Why do people reject evolution?
- Thread starter disgruntledgamer
- Start date
Still no impact. The U.S is a republic, not a "pseudorepublc." It's a republic. This isn't a debate I don't know why you think it is? You also are confusing economic systems with forums of government. But lest just ignore that for now. I got to go to work, now.dslatch said:
Evolutionary fields of study have addressed every single point brought up by Creationists--usually well before the Creationists bothered to bring them up.medv4380 said:
Don't believe me? Fair enough. Name a point Creationists raise against evolution. I'll show that it has already been addressed, and how.
I hope my explination helped you a bit wulf3n.wulf3n said:
LOL. You never read more than that 1 line of my original post did you Dinwatr? That is rich beyond belief. You can't even recognize a pro evolution argument addressing the actual point that was being brought up.Dinwatr said:
Lets entertain your nieve belief by actually rewinding the argument back to where it originally started to get messy before this thread even existed.
Creationism started in the 1920's. It was not religious response to a challenge to how we came to exist, as Atheist like to put it. It was actually a repose to something that Subjective Moralism and Evolution sometimes results in.
See, in the 1920's, and earlier, Evolution wasn't being taught like it is today. Back then Evolution was Eugenics. From the perspective of Objective Moralism from religions sterilizing people is always morally wrong. The laws that were past against Evolution in the US gain support because of the immorality of Eugenics. To them it didn't matter if Evolution was right or wrong because Eugenics is what Evolution resulted in, and they wanted nothing of Euginics.
So you wanted a point that Creationist have against Evolution you have one. They don't like that it has resulted in Eugenics, which to them is one of the most immoral unethical things to come from it. If you want to claim that Religion never stood against Eugenics then you'll want to look up Casti Connubii. It was a declaration against the popular Euginics laws Germany, The South, and many others were using to sterilize the undesirable. If you want to claim that Euginics is irreverent in today's world then you should do a little googling on news.google.com and you'll see it's alive and well. As long as Scientists aren't seen taking a Strong Moral stand against Eugenics you'll have a hard time convincing Objective Moralists that they should give it any room to grow.
The bulk of the argument outside of the moral implications of Evolution are rooted in the X Club. It was a nasty little group that worked together to exclude armature Scientists, Women, and remove all religion from science. They worked really hard spreading lies about religion with the Conflict Thesis. They helped spread the Flat Earth Myth (look it up), which people still believe today. They then framed the entire Evolution debate as proof that god doesn't exist, and that religion must be wrong. They used it as a wedge issue the same way Republicans and Democrats use it to purify their parties. Now a hundred years later it's just accepted that Religion and Science are at odds with each other. A little back bone purging out the lies of the Conflict Thesis from Science might go a long way in mending the battle between religion and science, but no we have to become historians like Ron Numbers just to figure out what is going on, and Scientists end up believing the Doctorin of the Conflict Thesis as if it was a religion. Wait, believing in something that is provably false the way Scientists do with the Conflict Thesis is much worst than any wack job priest could spout.
The entire Creationism vs Evolutionism debate is nothing more than con game to try and remove religion. There is nothing wrong with Theistic Evolution save for the fact that Atheists can't stand it, and try to destroy it whenever they can. If you don't believe that then just look up Francis Collins, Head of the Human Genome Project, and Director of the National Institutes of Health. If Atheistic Wack Jobs like Dawkins can't accept Theistic Evolutionists like Collins then no progress can ever be made on the argument.
Check, and Mate
If you're going to pretend to educate me, learn your history.
This is extremely wrong. Creationism was a scientific theory in the 1700, and scientific Creationists lasted until after the invention of the light bulb. MODERN Creationism may have sprung up at that point, but that's NOT the start of the theory. Look up Catastraphism sometime.medv4380 said:
No kidding. Once you know the actual history, that becomes rather obvious.medv4380 said:
That's precisely as much an argument against evolution as "Guns kill people" is an argument against Newtonian physics. Also, many scientists spoke out against Eugenics, pointing out that "fittest" didn't mean what humans thought it meant.medv4380 said:
I've got a friend who's a member of the Flat Earth Society. Funny thing is, she's a geologist--she joined for a laugh. MOST of their members are people who joined for the LOLs. So yes, I'm well aware of the theory; I'm also aware that it's not nearly as prominent as your post makes it seem (and I'm assuming you don't think it's very prominent at all).medv4380 said:
If you think that that's where this conflict started you've been fed some pretty bad data. Again, look up Catastraphism. Then read "Darwin's Century"--there is a long, LONG history of people going "Wait, that's not what my religion says...."medv4380 said:
Hardly. The fact that you have your pet concept of what happened in history in no way invalidates anything I've said. And it IS a pet concept, even if everything you said is 100% true--because it's incomplete, for the reasons I've stated (and I've provided ample evidence to see it for yourself).medv4380 said:
I'd still wager the best description would be some degree of theism.FriedRicer said:
One can't really know for certain if there are any deities. Unless there is direct evidence of them; i.e. one suddenly showing up on Earth and saying, "Here I am"; the only thing that remains is belief.
And, a belief in a deity, even in the absence of religion, is still theism.
Unless we're operating under a different definition of "deity". In which case, we'd need to settle on the definition before we can decide on the adequate noun.
In the comment that you quoted the word 'belief' was used in a statement that was talking about choice(whether or not to allow to kids to attend school that teaches something you disagree with), not science. So your belief that the word 'belief' makes me wrong, I believe makes you mistaken.TheKasp said:
The point worthy of discussing is how much one would rely on school to babysit ones kids. Or how one would ask about the kids well-being before uprooting them. Making them leave behind their friends, house, town, teachers and faculty. Just because of one lesson you would flip their world upside down. If you don't agree with that one lesson talk to your child and explain a different point of view.
Also you bring up 'what ifs' and i have never heard a reputable scientist say "what if this happened... ooh what if this or that"
...That's a terrible method, and one that's completely at odds with the rest of the curriculum. What's more, it's a method that enforces a false equivolency in the students minds, giving undue weight to creationism. It's like letting a student choose whether to treat Pi (As in: Pi's EXACT value) as 3.14159265359... or exactly 3. One is supported by mathematics, the other is not, and the latter has no place being taught in the same class, much less in a sense where the student gets to decide which route to follow. Alternatively, it's like allowing a student to choose between atomic theory and the classical elements. Or [in a world religion class] Satanism as it exists in the world or as it exists in Hollywood. Look at any other course, you aren't likely to see the 'Let the student decide' route you're suggesting here (which in and of itself should set off more than a few alarm bells about the suggestion of applying it in Biology). Indeed, such an approach has a strong chance of hobbling students in later education and livelihood, as both assume a solid understanding of the more basic concepts.dslatch said:
Education does not mold itself to a student's preferred beliefs, it is not determined by popular vote, it is reflective of what we know of the world. And with regards to Biology, what we know is that Evolutionary Theory is comprehensive enough and accurate enough to effectively tie all of the Biological Sciences together, and - despite creationist claims to the contrary - Creationism has no real standing in the field. Literally, in the US (which has an atypically high number of creationists) only around 0.15% of relevant experts hold Creationism in any kind of esteem, and most of those flat out admit that is based on personal faith rather than data. The data literally is that lopsided against it, and the idea of teaching it in the classroom actually circumvents the official method of requiring strong evidence and expert approval before teaching, spitting in the face of its own claim of 'fairness' by granting creationism a free pass where every other subject and idea needed to work hard to achieve.
Creationism is not in any way, shape or form scientific (indeed, by invoking the supernatural as an explanation it fails the most basic criteria). It is a political movement based in religion and thus has no more place in a Science classroom than Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter does in History or The Da Vinci Code does in Religion.
On top of that, it certainly doesn't help that the "teach both" route is itself a creationist reaction to the ruling of Epperson v. Arkansas, as noted in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, which found the motion unconstitutional.
As I've stated in other comments i would not suggest teaching them as equals when in a general science class. Give it a worthy mention with a big fat '*' attached.Asita said:
The Satanism example reminds of a presentation in my own world religions class where a classmate compared the two, got a pretty damn good mark.
Education only works if it molds to personal beliefs and majority preference otherwise we would have class rooms with three or four students while others would be overcrowded. Things would be much more inefficient in the education system.
Teaching both may be the best option in counties where the creationists rule. An county by county solution. Smaller then the failed Louisiana law and less likely to be called unconstitutional.
I'm defending an argument that isn't mine and trying to create solutions for a country that isn't mine... the fuck am i doing. This has been a large test of futility in a argument that from start has been too one sided. This thread shouldn't even be in the off topic forum. And would be much more fun if i didn't have to respond to a different person to answer the exact same arguments. Having to deal with people throwing personal insults who don't understand how have a polite discourse with other human *cough* Dijkstra...
I've had my fun using the Socratic method to largest extent I've ever done it and have polished my opinion on the matter to where most people could agree:
If ID were to be forced into a national educational curriculum, it should not be presented in the same light as evolution. If the child wondered which to believe it would just be another conversation that parents would have to have with their kids, to set them straight in whichever direction. It would be kinda like the first sex ed. classes.
An evolutionist or creationist should not force their opinion on the other. If you think that the other is wrong just remember that it isn't your problem move on. They're probably an adult who is choosing to accept a different point of view then your self.
This is a topic that means so little in life that it almost never comes up IRL so everybody got a chance to vent. Mostly it was dignified and respectful and didn't ex or implode like thought it would.
Any-hoo Y'all have a good one, yes even you Dijkstra.
I've had my fun using the Socratic method to largest extent I've ever done it and have polished my opinion on the matter to where most people could agree:
If ID were to be forced into a national educational curriculum, it should not be presented in the same light as evolution. If the child wondered which to believe it would just be another conversation that parents would have to have with their kids, to set them straight in whichever direction. It would be kinda like the first sex ed. classes.
An evolutionist or creationist should not force their opinion on the other. If you think that the other is wrong just remember that it isn't your problem move on. They're probably an adult who is choosing to accept a different point of view then your self.
This is a topic that means so little in life that it almost never comes up IRL so everybody got a chance to vent. Mostly it was dignified and respectful and didn't ex or implode like thought it would.
Any-hoo Y'all have a good one, yes even you Dijkstra.
That might be your intent, but your qualifier of 'let the student decide' necessarily sings a different tune. There is literally no way to reconcile your stated position with your proposed solution. Accurate presentation would point out that creationism has no scientific standing, the ability to choose between them requires that the curriculum assume them as having equal standing. Furthermore, the idea of a decision would ultimately be meaningless unless higher level curriculum and employment reflected the capacity for choice, which in this case would mean unfairly favoring creationism. If that is not the case, then the capacity for choice is itself a lie, which begs the question of why one would pretend to offer it in the first place.dslatch said:
...I could have sworn the context of my statement made apparent the fact that I meant both views were portrayed as accurate by the curriculum. Was I mistaken in that assumption?dslatch said:
Except it NEVER does. Education is not treated as optional with regards to your beliefs. You don't get to choose whether or not to believe the Holocaust happened, you don't get to choose whether or not "Me are an GooD sTewdanD" is grammatically correct english, that Alligators are ornery because they have too many teeth and not enough toothbrushes, or whether or not the sum of a triangles' angles is 180 degrees. You don't get to go into history class and say that the stone age is a myth because the Bible never mentions it, nor do you get to dismiss germ theory in favor of demonic possession. The proposition of forcing Biology to mold to student beliefs is a plea for special consideration in a single field, not to make it fit the norm. It is the exception rather than the rule.dslatch said:
It was called unconstitutional for good reason. As an explanation, creationism has no advantage over the Hopi origin story, the Hindu one, the Sumerian one, that of Ancient Egypt, or any other creation myth. It wouldn't be out of place in a religion class (especially one specific to christianity), but to include it at all in a science class unjustly promotes a single religion over the others. It grants a single faith disproportionate screentime, and through that it serves not only to imply that creationism is especially important and noteworthy, but that the others are either nonexistent or not worth mentioning.dslatch said:
Scientifically speaking, evolution is valid and creationism isn't. Scientifically speaking, religion isn't scientific due to simple science logic (i.e. lack of proof) supported by complicated sciency thingamajigs (i.e. counterexamples). That is why evolution is taught in science class and creationism isn't.
If you had a christian class where you taught christianity, then aside from the fact that that may be biased against other religions, and aside from the fact that the church and state must be separated, you could teach creationism in christian class.
Here's another way to put it. In science, one thing people learn is to keep your numbers accurate to the nearest degree. In foresenics science, if you had to answer a question about where a bullet would land, you would have to several decimal points (you get the idea). In film class, you don't. In film class, you learn about things like suspension of disbelief and about how to make the film good and stuff.
Film class doesn't force science class to keep in mind how dramatic things are, nor does science class force film class to be realistic.
If you had a christian class where you taught christianity, then aside from the fact that that may be biased against other religions, and aside from the fact that the church and state must be separated, you could teach creationism in christian class.
Here's another way to put it. In science, one thing people learn is to keep your numbers accurate to the nearest degree. In foresenics science, if you had to answer a question about where a bullet would land, you would have to several decimal points (you get the idea). In film class, you don't. In film class, you learn about things like suspension of disbelief and about how to make the film good and stuff.
Film class doesn't force science class to keep in mind how dramatic things are, nor does science class force film class to be realistic.
This. Terms like speciation go right over the head of the average citizen. If they would sit down and learn what these terms mean, and how they are meant to be applied, it would go much better for them.Redingold said:
Then there are people who reject evolution because of religion. I must admit to a bias against religion. I tend to think it's a crutch for people who can't handle the idea that the universe is incomprehensibly vast, complex, eternal, and perhaps most devastating of all, completely uncaring. It's much more pleasing to them to believe the world was made so they could live on it, that their lives are part of some grand supernatural purpose, that they are loved by their maker, etc. Vain, sentimentalist rubbish, but there you have it.
Kind of got off on a rant there. The point is, believers reject evolution because it stings their egos.
Evolution DOES attack one thing that religion has always held as its own: the answer to the question "Where did we come from?" Yes, I know that evolution doesn't disprove that we came from some divine will; the point, rather, is that evolution provided, for the first time, a viable alternative to religion when it came to answering that question. It's not disproof, but it IS an alternate working hypothesis, in a realm where none had existed in history.
Once you COULD logically not believe in deities, a number of people DID stop.
His intellectual offspring, on the other hand, can't seem to wrap their head around relatively simple concepts, and simply refuse to examine the evidence--or even learn what that evidence was.
Proving Richard Owen wrong took an enormous effort, and propelled science forward incalculably (it was also, if I know biologists and paleontologists, a great deal of fun for those involved). Proving modern Creationists wrong takes a Geology 101 course.
Once you COULD logically not believe in deities, a number of people DID stop.
This touches on what annoys me most about Creationism: the modern advocates just aren't very good at it. Historic scientific Creationists (yes, those were a thing) actually gave the supporters of evolution a run for their money. They had valid arguments (at the time, anyway), and studied the data as intently as any other scientist. Richard Owen, for example, was a Creationist. He also was the world's leading authority on anatomy (well, until his beliefs ran into some hard facts and he was caught committing fraud). I recently got his work on archetypes in the vertebrate form, for a side project I'm working on, and it's a fascinating read. It's something entirely different from evolution as we understand it--but extremely well thought-out, with a great deal of evidence supporting it (this was before he fell into fraud, so the evidence is still as good as you're going to get when it comes to anatomy of that era).aattss said:
His intellectual offspring, on the other hand, can't seem to wrap their head around relatively simple concepts, and simply refuse to examine the evidence--or even learn what that evidence was.
Proving Richard Owen wrong took an enormous effort, and propelled science forward incalculably (it was also, if I know biologists and paleontologists, a great deal of fun for those involved). Proving modern Creationists wrong takes a Geology 101 course.
You know you have two hands.You know so empirically.You can make a deductive argument and arrive to the conclusion of two hands.Unless we are doing the "everything is a belief" thing you don't believe you have to hands,you think so.Know so.I think there is a god based on an argument of logic.In my previous post,where did you see what would amount to a belief?The concept of god need not be supernatural.In fact the only attributes that are consistent in a definition of god(mostly) is creation and/or an independence from the influences of this universe.Quaxar said:
If everything has a cause and an effect.
What caused the first effect(s)?
The substance(whatever it is) is what I say a true god is.This is because its defining trait would be pure creation.
This is not a belief based on some book or dream.
It is based on how we know the way this world works.
This cannot go in reverse forever (can it?):
Cause>Effect>Repeat>Repeat>Forever/End(?)
It can be argued by its points based on itself.
Just because an argument cannot prove its subjects immediately,doesn't mean it is a belief or that the person who makes the argument is in a state of belief.This is why I brought up Leibniz.From what my Prof told me, he used logic to make a case that the atom was destruct-able.The technology to show so was after his time.Did he have beliefs?
Thanks for helping me out by the way.Vigormortis said:
You see that is the problem at the root (we agree). I am at no point believing in a deity.What ever the definition of one is can remain.However,based on my argument of cause and effect,we would regress to what substance exactly?The true definition of a god is creation and an independence of existing from a cause(unlike our existence).To say that you either know or believe is bifurcation.Because then,what is theory?
I think we have to either create a new word for what I am talking about or the word god needs to get its definition revised(non-religiously of course).It is very unstable in my opinion.I am trying to isolate the constant element in multiple ideas of what a god is to find a true definition.I think I have one-it is above.Now based on my argument and consistent definition, I think a god exists.
Not to say you can't have a belief in a higher power or anything like that, but that logic is flawed. If everything has a cause, that too must hold true for whatever is attributed as god. If god does not have a cause, then the logic collapses as if that god does not require a cause, then it logically follows that not everything needs a cause, thereby invalidating the argument. And if you have one exception, the door is open for more to exist. To claim otherwise invokes the special pleading fallacy to work, saying that for reasons not part of the initial logic one chosen concept is exempt from it. Put a different way, it's the same dillema as the Chicken and the Egg. If you need an egg to make a chicken and a chicken to make an egg, you end up with a paradox where the argument's own definitions render the question of 'which came first' unanswerable.FriedRicer said:
Again, not to say you can't have your beliefs, just that that is not a great supporting argument.
You misunderstand what Leibniz means by atom. In those days, atom did not mean positively charged nucleus surrounded by electrons. It comes from the Greek meaning "Not cut" and refers to an indivisible object. Leibniz believed that any object could be subdivided further and further. He is wrong, in this case, according to modern science. You cannot split an electron, or an up quark. You can't even get an up quark on its own, if you try it spontaneously forms new quarks to hang out with.FriedRicer said:
Leibniz also rejected the idea of the existence of vacuums and action-at-a-distance. Given that both of these are possible, his logic is clearly faulty.