Why do people get so personal about defending evolution?

[Atlas14]

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.

Lets set the record straight:

*Theory of Evolution*:

1. Very consistent with itself, and within the scrutiny of other fields of science
2. Provides scientists with a practical understanding of basic morphological, physiological, ecological, genetic history, and has many key concepts applied today, that benefit our health, economy, and planet.
3. Virtually all biologists agree that the ToE is the best, most practical explanation for evolution we have
4. When taught to students, God is never mentioned, religion is never mentioned, and only evidence along with logical thought processes and the "evolution" of the ToE (aka the birth, growth, and verification of ToE)
5. Has no political, social, or religious undertones, i.e. no secret agenda
6. Has overwhelming evidence, observations, and technologies to support its validity as a theory, not just some bunch of hogwash created by some religion-haters

 

[frob2900]

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

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

Science is a useful instrument that can "labor" for us, yes. I happen to think its much more than that, but lets go with your definition for the moment (It's a good definition for people who aren't personally interested in science, and only need to know what it can do for them).

So suppose science is our "grunt laborer". It's doing a lot of heavy work that we could otherwise never do. Suddenly religious people appear and say "We want to replace your laborer with this!" and then they show you a pile of rocks they've stacked up to look like a grunt laborer.

Some people get fooled by the pile of rocks, because it "seems to be just as grunty" as the other laborer. But of course what the supporters of science know is that if we let the creationists replace science with the pile of rubble, science will stop working for us. It will become a useless pile of rocks.

Creationist ideas don't work. They aren't useful to anyone except as a hobby for religionists.

I will reiterate: Creationism is useless (as in the true sense of the word) There is nothing useful you can do with creationist theories.

 

[Homie]

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.

Again, and for the last time, I'm not talking about scientists here, I'm talking about people like you and me on a forum, or in a cafe, talking. If I meant scientists, I would specify that I was talking about scientists.

 

[Homie]

Do you feel arrogant for beleiving that you exist?

My existence, unlike evolution, can be observed and tested repeatedly in a controlled environment.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Again, and for the last time, I'm not talking about scientists here, I'm talking about people like you and me on a forum, or in a cafe, talking. If I meant scientists, I would specify that I was talking about scientists.

What is the difference? I say that we can make inferences about the past because professionals have looked at the evidence; I don't see that as arrogant any more than the study of history.

 

[Homie]

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

Relevance? Are you claiming I don't value reason? Last time I checked, reason was not a synonym for science. Although reason is implemented in science doesn't mean you can use the words interchangeably.

 

[Gogf]

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 we don't like when the progress of civilization is obstructed by dogmatic belief.

 

[Homie]

What is the difference? I say that we can make inferences about the past because professionals have looked at the evidence; I don't see that as arrogant any more than the study of history.

It is the absolutism at which it is declared that is arrogant. History itself shows how arrogant people have been at declaring something absolutely, positively, 100% correct, and later been proved wrong.

 

[Gogf]

My existence, unlike evolution, can be observed and tested repeatedly in a controlled environment.

Natural selection cannot be tested repeatedly in a controlled environment?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It is the absolutism at which it is declared that is arrogant. History itself shows how arrogant people have been at declaring something absolutely, positively, 100% correct, and later been proved wrong.

So is it better to never say anything is right? Scientists in any field don't feel the need to go around saying they are absolutely without a doubt 100% correct; evolutionary biology or otherwise.

 

[Homie]

Because we don't like when the progress of civilization is obstructed by dogmatic belief.

How is the progress of civilization obstructed because one theory of how we came into existence differs from another theory? Wheter I believe in evolution or not will have no impact on progress.

 

[Gogf]

How is the progress of civilization obstructed because one theory of how we came into existence differs from another theory? Wheter I believe in evolution or not will have no impact on progress.

Whether you believe in evolution or not doesn't matter; whether our politicians do does.

 

[Homie]

Natural selection cannot be tested repeatedly in a controlled environment?

Read up on this vey thread. Your question has been addressed even before you posed it, because I knew someone would. I knew because every creo vs Evo thread is the same, you can actually predict the future in these threads, pretty neat.

 

[bhsup]

Because we don't like when the progress of civilization is obstructed by dogmatic belief.

You mean like scientists who sometimes become so cock sure of themselves that they dismiss anything they disagree with?

Let's take the Ivory Billed Woodpecker. Long thought to be extinct by scientists, they refused to believe or even accept reports of sightings by locals. Dismissed, scoffed off. Oooh, but suddenly an ornithologist hears what he thinks is one and sees a flash of movement. WOW, these things might still exist because one of our bretheren might have seen one!! Who's arrogant?? Who's dogmatic?? Who's way too full of themselves??

 

[Gogf]

Read up on this vey thread. Your question has been addressed even before you posed it, because I knew someone would. I knew because every creo vs Evo thread is the same, you can actually predict the future in these threads, pretty neat.

I have no interest in going on a wild goose chase through ten pages of you redirecting people to other posts. I'll read the opening post, this page, and part of the last page. Your explanation of why natural selection supposedly cannot be tested in a controlled environment is not there. If you'd like to provide a link, I'll be glad to rebut your post, but the onus is on you to provide your argument.

 

[Homie]

So is it better to never say anything is right? Scientists in any field don't feel the need to go around saying they are absolutely without a doubt 100% correct; evolutionary biology or otherwise.

Come on! I'm not saying scientists say this, people do! I even addressed this with a reply a minute ago. Had you forgot?

 

[Homie]

Whether you believe in evolution or not doesn't matter; whether our politicians do does.

No, not really.

 

[Gogf]

You mean like scientists who sometimes become so cock sure of themselves that they dismiss anything they disagree with?

Yup! Those are commonly called "bad scientists."

Let's take the Ivory Billed Woodpecker. Long thought to be extinct by scientists, they refused to believe or even accept reports of sightings by locals. Dismissed, scoffed off. Oooh, but suddenly an ornithologist hears what he thinks is one and sees a flash of movement. WOW, these things might still exist because one of our bretheren might have seen one!!

Are scientists also arrogant and dogmatic when they don't believe in every local who claims to have seen bigfoot or Elvis Presley?

Who's arrogant?? Who's dogmatic?? Who's way too full of themselves??

People who hold unscientific views based on faith.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Whether you believe in evolution or not doesn't matter; whether our politicians do does.

No, what matters is whether or not they're intent on drafting those beliefs into a bill, not what they actually believe.

People who hold unscientific views based on faith.

That's bordering on a flame. You can think what you want of the pious, but don't go bashing them because you don't share the same beliefs.

 

[Gogf]

No, not really.

It absolutely matters! Our politicians have the ability to make laws, and they will make those laws based on their beliefs.