Why do people get so personal about defending evolution?

[Gogf]

Really, how so? And how would this hinder the progress of civilization?

Because modern society is based on modern science.

 

[Homie]

No, that is not it at all. You make a claim (that people habitually claim that the theory of evolution is 100% correct with no room for error) and I am disputing that claim.

You're saying people DON'T do this? People, like on this forum, like on this thread?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And I have better things to do with my time than digging it up for you. Surely, that should be obvious.

Don't make assertions that something is obvious if you are not willing to demonstrate it.

You're saying people DON'T do this? People, like on this forum, like on this thread?

I've never seen it. If you are going to make the claim that it has happened here, you will have to post a link. And it happens far less often than people saying the Bible is 100% definitely true with no chance it isn't.

 

[Gogf]

And I have better things to do with my time than digging it up for you. Surely, that should be obvious.

If you're too lazy to find your own argument, I doubt it was very intellectually rigorous. I refuse to accept an argument that is not presented to me. For all intents and purposes, you have yet to explain why natural selection cannot be tested repeatedly in a controlled environment.

 

[Homie]

Because modern society is based on modern science.

Now that's not very specific is it? In fact you haven't answered the question at all. I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say that the reason you haven't answered it is that you can't really imagine how anything would be different if we didn't believe in evolution, because it has no practical implications, no effect on the progress of society. It's just another belief system on the origins of species.

 

[Homie]

Don't make assertions that something is obvious if you are not willing to demonstrate it.

But I HAVE demonstrated it. Geez, what is up with people today.

 

[bhsup]

Peeks on wiki:

Could be something to do with the fact that several dedicated expeditions to track down the elusive bird coming up with zip, there being no confirmed sightings for 70 odd years and there still haven't been.

Nice example...

You're still missing my point. There have been several claimed sightings over the years. Nobody went apeshit over one of them until one of the scientist elite claimed they saw/heard one. Scientists dismiss average joe claim, so why not average joe dismiss scientist?

I guarantee you, if I say I saw a purple martin, I know what I'm talking about. I don't care if some birdie boy with a PhD says I couldn't have. Or, alternatively, a wolf when I was 9 years old, to be told that there was no way I saw a wolf in this part of Missouri. Oopsie, guess what they decide years later. Wolves exist here!!

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

@Homie: No, you haven't. You said there were links to it and then refused to show them.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No, because I think people make decisions based on their beliefs. It is virtually impossible to keep them out of the chamber.

So you want to exclude religous people from decision making? Gee, that sounds a lot like persecution. You don't think people have a right to believe what they want, and be represented adequately by people who have a similar outlook to them?

 

[mdwh]

Wheter people, politicians or even scientists believe in evolution or not, how does it effect progress? Really, how would it make a difference in our daily lives?

I imagine it would affect our understanding of genetics (along with biology, astronomy, geology, especially if you are a young-earther).

More generally, teaching non-science as science could long term greatly harm the nation's scientific progress.

 

[Homie]

If you're too lazy to find your own argument, I doubt it was very intellectually rigorous. I refuse to accept an argument that is not presented to me. For all intents and purposes, you have yet to explain why natural selection cannot be tested repeatedly in a controlled environment.

Fine, I'll repeat myself.

Natural selection can be tested in a lab. But natural selection is NOT the only process of evolution, although it is an integral part. I do believe in natural selection, but not in evolution.

That is the gist of what I said. You are equating natural selection with evolution, that is your folly.

Is there anything else you would like for me to do, my Master? Rub your feet perhaps?

 

[Bill3000]

So you want to exclude religous people from decision making? Gee, that sounds a lot like persecution. You don't think people have a right to believe what they want, and be represented adequately by people who have a similar outlook to them?

I don't think it's necessarily religious people - just stupid people. "Stupid" best represents the quality I am talking about - completely ignoring evidence for the sake of continuing to believe a false belief. The same type of thing can be said of other anti-intellectual movements, such as crackpot pseudoscientific theories.

And no, they don't deserve to be represented adequately by people who have the same outlook, because if you're anti-science,you don't deserve to be even remotely in charge of regulating it.

You're still missing my point. There have been several claimed sightings over the years. Nobody went apeshit over one of them until one of the scientist elite claimed they saw/heard one. Scientists dismiss average joe claim, so why not average joe dismiss scientist?

Probably because the claims couldn't be confirmed.

 

[Gogf]

Now that's not very specific is it? In fact you haven't answered the question at all. I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say that the reason you haven't answered it is that you can't really imagine how anything would be different if we didn't believe in evolution, because it has no practical implications, no effect on the progress of society. It's just another belief system on the origins of species.

Alright, I'll respond to this based on the good-faith assumption that you will respond to this post.

These sciences would be negatively impacted if they did not understand their basis. Human psychology and physiology are both rooted in the understanding of why our current form came about.

Nevertheless, creationism would not be the greatest threat from these politicians. I have never heard of anybody disbelieving in evolution for any reason other than blind faith in the bible. That is a belief that it would be extremely perilous for politicians to hold.

 

[Homie]

@Homie: No, you haven't. You said there were links to it and then refused to show them.

Links? What are you talking about?

I'm getting tired of this. Drop the topic, its not relevant to the thread, and it also makes no sense that I should bend over to quote myself every time someone asks a question that has already been addressed.

 

[mdwh]

Now that's not very specific is it? In fact you haven't answered the question at all. I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say that the reason you haven't answered it is that you can't really imagine how anything would be different if we didn't believe in evolution, because it has no practical implications, no effect on the progress of society. It's just another belief system on the origins of species.

I take it you object that Fundamentalism halves the science rate, and that the Theory of Evolution gets you two free advances?

 

[mdwh]

Natural selection can be tested in a lab. But natural selection is NOT the only process of evolution, although it is an integral part. I do believe in natural selection, but not in evolution.

So what bits of evolution do you not believe in?

 

[Gogf]

Fine, I'll repeat myself.

Natural selection can be tested in a lab. But natural selection is NOT the only process of evolution, although it is an integral part. I do believe in natural selection, but not in evolution.

That is the gist of what I said. You are equating natural selection with evolution, that is your folly.

Is there anything else you would like for me to do, my Master? Rub your feet perhaps?

How do you define evolution? That natural selection happened in the past and resulted in our current form? Of course that's not testable, but neither is anything else in the past.

So you want to exclude religous people from decision making? Gee, that sounds a lot like persecution. You don't think people have a right to believe what they want, and be represented adequately by people who have a similar outlook to them?

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I don't think anybody should be excluded from the political process. But I also don't think it's wise to elect people who have blind faith in the bible.

 

[El_Machinae]

Now that's not very specific is it? In fact you haven't answered the question at all. I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say that the reason you haven't answered it is that you can't really imagine how anything would be different if we didn't believe in evolution, because it has no practical implications, no effect on the progress of society. It's just another belief system on the origins of species.

It's also a system of thought. The idea that 'science must fit Scripture' is something that decimated the Muslim world (causing its slow decay) when Al Ghazali popularised the concept.

Sure, one doesn't need to 'believe' in evolution, but if you want any progress (and economic success and growth are tied to progress) then you need science.

In order to 'disbelieve' in evolution, you have to be ignorant of so much basic science that you're practically incapable of contributing to the scientific endeavour. ALL of the science being done these days is after a 4 year science undergrad: if you want to contribute to any of the biological fields, you're not going to be able to unless you understand the science that supports the ToE.

It's not that you 'have' to believe in Evolution. But you need to understand the scientific knowledge built up in the last 150 years. In order to form a scientific description of YECism, you need to completely not understand anything taught after the 2nd year courses.

 

[Homie]

I imagine it would affect our understanding of genetics (along with biology, astronomy, geology, especially if you are a young-earther).

More generally, teaching non-science as science could long term greatly harm the nation's scientific progress.

Whose talking about teaching? I sure wasn't?

To put it like this: You could teach neither, and it wouldn't make a difference other than that people would believe X is the reason we exist instead of Y.

I'll give you an example of something that would make a difference:
If we were to be taught the Theory of Corn-growing, and that theory claimed that corn would only grow on rocks. That theory would hinder our agriculture because corn doesn't grow on rocks, so therefore our corn yields would be non-existent and people would go hungry.

 

[The Yankee]

Does it matter if he did have some sort of stone he claimed was given to him by a magical entity?

From way back in page four...

And probably not, though I'd love to see his stones.

Could be a good tourist attraction.