"Evolution taken on faith" taken on faith.

[bobhikes]

Creationists are not at all well prepared, though. They have no science to back their position, their arguments are deeply irrational, and they depend entirely on misinformation and ignorance of the basics to promote their view. IMO, a child who is educated on the basic principles is already well defended against the denialist view, because they will know the creationist depiction of what evolution means (cats turning into dogs and other such nonsense) is false. 90% of the time, that's all you need to know.

First off I would never worry about creationists. The biggest critics of mine have been people supporting evolution because they don't like my views or they wish to promote their intelligence. You can't have an actual debate about evolution between two scientists or people of knowledge because Two good scientists/people would never debate it so one must be a creationist.

The real issue is when evolution is used by atheists or certain religions to paint other religions as bad. These people are often the people you have mentioned as they only have basic principles and the people they are going against are not necessary creationists and have a better understanding of evolution.

 

[Alceste]

First off I would never worry about creationists. The biggest critics of mine have been people supporting evolution because they don't like my views or they wish to promote their intelligence. You can't have an actual debate about evolution between two scientists or people of knowledge because Two good scientists/people would never debate it so one must be a creationist.

The real issue is when evolution is used by atheists or certain religions to paint other religions as bad. These people are often the people you have mentioned as they only have basic principles and the people they are going against are not necessary creationists and have a better understanding of evolution.

I guess I've never seen that. There honestly are no practicing biologists who reject evolution, just as there are no engineers who reject electricity.

The debate within the scientific community - which is lively, interesting and spirited - centres on details, like punctuated equilibrium vs. steady progress. Not on whether evolution is true.

The reason we know denialists are all creationists, and not biologists, is that we're communicating on the internet and we can look it up in about two seconds. And I always do. No assumptions required. I have not encountered a single example of a publishing biologist who rejects evolution in all these years.

 

[bobhikes]

I guess I've never seen that. There honestly are no practicing biologists who reject evolution, just as there are no engineers who reject electricity.

The debate within the scientific community - which is lively, interesting and spirited - centres on details, like punctuated equilibrium vs. steady progress. Not on whether evolution is true.

The reason we know denialists are all creationists, and not biologists, is that we're communicating on the internet and we can look it up in about two seconds. And I always do. No assumptions required. I have not encountered a single example of a publishing biologist who rejects evolution in all these years.

That's another problem not a single publishing Biologist even challenges evolution yet in all the other sciences you can find challenges to established things such as the speed of light and gravity.

In science as I understand it everything is open to challenge even the laws of science. This is not true about evolution though as you yourself state, "Not on whether evolution is true". Yet you don't see this as a problem.

 

[Willamena]

The lecture presents an overview of evolutionary biology and its two major components, microevolution and macroevolution.

Thanks for the lecture reference. Just to comment though, those are "components," but outcomes.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

That's another problem not a single publishing Biologist even challenges evolution yet in all the other sciences you can find challenges to established things such as the speed of light and gravity.

In science as I understand it everything is open to challenge even the laws of science. This is not true about evolution though as you yourself state, "Not on whether evolution is true". Yet you don't see this as a problem.

Publishing, in a decent journal at least, requires a body of evidence in order to satisfy peer review. I wouldn't read into that as evolution being some sewn-up, behind closed doors agreement between Biologists (though it seems some people are inclined to do so). It's more that such a body of evidence against evolution either doesn't exist or has not been discovered. I think any Biologist would tell you that evidence contradicting the notion of evolution would be so transformative that the discovery would be worthy of the Nobel prize.

Robust experimental evidence contradicting evolution just doesn't exist. Thus it doesn't appear in journals. There are abundant examples of hypothetical evidence that would disprove evolution, but none of these have been discovered to exist in reality.

 

[Alceste]

That's another problem not a single publishing Biologist even challenges evolution yet in all the other sciences you can find challenges to established things such as the speed of light and gravity.

In science as I understand it everything is open to challenge even the laws of science. This is not true about evolution though as you yourself state, "Not on whether evolution is true". Yet you don't see this as a problem.

I don't see it as a problem because it is very, very obvious to everyone who understands it that evolution is true. It's not in theoretical physics territory, where formulae are based on scant evidence and beyond the comprehension of most laymen. It's in "heliocentrism" territory: you would need to really work hard not to accept evolution, as hard as you would need to work to believe the earth is the centre of the solar system rather than the sun.

OK, you say you don't understand it and can't be bothered to put the effort in. That's fine, but it's not at all difficult to understand. I've got one book recommendation - the Greatest Show on Earth - that will sort you out for life, should you ever choose to take the plunge and understand evolution.

Once you understand it, you will not doubt it any longer, and you will also understand why it is not debated among biologists.

 

[bobhikes]

I don't see it as a problem because it is very, very obvious to everyone who understands it that evolution is true. It's not in theoretical physics territory, where formulae are based on scant evidence and beyond the comprehension of most laymen. It's in "heliocentrism" territory: you would need to really work hard not to accept evolution, as hard as you would need to work to believe the earth is the centre of the solar system rather than the sun.

OK, you say you don't understand it and can't be bothered to put the effort in. That's fine, but it's not at all difficult to understand. I've got one book recommendation - the Greatest Show on Earth - that will sort you out for life, should you ever choose to take the plunge and understand evolution.

Once you understand it, you will not doubt it any longer, and you will also understand why it is not debated among biologists.

The Greatest Show on Earth is one of the many books I have read on the subject. I have read current science journals as well. I even have college credits in Biology. I said most people can't be bothered to put effort in. I said I wasn't going to complete all the listed courses. Now especially since you indicate one book will do. Fortunately I already read that book. Yet I still question aspects of evolution.

 

[Alceste]

The Greatest Show on Earth is one of the many books I have read on the subject. I have read current science journals as well. I even have college credits in Biology. I said most people can't be bothered to put effort in. I said I wasn't going to complete all the listed courses. Now especially since you indicate one book will do. Fortunately I already read that book. Yet I still question aspects of evolution.

As I said before, questioning aspects of evolution is perfectly normal. That's where the interesting scientific debate lies. Questioning evolution itself? You won't find any biologists doing it.

Might I ask, what aspects of evolution do you have a problem with? If you understand the theory, that could be an interesting conversation.

 

[bobhikes]

As I said before, questioning aspects of evolution is perfectly normal. That's where the interesting scientific debate lies. Questioning evolution itself? You won't find any biologists doing it.

Might I ask, what aspects of evolution do you have a problem with? If you understand the theory, that could be an interesting conversation.

That would take the thread even farther off course. I can always find you in the many debates about evolution and creationism. I was trying to show why listing a bunch of college courses for people to take may not solve the evolution debate and not actually debate evolution. Thanks though

 

[Alceste]

That would take the thread even farther off course. I can always find you in the many debates about evolution and creationism. I was trying to show why listing a bunch of college courses for people to take may not solve the evolution debate and not actually debate evolution. Thanks though

Ok, well I don't think the course is necessary. It's a pretty simple theory to understand, as far as scientific theories go, but I also think some of us will actually appreciate the course. If not those on the creationist side, at least those of us on the other.

 

[dust1n]

Thanks for the lecture reference. Just to comment though, those are "components," but outcomes.

Maybe "relata" can do.

 

[Bunyip]

That's another problem not a single publishing Biologist even challenges evolution yet in all the other sciences you can find challenges to established things such as the speed of light and gravity.

In science as I understand it everything is open to challenge even the laws of science. This is not true about evolution though as you yourself state, "Not on whether evolution is true". Yet you don't see this as a problem.

There is no great mystery there. Scientists do not challenge evolution for the same reason that they don't challenge gravity - that gravity exists is simply a fact.

Within biology there is a great deal of debate, challenge and hotly contested ideas - but whether or not evolution is a fact was settled more than a century ago.

 

[Man of Faith]

*raises hand*

"Does this class show how a bird turns into a dog?"

Not without philosophy, imagination, innuendo, conjecture, faith and supposition.

 

[Man of Faith]

There is no great mystery there. Scientists do not challenge evolution for the same reason that they don't challenge gravity - that gravity exists is simply a fact.

Within biology there is a great deal of debate, challenge and hotly contested ideas - but whether or not evolution is a fact was settled more than a century ago.

That's because the definition of evolution has been dumbed down so much that anything and everything is able to be called evolution.

 

[Man of Faith]

I guess I've never seen that. There honestly are no practicing biologists who reject evolution, just as there are no engineers who reject electricity.

The debate within the scientific community - which is lively, interesting and spirited - centres on details, like punctuated equilibrium vs. steady progress. Not on whether evolution is true.

The reason we know denialists are all creationists, and not biologists, is that we're communicating on the internet and we can look it up in about two seconds. And I always do. No assumptions required. I have not encountered a single example of a publishing biologist who rejects evolution in all these years.

That's because the definition of a practicing biologist is one that accepts evolution. If they don't accept evolution, then they are no longer practicing because they are ostracized from the profession. I guess that works for the faithful.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's because the definition of a practicing biologist is one that accepts evolution. If they don't accept evolution, then they are no longer practicing because they are ostracized form the profession. I guess that works for the faithful.

Also, when you study biology (or more specific biochem and genetics) you can't deny it since you can see the evidence.

There are many institutions researching evolution and finding a lot of things, and they're not just writing articles and reports on things they think are true based on guesswork, but research showing what is going on (which is evolution).

 

[Man of Faith]

I can't wait till genetic mutation class. Im gonna create a Dingusthru****cvulturious or the Screaming flying terror dog.

I'm afraid you are missing the point, that would be intelligent design.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's because the definition of a practicing biologist is one that accepts evolution. If they don't accept evolution, then they are no longer practicing because they are ostracized from the profession. I guess that works for the faithful.

So, I guess that gravity works the exact same way too? If you don't believe in gravity, you're ostracized from being a physicist - so the only explanation for that is that gravity is a conspiracy, right?

 

[Man of Faith]

I'm not sure. Because it still doesn't address how dogs were formed from the Big Bang.

Forget dogs, just show how any life form was created by light through a natural process.

 

[Man of Faith]

So, I guess that gravity works the exact same way too? If you don't believe in gravity, you're ostracized from being a physicist - so the only explanation for that is that gravity is a conspiracy, right?

It sounds like colleges need a whole year on the differences between something that can be seen and something that cannot be seen, or it really comes down to observable science vs historical science.