Why do people get so personal about defending evolution?

[Atlas14]

The thread topic does not ask why a scientist would be prone to defend evolution with vigor, it asks why regular joes who barely know what they are defgending, still are defending it, and with great passion.

What do you define as regular joes who barely know what they are defending? How many biology courses have you taken? How many religion courses have you taken? I think you, having little knowledge of biology and the ToE, seem to think that just because a bunch of people know more than you do on a certain hot subject, they are all a bunch of regular joes who barely know what they are talking about. The ones defending it with such great passion, are largely the ones who have taken more than one biology course in their life where they actually learn something, as opposed to going to Sunday School once a week and wondering why "learning" that God created all the animals and plants in 7 days doesn't help them in science, or the real life at all.

I hardly think your analogy is apt. And furthermore, alot of the replies on this thread have been of this type:"Because evolution rocks, and creationism sucks! Yeah, woot woot, science is the bomb!!!" That's pretty much been it, but veiled of course, so as to seem all objective, smart and balanced, while in reality its nothing more than cheering for ones team.

Rather than post threads about how aggrevated you get when people with more knowledge than you completely destroy the arguments set forth by Creationists, you could actually take some biology courses, and form a logical, evidence-based viewpoint.

Give me a break. What makes these scientists more than human? They're not! The piltdown-man isn't the only example of reputable scientists hoaxing to prove evolution. Not that that's their real motive, their real motive is gaining respect and recognition for making great finds, and their human nature leads them to cheat to achieve it.
I'm not saying scientists are less trustable than regular folk, but they aren't more trustable either. It annoys me that people seem to elevate "Science" to the point of worship, when really it is nothing else than people trying to figure out nature.

What was God's motive when he "intelligently created" more than 12 different species of elephants, and only to have two current species remaining today, equating to a very poor species-creation-success-rate?

What is your motive in not educating yourself in biology?

99.9% of actual scientists have little time to be wasting creating hoaxes and false information to prove a 2000 yr. old creation story wrong. Not only would their grant be taken away in a heart-beat, but they would never be given respect in the field of biology or any other science for a long, long time.

 

[Homie]

Because when someone answers in an objective, smart and balanced way, you asume they are merely cheering for ones team. "In reality"

So anything anyone sais will be explained by you as: "cheering for one's team"

So what's the point in replying?

Come on. That's not true. I can pick out the true smart answers from the "wanting to appear smart" one, most experienced posters can spot the phonies, and most experienced posters will ignore them, not dignifying them with an answer.

 

[Che Guava]

The thread topic does not ask why a scientist would be prone to defend evolution with vigor, it asks why regular joes who barely know what they are defgending, still are defending it, and with great passion.

Some people, whether they are well-informed or not, do have a strong personal dedication to logic and reason, upon which the scientific method and its theories are based.

I hardly think your analogy is apt.

It describes pretty well how I feel a lot of the time....

And furthermore, alot of the replies on this thread have been of this type:"Because evolution rocks, and creationism sucks! Yeah, woot woot, science is the bomb!!!" That's pretty much been it, but veiled of course, so as to seem all objective, smart and balanced, while in reality its nothing more than cheering for ones team.

I happen to think that ther have been a few very eloquent responses here, but as for the wooting, that's hardly exclusive to one side of the debate. Short answer: there are always idiots willing to defend something for no other reason that to hear themselves talk.

Give me a break. What makes these scientists more than human? They're not! The piltdown-man isn't the only example of reputable scientists hoaxing to prove evolution. Not that that's their real motive, their real motive is gaining respect and recognition for making great finds, and their human nature leads them to cheat to achieve it.

The methodology they use is designed to remove bia: of course the scientists aren't completely, but there is an entire system set up to ensure the highest level of objectiveness possible. I don't beleive that there is any such rigor for philosophical or faith debates, and thus, when it comes to describing nature and the environment we live in, science is a better choice.

I'm not saying scientists are less trustable than regular folk, but they aren't more trustable either. It annoys me that people seem to elevate "Science" to the point of worship, when really it is nothing else than people trying to figure out nature.

People have always tried to figure out nature, whether they were scientists, shamans, theologians, philosophers, or just your average lay person. So far, he best method that we have of explaining the mechanics of the world around us is through science. Scientists no more 'worship' science than politicians 'worship' democracy. It's simply the best method we have at our disposal.

 

[Homie]

Well, if I tell you that you spent yesterday on a magic castle on the darkside of the moon, how would you react?

You can't "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that you weren't, but it's rather likely that you weren't. Still, even though you can't prove your point, or disprove mine (to the degree you seem to require) that doesn't make my absurd theory relevant in any way whatsoever.

The magic castle theory is to your theory about what you did yesterday, what creationism is to evolution.

So how would you react if there were a bunch of people constantly saying "Hey, Homie, how was it in the magic castle?"?

I know what you are saying. I'm just pointing out that people throw out words that they shouldn't. Like "Evolution has been scientifically proven" when actually, technically, it has NOT been scientifically proven.

And time is also part of my reasoning on this: We cannot be so arrogant to claim we know exactly what happened so long ago, even though something seems more likely.

 

[Homie]

You know what happens to your reputation when your published findings are shown to be bull? Maybe you can ask the guy who thought he had found proof for homeopathy (search for Benveniste) It ruined his carreer when he was shown wrong.

Scientists are very unforgiving to their own kind.

Oh, I agree.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

How is making reasonable inferences of what happened in the past, based on the evidence it left and on the present, "arrogance"? No scientist as far as I know claims certainty.

 

[frob2900]

I know what you are saying. I'm just pointing out that people throw out words that they shouldn't. Like "Evolution has been scientifically proven" when actually, technically, it has NOT been scientifically proven.

I suppose part of the frustration is having to debate against the creationist mindset. The creationists arguments are so completely removed from science and are completely rooted in preconception that it's impossible to have a scientific debate.

This leads to frustration. People then lower the level of their conversation to try and hammer it in to the creationists that what the creationists are saying is so incredibly absurd in the first place.

(And that's not a slur against creationists. What they are saying really is absurd if you look at it objectively)

 

[The Lombard]

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?

Most don't get personal. No more so than the other side.

The reason they argue with the 'other side' is because they think their own view is right and that the other is outmoded and incorrect. They get frustrated with the blithe responses and sophistries given by all too many Creationists and IDers - chief among which is 'Teach the controversy' - rather than with Creationism and ID as theories in themselves.

There's also the innate defensive reaction against 'heresy'. People don't like others muscling in. Creationism and ID have pseudoscientific elements based on things like special pleading, question begging, absolute faith, arguments from ignorance, arguments from lack of imagination, etc. Fallacious reasoning is not acceptable in science. And I do mean science - not the dysphemistic 'mainstream science' term that gets abused, thrown around as a way to include non-scientific ideas or methods under the umbrella of science. When these things claim that they are scientific, people who follow (or believe they follow) proper scientific principles will get miffed.

Look at it from the other point of view - how would a very conservative fundamentalist Church react if scientists started clamouring at the government to let them start teaching 'evolutionary theism' and modern geology during Sunday services?

it asks why regular joes who barely know what they are defgending, still are defending it, and with great passion.

Because a lot of people, no matter what they believe in, do so arbitrarily and defend/propone it in a partizan manner. It's always tempting to take a House angle and call them all idiots, but that's probably unfair. It's just an aspect of human nature. Heh, maybe a survival mechanism for accepting good advice from strong tribe/pack leaders...

This is ironic in the case of Evolution theory and Astrophysics, which are founded on principles of critical thinking - but life's full of ironies like that. You'll find just as many among the followers of any theory, religion, fashion or philosophy you'd care to name.

 

[Che Guava]

I know what you are saying. I'm just pointing out that people throw out words that they shouldn't. Like "Evolution has been scientifically proven" when actually, technically, it has NOT been scientifically proven.

And time is also part of my reasoning on this: We cannot be so arrogant to claim we know exactly what happened so long ago, even though something seems more likely.

True, but we also owe it to ourselves to go along with the theory that best stands up to evidence and scientific rigors. In terms of all the evidence that we have collected thus far, the overwhelming majority support the notions that:

(1) the earth is billions, rather than thousands, of years old.

(2) The number, diversity and identity of species on earth have changed drastically since life began on the planet.

(3) Certain species that did not live at the same time share very similar physiology, DNA patterns and ecological niches, in such a way that a succession of species from common ancestors is the most likely explanation for the current diversity of life on the planet.

Do you feel arrogant for beleiving that you exist? THere certainly is a lot of evidence in suport of that claim, just in your day to day observations, but there is no proof positive. Still, I imagine you probably go along with life with those assumptions, until radical evidence to the contrary forces you to reeavluate that position.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

sorry to jump in without reading, but it all reminds me of planet of the apes.

would you be mad if you were the human in the situation? not necessarily that you are factually right while the religion is factually wrong, as was the case in planet of the apes, but that you know in your own heart that you are right and that they are wrong.

both sides think they are right, however when the status quo is challenged, things get hairy because it's....the status quo.

 

[warpus]

There's not nearly as much credit given to debunking an idea as there is to coming up with one. I bet you can name plenty of famous scientists off the top of your head you came up with new ideas and finds. But can you name one (not using google or whatever) that is famous FOR debunking an idea?
Secondly, evolution cannot be disproven for the same reason it cannot be proven: It happens over such a large time-span that it cannot be observed.

Einstein is pretty famous for replacing Newton's theories with his own theories of relativity.

It's not that Newton's theories were wrong per se - this usually doesn't happen in science. They simply apply to a specific subset of the Universe. Einstein's theories cover more of the Universe.. They are more inclusive.. more right.

The reason not many theories are simply thrown out the window is that they are usually right as far as some subset of the Universe goes.. otherwise the theory would have never been accepted as the test results would have shown that it was wrong.

We know that the theory of evolution is right.. we are missing some details. If anything ever replaces it, it's going to simply cover a much larger context than what the theory currently covers.

SOmeone proving that the theory is pure bunk would be a huge surprise - and would indeed make whoever was able to show this an incredibly famous person indeed.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Homie is right that formally there is no such thing as scientific proof. I use the term myself and it's not the right term to use.

Talkorigins can explain this so much better then I can

 

[Homie]

Some people, whether they are well-informed or not, do have a strong personal dedication to logic and reason, upon which the scientific method and its theories are based.



It describes pretty well how I feel a lot of the time....



I happen to think that ther have been a few very eloquent responses here, but as for the wooting, that's hardly exclusive to one side of the debate. Short answer: there are always idiots willing to defend something for no other reason that to hear themselves talk.




The methodology they use is designed to remove bia: of course the scientists aren't completely, but there is an entire system set up to ensure the highest level of objectiveness possible. I don't beleive that there is any such rigor for philosophical or faith debates, and thus, when it comes to describing nature and the environment we live in, science is a better choice.



People have always tried to figure out nature, whether they were scientists, shamans, theologians, philosophers, or just your average lay person. So far, he best method that we have of explaining the mechanics of the world around us is through science. Scientists no more 'worship' science than politicians 'worship' democracy. It's simply the best method we have at our disposal.

I have no doubt that studying nature is the best way to learn about it (Which is what science is, am I right?). I am not on an anti-science crusade here, I just don't get why science has become such a cultural icon in the west. People who don't study it, and even people who aren't interested in it, will still put it up on a high pedistal, and especially evolution. They will defend it like something they hold dear, and attack ferociously, like our friend Atlas here, he is a perfect example of what this thread is about.

 

[warpus]

And time is also part of my reasoning on this: We cannot be so arrogant to claim we know exactly what happened so long ago, even though something seems more likely.

If something is the only explanation given all the facts, we'll assume that it is what actually happened until somebody can provide another explanation that explains even more.. or a fact that contradicts the explanation.

 

[frob2900]

I have no doubt that studying nature is the best way to learn about it (Which is what science is, am I right?). I am not on an anti-science crusade here, I just don't get why science has become such a cultural icon in the west. People who don't study it, and even people who aren't interested in it, will still put it up on a high pedistal, and especially evolution.

People put science on a pedestal because it has brought us:

• More efficient agriculture
• Modern medicine
• Electricity
• Electronics, computers
• Motorized transport, aircraft
• Telecommunications

You take all these things for granted, but if you live a modern, comfortable life and don't put science on a pedestal then you are a complete and utter ingrate.

 

[Che Guava]

I have no doubt that studying nature is the best way to learn about it (Which is what science is, am I right?).

Indeed!

I am not on an anti-science crusade here, I just don't get why science has become such a cultural icon in the west. People who don't study it, and even people who aren't interested in it, will still put it up on a high pedistal, and especially evolution.

Again, I think that democracy comes in as a good analogy. How many citizens of the west actually understand the intricacies of thier elected gov'ts? How many can effectively read laws and understand how they apply to them? How many could even describe the essential differences between a bicameral parliamentary system and a uncameral republic? Hell, I know I can't!

But I know enough to trust it and I see the results. I think a lot of people feel the same way about science: they have a great deal of respect for reason, logic, and objectiveness, and they know that these are the central tenets of science and its theories. Science, like democracy, also gives tangeable benefits to people in teh form of technology, which doesn't hurt either.

I think that you underestimate people's understanding and appreciation of both science and evolution: many people don't know the whole story (who does?) but they know enough to trust in it.

They will defend it like something they hold dear, and attack ferociously, like our friend Atlas here, he is a perfect example of what this thread is about.

No need for pointing fingers, now...

 

[C~G]

You take all these things for granted, but if you live a modern, comfortable life and don't put science on a pedestal then you are a complete and utter ingrate.

I guess I'm utter ingrate then.

 

[warpus]

I have no doubt that studying nature is the best way to learn about it (Which is what science is, am I right?). I am not on an anti-science crusade here, I just don't get why science has become such a cultural icon in the west. People who don't study it, and even people who aren't interested in it, will still put it up on a high pedistal, and especially evolution.

Cultural icon? Not sure what you mean here.. but yeah, reason is something you should value highly, imo.

They will defend it like something they hold dear, and attack ferociously, like our friend Atlas here, he is a perfect example of what this thread is about.

If any other major & accepted scientific theory came under attack by people who don't know what they're talking about, you betcha that you'd see the same thing happening.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

People put science on a pedestal because it has brought us:

• More efficient agriculture
• Modern medicine
• Electricity
• Electronics, computers
• Motorized transport, aircraft
• Telecommunications

You take all these things for granted, but if you live a modern, comfortable life and don't put science on a pedestal then you are a complete and utter ingrate.

but science isnt for us to worship like an artificial god.

it's to shackle up, not fed, and forced to do grunt labor.

 

[Agent Cooper]

I suppose part of the frustration is having to debate against the creationist mindset. The creationists arguments are so completely removed from science and are completely rooted in preconception that it's impossible to have a scientific debate.

I agree.

Another thing I would like to add, which hasn't been covered sofar:

Religions finest hour is of a moral and philosophical nature, not scientific. Billions of religious people worldwide through history, found comfort, guidiance and support in their religious beliefs and were for the most part, made better or more caring people partly because of that.

So why the need to explain the 'nature of nature' or scientific concepts through religion with the Bible as some sort of blueprint? Imo that's not why religion exists and it's not why relion is still important to many people in the Modern World.

Creationism is like the product developers at McDonalds trying to build BMW's with their handbooks of foodproduction as the only guidience tool, when they really should be making better burgers instead.