Is there any reason to reject the science of evolution, other than religious beliefs?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not like sure, pretty sure, and not the scientists who claim Darwinian Evolution, the Darwinian Evolution itself, much the same as I'm pretty sure all the religion rather than the religious are stupid and the atheism rather than the atheists are stupid.

What is your evidence that something is stupid?

 

[Audie]

Not like sure, pretty sure, and not the scientists who claim Darwinian Evolution, the Darwinian Evolution itself, much the same as I'm pretty sure all the religion rather than the religious are stupid and the atheism rather than the atheists are stupid.

Whatevs. Once is enough trying to figure what
you're saying.

 

[blü 2]

I reject evolution because the world’s gonna end when a certain man dies. And the world began with this man.

I hope he's insured ...

 

[I Am Hugh]

What is your evidence that something is stupid?

What is your evidence that something isn't stupid? Evidence - what is that? The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Is stupidity subjective? "Thus, not all failures are stupid - just those which betray a compromise commitment to perceptual accuracy, psychological balance and social integrity by going to a dysfunctional extreme. As a general principle of cultural life, stupidity is an expression of our inherent disposition to judge - specifically, stupidity indicates a subjectively shaped negative evaluation of predetermined behavior. Stupidity is so common because people characteristically interpret their behavior favorably even if it leads eventually and inevitably to failure. (Source)

Now, I think the real question here involves the stupidity of a discussion of ideological fixation with creation vs. evolution in the guise of a reasonable debate. I think that "debate" is stupid.

 

[I Am Hugh]

Whatevs. Once is enough trying to figure what
you're saying.

Whatevs? What I'm saying? Once should be enough.

 

[Audie]

There are religious believers who are going to be set in their ways & if that means rejecting the science of evolution, then it's probably a lost cause. I don't think there's any point in trying to change their minds, so I'm not interested in that.

I am, however, interested in finding out if there's a reason not based in any way on religious beliefs for rejecting the science of evolution. Is there any other reason?

There's two reasons

1. Morally weak, or simply insane

2. Ignorant, or intellectually dishonest

3. A savage case of cog dis or stupidity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is your evidence that something isn't stupid? Evidence - what is that? The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Is stupidity subjective? "Thus, not all failures are stupid - just those which betray a compromise commitment to perceptual accuracy, psychological balance and social integrity by going to a dysfunctional extreme. As a general principle of cultural life, stupidity is an expression of our inherent disposition to judge - specifically, stupidity indicates a subjectively shaped negative evaluation of predetermined behavior. Stupidity is so common because people characteristically interpret their behavior favorably even if it leads eventually and inevitably to failure. (Source)

Now, I think the real question here involves the stupidity of a discussion of ideological fixation with creation vs. evolution in the guise of a reasonable debate. I think that debate is stupid.

I am not that educated like you. So can you rephrase it and use examples?

 

[I Am Hugh]

I am not that educated like you.

Educated? You mean indoctrinated. Obviously, I'm not that.

So can you rephrase it and use examples?

You want a debate the likes of which I've just opined was stupid? Not that I have a problem with that, I engage in that sort of debate with astonishing frequency, but really, why? Put simply, why would you want to have such a debate? If, for example, you were irreligious would you think it anything other than stupid to debate the subject of religion? How does that make sense? Specifically, what would be the reason to debate that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Educated? You mean indoctrinated. Obviously, I'm not that.



You want a debate the likes of which I've just opined was stupid? Not that I have a problem with that, I engage in that sort of debate with astonishing frequency, but really, why? Put simply, why would you want to have such a debate? If, for example, you were irreligious would you think it anything other than stupid to debate the subject of religion? How does that make sense? Specifically, what would be the reason to debate that?

Could you please explain your prevous post with other words and maybe give so examples?

 

[Audie]

Whatevs? What I'm saying? Once should be enough.

Perhaps you could use Google to help
fill in the gaps in your vocabulary.

 

[Audie]

Educated?...... Obviously, I'm not that.

Y

 

[I Am Hugh]

Could you please explain your prevous post with other words and maybe give so examples?

Okay. Religion is stupid because it always transmogrifies into something it isn't, dependent upon power (i.e. financial incentive and social control) it can potentially generate through appeal to the masses. Much like Darwin's evolutionary theory was popularized due to a need to respond to the sociopolitical control the church had prior to the industrial revolutions, replacing it with the then growing, metaphysical experimentation with eugenics. Examples of Religion . . .

Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism and Taoism
Confucianism and Taoism were two different schools of thought developed around the same time in China during the Warring States period. A time when the citizens were exhausted with the constant battles between feudal states. Both believed in a heavenly way, the Chinese Tian which is nature or the universe as a guiding force, the heavenly way rather than God or deities as occidental culture might understand it. They had two different approaches to their teachings of the heavenly way. Taoism was passive; allowing nature to take its course, to interfere causes problems. Confucianism was active; nature must be harnessed. Buddhism, also originally without deities, was an attempt to find the middle way, something in between asceticism and indulgence. Its primary doctrine was the Four Noble Truths, which is to achieve enlightenment through the acknowledgement, understanding and dissolution of suffering through letting go. Shinto was syncretistic cultural celebrations during the planting and harvesting seasons in Japan. It existed for centuries without a name, until Buddhism migrated there creating the need for a name to distinguish it from that. Though deities were incorporated into these celebrations they also weren't Gods in the traditional occidental sense, resembling more what we would think of as spirits. These spirits may be celestial or dead ancestors who would inhabit various objects like mirrors, swords, trees or mountains. Anything, really. The spirits were interchangeable. The importance in the Shinto festivals was community. Coming together to help one another.

Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mormonism
Judaism is often erroneously thought of as more accurate in a Biblical sense and separate from Christianity. Actually, though they both come from, at least in part, the Bible, Judaism as known today is the separation of Jewish tradition formed when the religious leaders of Jesus's day finally got the opportunity to exploit the sociopolitical power they had long coveted formerly possessed by the Aaronic priests. The catalyst for this was the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 CE and the subsequent dissolution of the Aaronic priesthood. Jewish thinking, as presented by the Bible, had always been prone to pagan influence, especially after the infiltration of Greek philosophy through the influence of Alexander the Great in 332 BCE. Christianity wasn't the separation of Jewish or Biblical teachings many perceive it as today, it was actually a continuation of those teachings. After all, Jesus was the long-awaited Jewish messiah. Christianity itself became corrupt in the same way with the influence of Constantine the Great in 325 CE.

Islam and Mormonism were, respectively, an aberration and addition to the Biblical teachings. With Islam the sociopolitical protestation of Muhammad, and with Mormonism the, well, sort of delusional cultural appropriation of Joseph Smith.

Examples of Evolution

 

[I Am Hugh]

Perhaps you could use Google to help
fill in the gaps in your vocabulary.

Is that what you've done?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Nonsense. The elements were put together in testtubes by scientists. They had to be catalyzed by electric. It does not prove-demonstrate-verify abiogenesis. Which is more miraculous than its name. Meaning the concept as claimed by some scientists is more miraculous than the claim by scientists that there was a natural thing called abiogenesis that started the process. The fact that the combustible situation has been repeated in no way accurately points to abiogenesis. That these elements can react only means that they can react and that the "causes" for the reaction was introduced by -- men. It cannot be verified as to the beginning of life by putting these elements together in a testtube with electricity running through it.

I see -- so before men came along, electricity was impossible? I find that rather surprising, since lightning happens whether we want it to or (often enough) not!

Why not admit you know nothing about science, and spend your time arguing topics about which you do know something?

 

[I Am Hugh]

Y

C

 

[F1fan]

What is your evidence that something isn't stupid? Evidence - what is that? The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Is stupidity subjective? "Thus, not all failures are stupid - just those which betray a compromise commitment to perceptual accuracy, psychological balance and social integrity by going to a dysfunctional extreme. As a general principle of cultural life, stupidity is an expression of our inherent disposition to judge - specifically, stupidity indicates a subjectively shaped negative evaluation of predetermined behavior. Stupidity is so common because people characteristically interpret their behavior favorably even if it leads eventually and inevitably to failure. (Source)

So your failure to understand evolution might not be stupid if you eventually come to understand that it's a valid theory in science?

Now, I think the real question here involves the stupidity of a discussion of ideological fixation with creation vs. evolution in the guise of a reasonable debate. I think that "debate" is stupid.

It sure can be when there are a set of people who refuse to learn, and good faith members keep trying in vain to inform them. Of course there's no real point to chess either, but it is a game that is enjoyable to play, even with inferior players.

 

[Audie]

Is that what you've done?

What I should have done was send you
off to ig city before now.

 

[I Am Hugh]

What I should have done was send you
off to ig city before now.

Please do.

 

[I Am Hugh]

So your failure to understand evolution might not be stupid if you eventually come to understand that it's a valid theory in science?

My failure to understand? You mean my failure to adhere to groupthink.

It sure can be when there are a set of people who refuse to learn, and good faith members keep trying in vain to inform them.

Exactly. Groupthink. Are you as sure of that as you are that I fail to understand it because I have refused to learn it, in good faith of your indoctrination?

Of course there's no real point to chess either, but it is a game that is enjoyable to play, even with inferior players.

Well, then. Enjoy yourself.

 

[ppp]

There are religious believers who are going to be set in their ways & if that means rejecting the science of evolution, then it's probably a lost cause. I don't think there's any point in trying to change their minds, so I'm not interested in that.

I am, however, interested in finding out if there's a reason not based in any way on religious beliefs for rejecting the science of evolution. Is there any other reason?

I guess a next-Thursdayist or a person who asserts that the world is a simulation might qualify as non religious in reason.