of evolution, and it is kind of disturbing.

I think it's a shame that what should solely be a scientific issue has instead become a religious and philosophical one. How exactly we came to be, biologically, isn't really important to most people, or to Christianity - shouldn't you still love your neighbor, even if he is descended from an ape like you? - but the materialistic God-denying philosophy that unfortunately so often comes with it is definitely a threat, and is what causes so much trouble. I don't think science is the problem - as I've said, most people don't understand the science involved, and don't care too much about it - it's what has been unfortunately and unnecessarily added to it.

I share your pity on a scientific issue being politicized, but I think the creationists are much more at fault for that than the evolutionists. Any half-decent biology class/book will include information on evolution, but I've never heard of one claiming that god does not exist. Rather, it's only (with a couple exceptions) creationists that perceive a threat in evolution to their religion (which, of course, isn't the case).

 

[C~G]

Honestly, I think this is really what has caused the backlash inside Christianity (And to a lesser extent, fundamentalist Islam) against secular society in general and evolutionary theory and scientists in particular. It isn't so much the theory itself - ask the average Creationist to explain carbon dating, or how oil formed, or how fossils work, and he'll probably only be able to give you a rudimentary answer. It isn't the science itself people have a problem with, it is the implications and the philosophy that others have brought with it. Many evolutionists have an almost religious fervor in their defense of the theory of evolution, and it is kind of disturbing.

This fervor is mainly because creationism is favoured and still present when it should be as forgotten as theories about earth being flat.

And I'm not referring type of "creationism" that follows evolutionary principles and is maintained by God.

I think it's a shame that what should solely be a scientific issue has instead become a religious and philosophical one. How exactly we came to be, biologically, isn't really important to most people, or to Christianity - shouldn't you still love your neighbor, even if he is descended from an ape like you? - but the materialistic God-denying philosophy that unfortunately so often comes with it is definitely a threat, and is what causes so much trouble. I don't think science is the problem - as I've said, most people don't understand the science involved, and don't care too much about it - it's what has been unfortunately and unnecessarily added to it.

So you are seeing atheism as problem?
Well that figures.

Just turn that around and (about creationism):

But the idealiastic God-praising philosophy the unfortuntaely so often comes with it is defintely a threat and is what causes so much trouble.

This is what you get. But in general atheists or science community aren't proposing this, only few are. The problem is that just like you other religious people equatate evolution with godless atheism while atheists don't equatate necessarily creationism nothing to do with god but being completely whacko theory without any rationality or scientific grounding.

Evolution is a scientific theory without any add-on philosophical standing or ontological argument (even if it might appear so) if you are truly neutral about it while creationism isn't scientifc theory and it always has ontological argument within it.

 

[WillJ]

Hell its probably good for me, makes me a more marketable and attractive person in comparison.

No, it's not good for you. Ask any economist: the cost to you of other people being educated and you having to compete with them is far outweighed by the benefit to you of you being more productive when surrounded by more educated people (both directly in the workplace and indirectly in the voting booth).

Having a blasé attitude toward others' stupidity isn't very wise IMO (of course, I'm not really talking about evolution specifically anymore).

 

[Mandeville]

Seriously, I don't get it? One might think evolution is the correct theory of the origin of species, but why would one be upset, and at times offended, when someone says it's wrong?

It makes sense that religious people get personal about evolution's claims, because it discredits God as the creator. But why would evolutionists get upset about creationists, ID followers and the like? Why would they care?

Evolution is fact Homie. If someone told you a blatant and obvious lie every day it would eventually piss you off. So I have every right to get upset. Creationist get upset because they've lived the better part of their life attending these moronic religious ceremonies where you pray every Sunday. For most Christians maybe every other Sunday or Holidays only. It takes an awful lot of ignorance and stupidity to believe in a divine Creator.

It's like a crack addict. You don't like crack addicts do you? Same thing with religious people, they're crack addicts. You shouldn't like them.

 

[Masquerouge]

Well you said it yourself. "defending". People get personal when out of nowhere other people come and attack ToE.

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that annoys me is indeed when people try to attack ToE when obviously they have no scientific background whatsoever but somehow feel justified to argue against what is probably one of the most comprehensive and solid scientific theory out there.

 

[Elrohir]

I share your pity on a scientific issue being politicized, but I think the creationists are much more at fault for that than the evolutionists. Any half-decent biology class/book will include information on evolution, but I've never heard of one claiming that god does not exist. Rather, it's only (with a couple exceptions) creationists that perceive a threat in evolution to their religion (which, of course, isn't the case).

I think both sides are to blame as much as the other.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I try not to get personal, so I'll act as though this doesn't apply to me, but I think this sentence applies:

"Nothing in modern biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

Without evolution: there is no decent explanation for things such as relative advantage of replication. [wiki]Evolutionary algorithm[/wiki]s must be somehow wrong, unless they for some reason have been nonfunctional in reality. It explains age-related diseases and disorder. (Population Group A, with a disease that strikes people under 20, is more likely to die out than Group B, with a disease that strikes people over 30, if the incidence and mortality rates are the same. I trust I don't need to explain this further.) It also explains mortality in light of a tend towards fitness; once reproductive age has been passed, there is little to no fitness value in staying alive, except for advanced cases such as civilizations with a lot of lore to pass on.

Every anthropomorphic wording of the type "The organism developed feature X in order to do Y" is technically wrong, and should be worded "The organism was able to do Y because it had developed feature X, and feature X was selected for because of the increase in fitness gained by being able to do Y", which invokes evolution and fitness etc, instead of a concept of "will to improve".
Bacteria developing drug resistance is such an evolution-related concept. A bacterium mutates to gain feature X [resistance to a given drug] and can do Y [survive when the patient is dosed with the drug]. Without evolution, explanations for resistant bacteria tend towards anthropomorphic wordings. ("The bacteria became resistant in order to survive")