Why do people reject evolution?
- Thread starter disgruntledgamer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Of course you can. Always happy to <url=http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5788/765.summary>source my claims. Unfortunately you do have to be logged in to access the full study text but at <url=http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5788/765.figures-only>figures only you can see that this study is the origin for the graph.TopQuark said:
It is on Wiki too somewhere if I remember correctly but then again what isn't these days...
I wouldn't be surprised that every argument was the same, it is the same debate and people like to use what works, at least on a scientific layman level. They also have the advantage of a language with far less speakers so a smaller opposition in a way.
EDIT: Concerning your post below me with the exhibition, I suppose you don't happen to have any English sources for that? Because I can say with certainty approaching 1 that a Turkish site will not get us very far due to a huge language barrier.
Yes, the subject is "evolution". If you look through the thread there have been people argung from religion but there have also been those at least claiming to be non-religious while still doubting the theory and both have been adressed mainly on concern of scientific falsehood.Ryotknife said:
I'm not claiming that religion is not a big reason for a lot of people to be against the concept of evolution but there are more than enough religious people who have no problem with the science and it is also entirely possible to be simply misinformed due to bad education in school or false sources and this is the stuff random people and professional biologists alike are trying to clarify in this thread.
Simply because people drag religion into a topic doesn't make it religious per se. Even if I can cite the bible in favor of flat-earth geocentrism it doesn't make astronomy a religious topic.
Also this year we have seen a first. There has been an anti evolutionist conference and exhibition in a university propagated by a biologist! It stirred up contraversy in mainstream media and scientific community.
http://forum.vatan.tc/marmara-universitesi-fosil-sergisi-ve-anti-evrim-konferansi-t58294.0.html
http://forum.vatan.tc/marmara-universitesi-fosil-sergisi-ve-anti-evrim-konferansi-t58294.0.html
I'm not sure I get the logic behind what you said in your first sentence. The Young Earth movement is based exclusively in evolution itself. Someone sees a problem with evolution and points it out, and the belief in a Young Earth comes in to save the day. The main arguments for a Young Earth are NOT based in nature itself. So if you attack the arguments for a Young Earth that are based on nature then the Young Earthers are just going to run back to "but look at this problem with evolution!" arguments. So attacking the weakest link in the chain doesn't work at all because you are leaving the foundation for their belief (aka misunderstanding the theory or evidence) completely untouched.Dijkstra said:
And I don't know if you've ever read any of the "weak, biased, and poorly researched papers" yourself but they are very well researched and informative, even if they are completely wrong. Creationists are not idiots who are lower than other humans (I prefer to think of them like conspiracy theorists myself - occasionally pointing something meaningful out but making up things most of the time). And everyone is bias, so why does that matter at all? It's whose bias that's backed by more fact that matters.
The stronger the evidence for something, the more likely chance that there will be a vocal group somewhere that disagrees. I'd also like to argue the point about religion, not all creationists are religious, and most religious people are more than happy to accept evolution
I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense. While Lysenko's theories were in general pretty rubbish (although apparently they did occasionally meet with success) his concepts were not expanded on a grand enough scale to completely destroy Soviet agriculture.Dinwatr said:
The Soviet Union was the world's leading producer of cereal and was as highly mechanized as most other first world countries. Some of the main causes of poor agricultural output can be attributed to the bad series of droughts which occurred almost every 5 years over a period of 90 years. Not only that, but the collective farming system in general was a major problem. The USSR tended to focus on producing crops (other than cereal) such as cotton, flax and forage, which are non-consumable and relatively low in value, which in turn meant that the Soviet Union ended up importing vast amounts of food.
Ah, okay. That makes a LOT more sense then. The original post was confusing as he referred to "that video", and the only video present was the one I reposted.Ragsnstitches said:
My mistake.
"Barring Intelligent Design"? Hate to break it to you, but Intelligent Design is quite literally Creationism using different wording to hide its religious affiliation, as was famously demonstrated in Kitzmiller v. Dover. The single most damning piece of evidence (though far from the only piece) was the sloppy edit of the creationist text "Of Pandas and People", as the changes made were almost exclusively changing instances of "creationist" into "Design proponents", "God" to "an intelligent designer" and similar terms, though they did make some rather critical errors in this transition, leaving a few instances partially changed into "cdesign proponentists". It's a rather well-known trojan horse, truth be told.theemporer said:
Unfortunately, a LOT of people (my own parents included, not that I haven't tried to correct their terminology) seem to be under the impression that "Intelligent Design" means "God guided the process of evolution", which is actually Theistic Evolution.
True. That perspective is to examine the evidence. The evidence, again, is overwhelmingly in support of evolution. This isn't a question of two groups of equal authority saying different things, like two different groups of art critics--one of us is demonstrably right, and that necessarily makes the other demonstrably wrong. If the right one isn't what you grew up with, frankly suck it up and get over it. Reality does not care what you are comfortable with, and rejecting a demonstrably true idea because it makes you feel uncomfortable is childish.Reece Stevens said:
I have. They are weak, biased, and poorly researched. Most of them contain lies and mined quotes. You CAN learn from them, but only in the sense that they teach you how not to approach a scientific argument. They ignore huge swaths of data and fabricate data where it suits them. There was an entire journal devoted to this exact topic.AMMO Kid said:
True enough. They also aren't scientists, however--or at least, are not engaged in science when they spew their nonsense (which is what it is). They may be extremely intelligent in other areas, but they are universally (in my experience, which is a great deal) uninformed, misinformed, and unwilling to listen to counter-arguments or to bother to examine the actual data.
The mere presence of a bias isn't sufficient justification for dismissing an argument, no. Lord knows paleontology includes a huge number of biases (bonus points for whoever can name the field that addresses this). That said, Creationism doesn't even attempt to correct for those biases. The entire field takes the view that proper science is done by reaching the conclusion first, and finding supporting evidence after that.
I intended my statement to mean it was a contributing factor. I may have unintentionally exaggerated the role it played, but it's also nonsense to argue (as you appear to be doing) that it didn't play any role.Li Mu said:
I'm sorry, are you saying that not all people who believe that the universe is created by a supernatural being believe in a god of any kind?Verlander said:
And because I just happened to stumble across this comic again and I think a good humorous analogy is always relevant:
<spoiler=warning: really long image>http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20120814.gif
Why not just let people believe what they want? Just so long as their beliefs aren't hurting you or affecting your life in any negative way.
Taking a religious belief over a scientific one doesn't make you stupid or uneducated.
Personaly I think it's just as ignorant to post a topic like this...
Taking a religious belief over a scientific one doesn't make you stupid or uneducated.
Personaly I think it's just as ignorant to post a topic like this...
Again, this isn't a mere difference of opinions. There IS a group that is actively working to undermine the separation of church and state in order to institute a theocracy. Forcing their religious views into secular, government schools (ever notice how the Native American views, the Hindu views, the Taoist views, etc never get included?) is the first step. This isn't some crackpot conspiracy theory--the Wedge Document is proof of this.Caffeine_Bombed said:
Secondly, "Let people believe what they want" is all well and good--but the Creationists do not do this. They are attempting to force us--the researchers and scientists who actually study the subject--to accept their views on how science should be done. You want to tell someone "live and let live", tell it to THEM.
Third, this IS impacting my life. I'm in a profession that will not exist if these crackpots succeed in their attempt to manufacture a false equivalency. Furthermore, they have accused me of fraud on multiple occasions, as well as friends and family. This isn't some disinterested argument here--for some of us, the Creationists have made it personal.
Finally, we can't do it because Creationists aren't following the rules. Science isn't a free-for-all. There is a cost of entry for every single idea that gets proposed. That cost is evidence. Creationism lacks evidential support, and CANNOT have any until the Creator is defined (you can't even speculate on what such evidence would be without defining the Creator). So allowing everyone to believe whatever they wanted would be to abandon the very principles of scientific discourse. We can't do it because it's NOT ALLOWED, and to accept such nonsense as equal to a theory as well-supported as evolution would be dishonest and fraudulent.
Frankly, I've said this all before.
As for being stupid and uneducated, you're not entirely right here. Taking a religious belief over the science makes you at minimum ignorant--they literally don't know the data. Refusing to examine the evidence because it may prove you wrong is the very definition of stupidity, so yes, it would make you stupid. It's no problem to be ignorant of things--I'm ignorant of many, we all are. But to be an honest person you must acknowledge the limits of your knowledge, and Creationists fail to do so. It's really simple as that.
Yeah don't worry, I was confused too. First I thought he was saying my posted video, but realised he meant his, then if that wasn't enough I thought you were referring to his video and when I read this:Vigormortis said:
"Nonsense? That video was one of the most rational, level-headed, and informative videos I've ever seen on Youtube."
I went like this:
Thankfully that wasn't what you meant. Now, excuse me while I pick my brain matter off the floor.
EDIT: Right, this gif has always concerned me so I never post it. Is it too graphic to leave without spoilers? I'd rather not get a warning for it, so I'd like an answer either way.
Religion and faith give peace, the truth seldom does. The truth is frightening especially if it destroys a lot of things you held dear. Being a religious man myself I do see the facts but don't want to accept them myself, no matter how much of these facts you throw at me; because it would mean that a lot of things I believe would fall apart.
And I'd rather believe in God, which gives me peace and lets me live a happy life without worry or fear of death, then some 'truth' that shatters everything I believe.
And I'd rather believe in God, which gives me peace and lets me live a happy life without worry or fear of death, then some 'truth' that shatters everything I believe.
Religion and faith don't give peace especially - why would there be so many religious conflicts? New concepts aren't scary in and of themselves to an individual - it's the fear of rejection by a community that has collectively closed their minds. If groups of religious people weren't harassing their members who explored other religions or simply gave up on their mutual religion, people would be a lot more curious.
Truth is generally more reassuring, because then you can at least take steps to address a situation or accept it. You don't have to tranquilise yourself with religious affirmations, not that they work as well as one would like when someone's in genuine pain.
To borrow a religious quote - would you rather build an understanding of the world on a firm foundation of scientific evidence, like a house built on rock, or would you prefer one with shakier foundations of religious doctrine that promotes faith over fact, like a house built on sand?
Truth is generally more reassuring, because then you can at least take steps to address a situation or accept it. You don't have to tranquilise yourself with religious affirmations, not that they work as well as one would like when someone's in genuine pain.
To borrow a religious quote - would you rather build an understanding of the world on a firm foundation of scientific evidence, like a house built on rock, or would you prefer one with shakier foundations of religious doctrine that promotes faith over fact, like a house built on sand?
Speaking as a non Christian I don?t get why it?s that much of issue to work evolution into the bible.
What?s one day to a god? To him one day could simply be 100000 years really the only contradicting part is the story of Adam and eve personally I hate that story but if you have to include it creating mankind can easily mean he slowly evolved apes to create humans.
What?s one day to a god? To him one day could simply be 100000 years really the only contradicting part is the story of Adam and eve personally I hate that story but if you have to include it creating mankind can easily mean he slowly evolved apes to create humans.
And... that's what some Christians believe. While I don't agree with it, it's not harmful to the field of science and education, so I see no harm in it. Spirituality is not in conflict with scientific fields and can co-exist.themilo504 said:
However, we're talking about Creationists, religious fundamentalists and flight of fancies here. These people either believe the world is as the bible says it is in quite literal terms or simply reject he premise of Evolution as it makes them feel "insignificant"... oh booh fucking hoo.
According to Creationists, The world is only 6000 years old, 4000 years ago there was a great flood, Noah actually saved 2 of every animal (creationists like to bullshit and stretch what the bible says to appeal to logic... which is hilarious to listen to) and they believe in a whole host other Biblical fiction I care not to waste my breath on.
They don't just refuse to accept evolution as a physical reality, they try to justify ignorance, or prop their baseless fairytales as being equal to the fields of Science. That isn't just offensive, it's absolutely harmful to the pursuit of knowledge if left unchecked and unopposed. It's not just about our preferences, it's about our futures well being.
I think this would be the point to bring up the Texas Board of Education and their undue influence on the contents of textbooks. This decidedly causes harm to the education of others.Caffeine_Bombed said: