Are Scientists Lying about Evolution?

[rusra02]

That is what we asked. Are there any?

Did you search online?

 

[viole]

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 agree that the rate of growth of scientists who doubt evolution increased by 100% last year alone. Now it looks stable though.

Ciao

- viole

 

[LuisDantas]

Did you search online?

Oh, I did back in the day.

That is why I ask. Online we find plenty of whackos, but no scientists.

 

[Zosimus]

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. ?

So you're admitting that your previous statement "The scientific method attempts to disprove the theorem and, if flaws are found, the theorem is altered or discarded." is false?

 

[Zosimus]

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

First of all, the word data is plural. The singular is datum. So your sentence shoudl have said, "Are you unaware of just how many data support the theory?"

Second, data cannot support a theory.

 

[Zosimus]

Human legs? A scorpion tail? Bird wings?

Oh well, since this fish doesn't have human legs, a scorpion tail, or bird wings, it can't have any unexpected features.

 

[Zosimus]

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

Stone tools are never manufacturered. If you presuppose a maker of every thing you find, then you'll have to presuppose a maker of the maker, and then a maker of the maker of the maker. That's just impossible.

 

[Revoltingest]

First of all, the word data is plural. The singular is datum. So your sentence shoudl have said, "Are you unaware of just how many data support the theory?"

Second, data cannot support a theory.

I can understand your objection, being a fellow pedant meself.
But "data" has undergone a change, & is now primarily used as an uncountable noun, much like "water".
Language stays still for no man (or gal).
We must change with the times.

And data do (or does) support theories....when used in cogent argument.

 

[Zosimus]

I can understand your objection, being a fellow pedant meself.
But "data" has undergone a change, & is now primarily used as an uncountable noun, much like "water".
Language stays still for no man (or gal).
We must change with the times.

If that is true, then why do I find titles such as
ICD90CM claims data are insufficient for influenza surveillance
routinely in published scientific studies?

And data do (or does) support theories....when used in cogent argument.

Data cannot be used to support theories without commiting logical fallacies.

 

[Revoltingest]

If that is true, then why do I find titles such as
ICD90CM claims data are insufficient for influenza surveillance
routinely in published scientific studies?

In technical publications, this is appropriate.
But you know scientist types.....they too are such pedants, & often out of touch with the common man (& gal).
Language evolves.
Embrace evolution!

Data cannot be used to support theories without commiting logical fallacies.

Unsupported blechswaggling!

 

[Sapiens]

"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.

People who deny the clear, the obvious, the demonstrated should not be welcomed into the halls of the educated because they play by some strange and unacceptable set of rules in which logical fallacies are to be serious arguments and gotcha quote mining is substituted for logic.

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

He clearly is not.

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

And when you look down that list you realize that most are not scientists, few have any evolutionary biology training, and even fewer have any track record of having had a successful scientific career.

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

No, you are aware of claptrap and half truths that reinforce you presuppositions, you have not actually examined the evidence.

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.

We are saying the same thing. But the suggestion that the truth surrounding evolution are being actively suppressed by some black cloaked, night-riding cabal of biologists, that the apparent absence of this discussion and the nearly universal rejection of neo-creationist claims is the result of a conspiracy rather than ifs complete lack of scientific merit, is a canard that must be met head on in the strongest possible fashion. This is no arena in which fools are to be suffered gladly.

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

Clearly it is.

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 among scientists is simply not true, especially since there are so many that are indeed theistically inclined.

The existence of an anti-religious conspiracy among scientists is, as you point out, ludicrous, but the rejection of religious claptrap as superstitious nonsense is taken by the religionists to be proof of such an anti-religious conspiracy, even their paranoia depends on circular reasoning. The only way to convince the religionists that there is no such conspiracy is to swallow their anti-intellectual swill wholesale, lock, stock and barrel.

Did you search online?

Yes I did, did you check out Project Steve?

 

[Brickjectivity]

We are saying the same thing. But the suggestion that the truth surrounding evolution are being actively suppressed by some black cloaked, night-riding cabal of biologists, that the apparent absence of this discussion and the nearly universal rejection of neo-creationist claims is the result of a conspiracy rather than ifs complete lack of scientific merit, is a canard that must be met head on in the strongest possible fashion. This is no arena in which fools are to be suffered gladly.

True, and from personal experience I can tell you that the canard is perpetrated by groups that visit churches to speak about creationism, and they take an offering at the end of their speeches and sell books and tapes.

 

[Sapiens]

True, and from personal experience I can tell you that the canard is perpetrated by groups that visit churches to speak about creationism, and they take an offering at the end of their speeches and sell books and tapes.

Yeah, but we kick the butts in court every time and now we're winning the school board elections. Pretty soon they'll be just singing to the choir.

 

[Valjean]

Valjean said: ↑
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.

Zosimus said
So you're admitting that your previous statement "The scientific method attempts to disprove the theorem and, if flaws are found, the theorem is altered or discarded." is false?

What theorem are you referring to? The ToE is more than a theorem.

Let me give an example: Last Sunday Sayak83 posted a link to a study about Oreopithecus in the Forbidden Archeology thread (post #36). This study casts doubt on the belief that Oreopithecus was fully bipedal. The study has altered the bipedal theorum.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160323-europe-was-once-home-to-a-wild-ape-unlike-all-others
That's how science works. It actively seeks data to support or discredit ideas.

 

[Zosimus]

What theorem are you referring to? The ToE is more than a theorem.

Let me give an example: Last Sunday Sayak83 posted a link to a study about Oreopithecus in the Forbidden Archeology thread (post #36). This study casts doubt on the belief that Oreopithecus was fully bipedal. The study has altered the bipedal theorum.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160323-europe-was-once-home-to-a-wild-ape-unlike-all-others
That's how science works. It actively seeks data to support or discredit ideas.

Oh, in that we agree! Science is hard at work seeking data that support its pet projects. In fact, if you question the orthodoxy it can be hard to get a federal grant. Peter Duesberg is the poster child for that movement. If you question the received wisdom, you can come in for some flak (and that's putting it mildly).

 

[Segev Moran]

What, do you suppose, is the likelihood that hundreds of thousands of evolutionary scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to lie about evolution without, however, even one of them ever breaking ranks to expose the conspiracy?

Just askin' 'cause someone told me the other day that scientists were lying about evolution, and I want to see if anyone else believes that.

Its not a question of lying or not...

No scientist will ever tell you that his theory is the only truth there is...
Unlike religion, that is based on philosophy, science is based on facts.

So you could say, Well.. scientist lie about the fact that the earth is a sphere!

You can verify that on your own...
Do experiments...
Go to museums,
Study cosmology,
Try to prove otherwise!!!

And that's the biggest thing of all..
If you have an evidence that counters a scientific theory..BOOM... the scientific theory becomes no longer valid!

If you'll find an evidence that can disprove Evolution (That is BTW based on thousands of evidence and undeniable facts)

Most of the claims against evolution today is that it is too complex to just happen...
That's not evidence.. that speculation.

So my guess would be.. no.. scientist around the worlds are not all lying to defend Darwin's honor lol...
They just haven't found anything to disprove the evidence that proves evolution..
And a lot of people tried to find any...

I Can assure you, that if there was a known evidence to prove creationism.. everyone would already be knowing about it...

And again.. I Cannot say that enough... Not knowing something, doesn't prove that the other idea is true... So not knowing how life actually came to be... doesn't mean GOD made them.. it just means we don't know yet.

 

[Segev Moran]

[poe]
The evidence is that evolution is a lie and creationism is true. Therefore any scientists who disagrees is either lying of just not doing their job.[/poe]

Oh yeah.. and also all other religions in the world that are not yours are lying right?

 

[Segev Moran]

I suspect that many see science, and the ToE in particular, as a variant of religion; as a sort of a priori, faith-based doctrine.Some seem to regard scientists as anti-religious propagandists.
Reflects poorly on the state of the US educational system.

I Agree.. and that is a very sad thing.

If people had a better understanding of what science is, they would have understand that science is anything but a religion...

science makes mistakes, countless mistakes.. but science doesn't invent answers.. it speculate based on the evidence we have...
the more evidence we find, the less speculation we need to have...
Much like evolution...
As time passes, more and more evidence that matches the evolution theory is found, making the speculated part of Evolution smaller and smaller by the day.

 

[Segev Moran]

Well, they lie about everything else. Right...right?

Like what? just for an Example?

 

[Segev Moran]

I'm not entirely sure this warped view has much, if anything, to do with education. Nearly my entire extended family are devout Christians and several of them are highly educated with formidable academic degrees. Last summer on a car trip to Seattle, I was in a deep conversation with one of these ladies about the subject of evolution. She is of the firm opinion that the earth is approximately 8 thousand years old. When I started to discuss carbon dating, she said "Oh, that's been proven to be unreliable ". I gave rebuttals to the contrary and she pushed all my arguments aside because my points didn't coincide with what the bible teaches. After about 10 minutes of this discussion, I chose to change the subject so we could continue having a good time.

Needless to say, to many people, the bible is the infallible source for their education about the sciences.

Well.. it does have something to do with education.. rather a wrong kind of education

As a child, if you are told that the only truth is X and everything else is false.. as you grow, one of 3 things can happen:

1. You stick with what you've come to believe as a child
2. You come up with your own interpretation to what you've learnt as a child
3. You question what you've learned as a child and decide to learn for yourself...

I Support the 3rd scenario..
I think this is what we should teach our children.. to ask questions and try and find out for themselves..

I Have 2 sons..
I Never told them that GOD doesn't exist..
But i never told it does..
Whenever the subject arises, I Try to tell them it is up to them to find that out and decide for themselves!
I Do however teach them about the scientific theories and concepts... but I never say GOD doesn't exists.. it is always up to them to decide!

A few days back, My son talked with his mom, and they talked about our world and she told him that GOD is keeping everybody safe...
He told her, "I don't believe that", I was very intrigued to understand why he said that, then he explained that they learned about the big bang, at it doesn't seem to him that GOD created the world rather the big band seems more reasonable to him.

I Could tell him.. You are right! that the only truth! But i Didn't.. (I must say i felt very good at that moment BTW but i kept my poker face).
instead, I told him that he should try and learn more about the big bang, and that he should try and learn more about GOD..

I Think we should trust our kids more when it comes to understanding things..
From my experience, they understand the world much better than we do