Why do people get so personal about defending evolution?

[Masquerouge]

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.

Children are not equipped with the proper tools to know what's more beneficial to them. Education is there to give them those tools and also to avoid having them going into dead-ends. We know that Creationism is plain wrong, why teach them?

 

[CartesianFart]

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?

Why not, does every religion in the world have a unique way of explaining how life comes to being? Why not explore those avenue along side theories that is considered scientific?

 

[Lillefix]

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.

That's the point. Evolution is as certain as 2+2=4. But some people won't accept it.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Evolution is as certain as 2+2=4.

I will actually dispute that - as sure as we may be of any scientific theory, nothing can approach the certainty of mathematics.

 

[Lillefix]

I agree. Let's add almost, but that's a small almost.

 

[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.

That's completely wrong, and it shows a lack of understanding regarding what science is about.

Science can never be 100% sure something is right. It is about finding the best model to fit the facts. The models are basically always imperfect to some degree (with important ones to a very, very small degree). Determining the mass of oxygen requires a reliance on these imperfect models, but they are still very good models to go by. Why? Because when we find out they have mistakes, we fix them to the best of our ability. So the error in them goes down over time. The Theories regarding Evolution is a model that fits all of the facts, and like Gravity, they probably have some errors, but the general principle is as sound as possible (short of some god-like entity faking the fossil record). Certainly there are no alternative theories that fit the facts well, so it seems evolution is by far the best explanation, even the only real general explanation, we have for determining how life changes over time.

Creationism, on the other hand, doesn't change to fit the facts, and isn't a science. It is dogma. It is worthless as a science and always shall be. Unlike evolution, the creationist model isn't changed or modified when new facts are uncovered.

Going over it again: A Scientific Theory tries to model reality in some way. Some scientists work on the theories, some work on uncovering more facts regarding reality. If we uncover evidence that a scientific theory isn't working somewhere, then scientists go back to the theory and change it or replace it (e.g. Newtonian Mechanics with Relativistic). That doesn't mean that old theory was bad necessarily, because it could be very good within a certain subset of the universe (e.g. Newtonian Mechanics and low-velocity, low-gravity areas). What it does mean is that the old theory wasn't complete, and there is no theory that will probably ever be complete. Very, very accurate in terms of explaining reality and predicting what we will find in the future when we look around (e.g. evolution), but there will probably always be some gaps. Now, some gaps doesn't mean the theory is bad, as I have said, merely that it is incomplete. (However, creationism IS bad, and it can't be fixed to account for reality, unless you have god making the fossil record and genetics to fool us, which is NOT a valid scientific theory because it deals with something for which we have no evidence -- a meddlesome god-like entity).

 

[Elrohir]

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

They're probably made of inaccurate information anyway.

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.

So, in your view, "I believe the Bible says the Earth was created in seven literal days six thousand years ago" is just the first step in a road that inevitably leads towards "Stone the atheists!" Don't be absurd. You need to stop scaremongering - you're no better than the Christians who insist that evolution is just a pretext to ban Christianity in the US and lock Christians up in camps. You're on the other side of the issue, but the logic and rationality of your position is the same as theirs.

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.

I don't think simply correcting misinformation accounts for the volatile response many have on this issue. Do you see any other group in any field of science as aggressive and intolerant of opposing viewpoints as evolutionists?

Astronomers have as much to lose from the idea that the world is six thousand years old as evolutionists do. Why, then, aren't they as aggressive and loud on this issue as evolutionary biologists? I don't think a desire to simply correct wrong information lies at the heart of this. Don't get me wrong, that motivates many, I'm sure, but not all.

Science doesn't deny God.

No, true science does not. But scientists do, and they like to use science to try and back it up. (Which they can't do) The backlash isn't against science, it is against scientists who are pushing a specific theory.

 

[GenMarshall]

It's because they all want to get up in your face and become a jerk and tell you that your beliefs are "stupid" and "illogical" .

 

[Ayatollah So]

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?

Because I won't let you drive a wedge between my relatives and me!
Just soak up the family resemblance:

 

[frob2900]

So, in your view, "I believe the Bible says the Earth was created in seven literal days six thousand years ago" is just the first step in a road that inevitably leads towards "Stone the atheists!" Don't be absurd. You need to stop scaremongering

It's not absurd at all. All fundamentalist regimes start by taking small steps. It might not happen if the YECs "win", but it's still a possibility.

I don't think simply correcting misinformation accounts for the volatile response many have on this issue. Do you see any other group in any field of science as aggressive and intolerant of opposing viewpoints as evolutionists?

You obviously haven't looked into this. There are lots and lots of examples.

Astronomists against Astrologists.

Medical professionals opposing parents who refuse treatments to their children due to religious beliefs.

Almost anyone against Flat-Earthers.

No, true science does not. But scientists do, and they like to use science to try and back it up. (Which they can't do) The backlash isn't against science, it is against scientists who are pushing a specific theory.

Science is a way of thinking that (some would say) the YECs don't have.

 

[Elrohir]

It's not absurd at all. All fundamentalist regimes start by taking small steps. It might not happen if the YECs "win", but it's still a possibility.

Tell me - how many fundamentalist Christians do you know well? (In real life - internet conversations or watching videos or second-hand information don't count) I'm curious.

You obviously haven't looked into this. There are lots and lots of examples.

Astronomists against Astrologists.

Medical professionals opposing parents who refuse treatments to their children due to religious beliefs.

Almost anyone against Flat-Earthers.

I didn't say that there are no examples - just that they are much less vehement in their denial of Creationism than evolutionists are.

 

[frob2900]

Tell me - how many fundamentalist Christians do you know well? (In real life - internet conversations or watching videos or second-hand information don't count) I'm curious.

I didn't say "fundamentalist christians", I said "fundamentalist regimes", hence not singling out any specific group. How many muslim fundamentalists do you know?

I didn't say that there are no examples - just that they are much less vehement in their denial of Creationism than evolutionists are.

Less vehement? Guess how vehement things would get if a massive Astrologist movement suddenly sprung up, with millions of dollars in funds and support in Congress.

Exactly as vehement.

It's the danger to freedom caused by the fundamentalists that is making people so defensive. (freedom as in intellectual freedom in this case)

 

[Elrohir]

I didn't say "fundamentalist christians", I said "fundamentalist regimes", hence not singling out any specific group. How many muslim fundamentalists do you know?

But we are talking about Christians Creationists, are we not?

In person? None. But there are easily half a dozen fundamentalist Muslim regimes around the world, and many fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups - that there are violent Muslim fundamentalists on a large scale is obvious. Can you point to half as many violent fundamentalist Christians? A quarter? A tenth? Until you can show that there is a significant likelihood of a theocratic Christian regime coming about, and that it would be as bad as Saudi Arabia or Iran if it did, all you're doing is shamelessly scaremongering.

Less vehement? Guess how vehement things would get if a massive Astrologist movement suddenly sprung up, with millions of dollars in funds and support in Congress.

Exactly as vehement.

It's the danger to freedom caused by the fundamentalists that is making people so defensive. (freedom as in intellectual freedom in this case)

Who is getting millions of dollars from Congress? Can you point to a specific Creationist group that is getting millions of dollars and open support from Congress?

Intellectual freedom? I think you're confusing "We've got a different position!" with "We're going to kill you for disagreeing with us!". Those are two very different things. Many fundamentalist Christians in America hold the first, very few, if any, hold the second.

 

[frob2900]

But we are talking about Christians Creationists, are we not?

You may be. I'm talking about fundamentalists.

Who is getting millions of dollars from Congress? Can you point to a specific Creationist group that is getting millions of dollars and open support from Congress?

Enlighten yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute#Funding

Intellectual freedom? I think you're confusing "We've got a different position!" with "We're going to kill you for disagreeing with us!". Those are two very different things. Many fundamentalist Christians in America hold the first, very few, if any, hold the second.

I doubt you can speak for all fundamentalist groups in America, but at the moment your probably right.

 

[Elrohir]

You may be. I'm talking about fundamentalists.

Do fundamentalist Buddhists believe in YEC? What about fundamentalist Hindu's?

Practically no one but fundamentalist Christians do. I don't know why we're discussing fundamentalism is general - it doesn't matter. We're discussion creationism and evolutionism, and the response they have to each other.

Enlighten yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute#Funding

I'm still looking for where Creationist organizations actually got "millions" of dollars from the federal government....

I doubt you can speak for all fundamentalist groups in America, but at the moment your probably right.

I can't speak for them in the sense that I don't personally know all fundamentalists in America, but suffice to say I have a pretty good idea what constitutes the average fundamentalist American Christian, and killing people for denying YEC isn't in the cards.

 

[frob2900]

Do fundamentalist Buddhists believe in YEC? What about fundamentalist Hindu's?

Practically no one but fundamentalist Christians do. I don't know why we're discussing fundamentalism is general - it doesn't matter. We're discussion creationism and evolutionism, and the response they have to each other.

If you read my posts properly you'll see that I'm not arguing specifically against YEC, but more against the general anti-science, anti-reason sentiment that exists amongst fundamentalists.

Oh, and btw. that doesn't necessarily mean just fundamentalist religionists.

I can't speak for them in the sense that I don't personally know all fundamentalists in America, but suffice to say I have a pretty good idea what constitutes the average fundamentalist American Christian, and killing people for denying YEC isn't in the cards.

Really? Well you must be well-travelled then! I wouldn't presume to be able to speak for all pro-science people in my country.

Why is that?


Oh, yes, and you never replied to the sources on creationist support on Capitol Hill. As far as funding goes, where did you pull the words "From the Federal Government" from?

I said "million dollars in funds and support in congress", but I'll rephrase for you:
"YECs get millions of dollars in funds. They also get support in congress, but not in the form of federal grants"

 

[Elrohir]

If you read my posts properly you'll see that I'm not arguing specifically against YEC, but more against the general anti-science, anti-reason sentiment that exists amongst fundamentalists.

Oh, and btw. that doesn't necessarily mean just fundamentalist religionists.

Who are the fundamentalist non-religionists?

Really? Well you must be well-travelled then! I wouldn't presume to be able to speak for all pro-science people in my country.

I've attended conservative churches in Hawaii, Virginia, Nevada and Colorado on a regular basis. (A regular basis being a couple of years, at least) I've spent a great deal of time with people that most would term "fundamentalist" Christians, and who have some very strict and odd beliefs, even by my standards - I know people who insist that you shouldn't kiss anyone before your wedding day, and that even thirty year old officers in the army shouldn't be allowed to date unchaperoned. I've run up against a lot of really conservative people all over the country - I think I know what I'm talking about when I say that they are not a violent group. Sure, there may be a few nuts, as is to be expected in any large group, but by and large this isn't a violent group.

I'm young. I'm not sure that I am "well traveled" - but I'm not stupid, and I do know what I'm talking about.

Oh, yes, and you never replied to the sources on creationist support on Capitol Hill. As far as funding goes, where did you pull the words "From the Federal Government" from?

I said "million dollars in funds and support in congress", but I'll rephrase for you:
"YECs get millions of dollars in funds. They also get support in congress, but not in the form of federal grants"

They get their money from private donors and corporations. That is not federal support. Your evidence doesn't support that, so either change your argument or provide better evidence.

 

[frob2900]

Who are the fundamentalist non-religionists?

Communists

(but actually I'm serious, look into Lysenko, a soviet biologist)

I've attended conservative churches in Hawaii, Virginia, Nevada and Colorado on a regular basis. (A regular basis being a couple of years, at least)...

..I'm young. I'm not sure that I am "well traveled" - but I'm not stupid, and I do know what I'm talking about.

So what? I've been to conferences in several cities and talked to scientists and science students from all over the place, but I still realize that the sample is much too small for me to be able to claim that I am a "voice of the community". People are much too diverse.

They get their money from private donors and corporations. That is not federal support. Your evidence doesn't support that, so either change your argument or provide better evidence.

My evidence doesn't need to support that, since I never claimed it.

(hint: support can take other forms than money)

 

[VX250]

Evolution is a pack of shameless lies, I don’t know why some people insist on defending it.

People who defend the sickening theory of evolution are sadly no better than holocaust deniers if you ask me. Just my opinion

 

[CaptainF]

Because they are small minded, and or have nothing worthwhile to talk about.