Why do people get so personal about defending evolution?

[Eran of Arcadia]

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.

See, now you are confusing "Creationism" and religion. If I called you a moron for not believing in God, you are liable to get upset. Likewise, saying that my worldview requires ignorance and stupidity would bother me if your opinion were somehow relevant to me in any way. (Of course, saying one shouldn't like religious people is liable to get you in trouble one day.)

But besides truth being valuable for its own sake, and besides that fact that most Creationist arguments explicitly or implicitly villify scientists who deal in evolution, the fact is that the particualr brand of Creationism we all know and love tries to supress not only actual science, but other forms of creationism that stem from other faith views.

 

[WillJ]

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

Maybe. I wonder if there are any statistics on the matter?

 

[LordRahl]

Becasuse what starts with "innocent" denying of Evolution is just the first step to eventual public stonings in soccer stadiums, because you didn't wear a burka. You have to nip fundamentalism in its earliest stage, before it becomes the new Taliban.

 

[drachasor]

Because truth is precious and important. The well-being of our civilization rests on our ability to look at the world and honestly assess how it works. That's the only way we can confront problems and overcome them consistently. This requires the ability to utilize scientific thought, and so when someone attacks one realm of scientific thought, they are attacking the foundation that we must depend upon to survive and thrive.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

@Lord Rahl: I don't really think that most people are defending evolution to stem a potential theocracy of Creationists - you may believe this to be the case, but it is not why (say) scientists care so much about what is taught in schools, I suspect yours is a minority view.

 

[Shadylookin]

I think frustration has a lot to do with it. Even though 99% of biologists accept evolution, people that have never taken a biology course in their life are telling them they're wrong. I guess it would be easy to brush this off, but it's not just laymen that are disagreeing it's people in congress and the executive branch too.

it would be like an 80 year old telling me the internet is a lie and having most of congress agree with him despite that he's obviously wrong.

 

[Mandeville]

See, now you are confusing "Creationism" and religion. If I called you a moron for not believing in God, you are liable to get upset. Likewise, saying that my worldview requires ignorance and stupidity would bother me if your opinion were somehow relevant to me in any way. (Of course, saying one shouldn't like religious people is liable to get you in trouble one day.)

But besides truth being valuable for its own sake, and besides that fact that most Creationist arguments explicitly or implicitly villify scientists who deal in evolution, the fact is that the particualr brand of Creationism we all know and love tries to supress not only actual science, but other forms of creationism that stem from other faith views.

I don't care what your "world-view" is. Like I said, evolution is fact. Its not my problem if people can't come to terms with reality. Any deviation from Evolution is idiotic and unsubstantiated.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I don't care what your "world-view" is. Like I said, evolution is fact. Its not my problem if people can't come to terms with reality. Any deviation from Evolution is idiotic and unsubstantiated.

Now you are saying that evolution is correct (or I assume, that the theory of evolution by natural selection is the best explanation for biological diversity). I agree fully. But that isn't what your first post said.

 

[warpus]

Many evolutionists have an almost religious fervor in their defense of the theory of evolution, and it is kind of disturbing. .

I am guessing that by 'evolutionists' you are talking about evolutionary biologists... Well.. Evolutionary Biologists study evolution.. They know it inside-out.. If somebody who doesn't understand the field as well as they do starts spreading mis-information about it, you can be sure that evolutionary biologists are going to correct them.

I'm a web developer - if I see somebody saying that Javascript is a server-side language, you can be sure that I'm going to correct them.

It's a matter of preventing mis-information from spreading.

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.

Science focuses on the natural world. It is the world that can be studied with science. The supernatural can't.

Since the supernatural cannot be studied with science (nor is there any evidence that it actually exists), it only makes sense for science to focus on nature.

And I don't really know many people who use the theory of evolution (or any other scientific theory) to build up a philisophical framework from. It is rather people who support creationism who claim that evolution(ism) is a religion - and therefore claim that the theory is the basis of some sort of atheistic point of view. It's just rhetoric.

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.

Science doesn't deny God.

Science is open to all venues of explanation, so long as there is some sort of evidence supporting it.

Thus far there has been none for God or Gods, therefore he isn't included in any scientific theories.

If there was, he would be, no doubt.

 

[CartesianFart]

I always have in mind that if both incapatible doctrines are subject of a debate on whether to teach whatever of those two in a public science class, then we ought to find a common ground by allowing those two doctrines in a altogether different classroom. By allowing a new course subject such as philosophy for all kids in a seperate classroom outside of the science one will allow people to choose which of those two doctrines that they want to believe in.

 

[Masquerouge]

I always have in mind that if both incapatible doctrines are subject of a debate on whether to teach whatever of those two in a public science class, then we ought to find a common ground by allowing those two doctrines in a altogether different classroom. By allowing a new course subject such as philosophy for all kids in a seperate classroom outside of the science one will allow people to choose which of those two doctrines that they want to believe in.

And you consider Evolution a doctrine that you believe in or not?

I am STRONGLY against all ideas of putting YEC and ToE on the same bag, giving them equal time and equal care in order to let people "decide".

I'm gonna lose the debate by using Godwynn, but what next, have 30 minutes for the Nazis, 30 minutes for the Jews, and let people decide?

 

[drachasor]

I always have in mind that if both incapatible doctrines are subject of a debate on whether to teach whatever of those two in a public science class, then we ought to find a common ground by allowing those two doctrines in a altogether different classroom. By allowing a new course subject such as philosophy for all kids in a seperate classroom outside of the science one will allow people to choose which of those two doctrines that they want to believe in.

Evolutionary Theory is a science, not a doctrine like Creationism. The Theory of Evolution most certainly belongs in science class.

-Drachasor

 

[JollyRoger]

I always have in mind that if both incapatible doctrines are subject of a debate on whether to teach whatever of those two in a public science class, then we ought to find a common ground by allowing those two doctrines in a altogether different classroom.

We already do - it's called Sunday School.

 

[CartesianFart]

And you consider Evolution a doctrine that you believe in or not?

Any theories to me is something of a belief in totality. I am a parts man.

I am STRONGLY against all ideas of putting YEC and ToE on the same bag, giving them equal time and equal care in order to let people "decide".

Well, for me, I find it necessary to allow many things on the table for the children to decide which one is most beneficial to them.

I also have to include that giving children a philosophy course does not just handle lone subject of evolution and creationism but also other things of other interest that also should and ought to be discussed.

I'm gonna lose the debate by using Godwynn, but what next, have 30 minutes for the Nazis, 30 minutes for the Jews, and let people decide?

Totally different subject. The last time i'd checked, you are in the wrong class and should go down the hall to Mr. Whatever's History class.

 

[warpus]

Well, for me, I find it necessary to allow many things on the table for the children to decide which one is most beneficial to them.

So in math class we should give the option of accepting either:

2+2=4

OR

2+2=5

?

 

[drachasor]

So in math class we should give the option of accepting either:

2+2=4

OR

2+2=5

?

The latter is certainly beneficial at the bank.

 

[CartesianFart]

Evolutionary Theory is a science, not a doctrine like Creationism. The Theory of Evolution most certainly belongs in science class.

-Drachasor

Evolutionary theory is a something of a science only as long it is a theorectical one. Not a pure science such as determining the weight of oxygen as many examples.

We already do - it's called Sunday School.

I was referring to public schools not private ones.

So in math class we should give the option of accepting either:

2+2=4

OR

2+2=5

?

Why be rediculous? That is obvious a whole different subject that correctly belongs to math not theories of how life becomes to being as it is now.

 

[Mandeville]

C'mon, in public schools the idea of creationism shouldn't even enter the classroom until highschool when a kid can pick a religion course to take, if they want. Creationists try to avoid the entire scientific process by going around everyone, trying to get their story taught in school to take advantage of children at an early age. Im sure if a kid wanted to read up on creationism he could go to a library or online to find this readily accessible BS. Instead some crazy ass Jesuslovers think the educated world owes them some free spot in of all places, a school. It's really pathetic and sad that this discussion is even taking place in the United States, because it isn't really a discussion to begin with. It's just a bunch of godlovers in the bible belt who have maintained this sick majority of god-fearing individuals because they were able to get at these children right from birth, fighting to remain in power and to overcome their own guilt for having followed such a rediculous backwards ass way of life for so long.

 

[Atlas14]

What about the Native American creation story, and the Hindu one, and the Aztec one, and the Mayan one, and the Viking one, and the Botswanan one, and the Canadian one? Will they all be taught as well? Will the irrelevancy of separation of church and state be taught in this philosophy class as well?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I actually do find other creation stories interesting (of course, it should probably be mentioned that there is no "Native American" creation story, there are hundreds, many never documented) for both their similarities and their differences.