Are Scientists Lying about Evolution?

[Smart_Guy]

I'll add that imperfect beings employing an imperfect method is fundamental to science.
All theories are a work in progress, ready to be discarded when a better one comes along.
And many scientists dream that they will be the one to upset the apple cart by proving
others wrong, & proffering a new & better model of how something in the universe works.

Err... yyyup!

 

[Revoltingest]

Err... yyyup!

You are indeed one eloquent fellow!

 

[Zosimus]

That's because the "religious point of view" begins with a premise and cherry-picks facts in defense of it. If no supporting facts are found, or contradictory facts are found, it does not change the premise. The premise becomes axiomatic.
This is exactly the opposite of a research methodology. The scientific method attempts to disprove the theorem and, if flaws are found, the theorem is altered or discarded.
That's why religious people have a hard time obtaining funding.

Oh really? Could you kindly tell me what the last scientific attempt to disprove the theory of evolution was?

It's the process of fossilization that's rare, and there's no reason to suppose a given fossil is "aberrant" unless it exhibits some very unexpected features.

Unexpected features? Okay, let's suppose that a fossil is found of a new kind of fish, to be named the Barbus Vajeanus in your honor. Since this type of fish has never before been observed, what exactly would qualify as "unexpected features?"

True, scientists do sometimes draw provisional conclusions based on very scant fossil evidence, but the paucity of evidence is generally known to paleontologists, who take poorly supported conclusions with a grain of salt till additional evidence is found.

Yet these grains of salt never seen to find their way into fora such as this one.

 

[Smart_Guy]

You are indeed one eloquent fellow!

One what? Now now, what did we say about name calling!!!

 

[rusra02]

you do know that Expelled has been thoroughly debunked and shown to be nothing more than fanciful fiction, right?

Your response is an example of the antagonism and ridicule many evolution supporters employ toward the increasing numbers of scientists and others raising doubts about the evolution theory.

 

[Valjean]

Oh really? Could you kindly tell me what the last scientific attempt to disprove the theory of evolution was?

To disprove the entire concept of evolution? I doubt if anyone would undertake such a task, considering the mountains of supporting evidence. Research tends to focus on the mechanisms involved and developmental history. These results, taken together, form the foundation for our current concepts. Note, though, that any number of aberrant finds -- like a 20 million year old human or triceratops skull -- could overturn a lot of currently accepted conclusions. ?

Unexpected features? Okay, let's suppose that a fossil is found of a new kind of fish, to be named the Barbus Vajeanus in your honor. Since this type of fish has never before been observed, what exactly would qualify as "unexpected features?"

Remember the flurry of controversy over the Hobbit (H. floresiensis) find?

 

[rusra02]

Most scientists are brought up in theistic families, so the above simply doesn't even get close to explaining why we tend not to support theistic causation from a scientific perspective. Like it or not, there simply is not one shred of evidence that a God or Gods "created" all, but that doesn't mean that it is impossible. Nor is there "antagonism, ridicule, and damage to their careers and livelihood" as there are many scientists who are at least somewhat theistically inclined. Without the evidence one way or the other, most of us simply do not take a position one way or the other.

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." (Richard Dawkins) Films such as Expelled document examples of damage to the careers and livelihood of those who question the theory. Of course, such films are also met with antagonism and ridicule.

 

[Valjean]

Your response is an example of the antagonism and ridicule many evolution supporters employ toward the increasing numbers of scientists and others raising doubts about the evolution theory.

Increasing number of scientists raising doubts about the ToE????
Where did you hear that?

 

[rusra02]

There are millions of people, worldwide, better educated than you are, trained to be skeptical of all they see, and yet, you come to the cockeyed conclusion that they have not "considered the evidence critically" and that you have done so better than all of them are capable of doing. Your hubris is overwhelming.

As to accepting macro-evolution without question, yes, two hundred years of careful investigation have convinced these millions (better educated than you are, trained to be skeptical of all they see) that it is a reality, but we do not do so "without question," healthy debate about details and mechanisms are ongoing.

People who deny the reality of the TOE are in fact met with antagonism (because they waste everyone's' time and effort), ridicule (it has the same root as "ridiculous), and self-inflicted damage to their careers and livelihood (as it should be).

"People who deny the reality of the TOE are in fact met with antagonism (because they waste everyone's' time and effort), ridicule (it has the same root as "ridiculous), and self-inflicted damage to their careers and livelihood (as it should be)." So it is OK to debate the "details and mechanisms" of evolution theory, but to question the theory itself is unthinkable? No wonder why many students and scientists are afraid to speak publicly of their doubts about evolution theory.

 

[Sunstone]

So it is OK to debate the "details and mechanisms" of evolution theory, but to question the theory itself is unthinkable?

Are you unaware of just how much data supports the theory?

 

[rusra02]

Increasing number of scientists raising doubts about the ToE????
Where did you hear that?

Such information is available online. Search on "scientists who doubt evolution".

 

[rusra02]

Are you unaware of just how much data supports the theory?

I am aware of how much evidence refutes the theory. Have you examined that evidence?

 

[Revoltingest]

Your response is an example of the antagonism and ridicule many evolution supporters employ toward the increasing numbers of scientists and others raising doubts about the evolution theory.

I admit to a weakness for ridiculing the doubters too.
There just isn't a real competing alternative to evolution.
So you can slap me if you want.
I deserve it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There are millions of people, worldwide, better educated than you are, trained to be skeptical of all they see, and yet, you come to the cockeyed conclusion that they have not "considered the evidence critically" and that you have done so better than all of them are capable of doing. Your hubris is overwhelming.

As to accepting macro-evolution without question, yes, two hundred years of careful investigation have convinced these millions (better educated than you are, trained to be skeptical of all they see) that it is a reality, but we do not do so "without question," healthy debate about details and mechanisms are ongoing.

People who deny the reality of the TOE are in fact met with antagonism (because they waste everyone's' time and effort), ridicule (it has the same root as "ridiculous), and self-inflicted damage to their careers and livelihood (as it should be).

I don't disagree Sapiens, but this is an ineffective way to argue. Rusra says "Any scientists or educators who dare question the theory, (and an increasing number are doing so) are met with antagonism, ridicule, and damage to their careers and livelihood." That is half the battle right there and is the real reason to trust the scientific community. They have to prove everything they do or their careers and livelihood are damaged. Bad researchers lose the respect of other researchers. At the same time, they want to know the truth, just like everybody does. In scientific research they follow this Biblical principle: " If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.”(Judges 6:31) The same goes for creationist assertions which have simply failed to thrive.

 

[Valjean]

Such information is available online. Search on "scientists who doubt evolution".

Its a propaganda campaign:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute_intelligent_design_campaigns

 

[metis]

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." (Richard Dawkins) Films such as Expelled document examples of damage to the careers and livelihood of those who question the theory. Of course, such films are also met with antagonism and ridicule.

Well, first of all Dawkins tends to make quite a few over-the-top claims, so I wouldn't completely swallow what he says as being universal. However, if you actually have read Dawkins, he actually does leave the door open to theistic causation-- he just doesn't at all think it's likely. It's the position of organized religion that he thinks is ludicrous, and even many theists believe that as well.

I'm an anthropologist, now retired, and I have never personally run across any of my fellow scientists who have supposedly faced such "antagonism and ridicule", and that includes me. The only time I can picture that happening is if they tried to force a deity or deities into the ToE as evidence of creationism, which we know such is lacking in reality.

The idea that there's some sort of anti-religious conspiracy amongst scientists is simply not true, especially since there are so many that are indeed theistically inclined.

 

[Sunstone]

I am aware of how much evidence refutes the theory. Have you examined that evidence?

If by "evidence" you mean the barely scientifically literate nonsense that gets slung around as "evidence against evolution", then yes, I've read quite a bit of it over the years. But I doubt you've read even a significant fraction of the evidence for evolution. I seriously doubt that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Such information is available online. Search on "scientists who doubt evolution".

That is what we asked. Are there any?

 

[Parsimony]

Unexpected features? Okay, let's suppose that a fossil is found of a new kind of fish, to be named the Barbus Vajeanus in your honor. Since this type of fish has never before been observed, what exactly would qualify as "unexpected features?"

Human legs? A scorpion tail? Bird wings?

 

[Valjean]

Human legs? A scorpion tail? Bird wings?

Manufactured stone tools associated with a hominin with the cephalic index of a chimp.