Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults

[Skwim]

That also leads to the question of why we should care about the original article alluded to in the OP, since the author is not well-educated enough in the appropriate areas to address the theory properly. In both cases there is nothing substantial to discuss.

Quite right. Close the thread and be done with it..

 

[Valjean]

Just found an interestin article -

https://www.google.com.au/search?so...Why+Evolution+Is+Just+A+Fairy+Tale+For+Adults

Here is one quote -

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”

"Flimsy and dubious?" The ToE is one of the most robust theories in all of science.
A point by point video rebuttal of your link:

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Which brings up the question: why should we care what Malcolm Muggeridge thinks? Creation.com, the source for my quotation of his statement, says he was a philosopher.

"Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known British journalist and philosopher"​

but is philosophy a relevant area of expertise with which to judge the merits of the claims of biology, anthropology, archaeology, etc. Of course not. AND, the fact is, Muggeridge never was a philosopher---the assertion, just another creationist lie---anyone surprised? So, what was Muggeridge's background? Well . . . . .

Thomas Malcolm Muggeridge (24 March 1903 – 14 November 1990),[1] known as Malcolm Muggeridge, was a British journalist, author, media personality, and satirist.
Source: Wikipedia

"His early education forced Mr. Muggeridge, at Selwyn College, Cambridge, to concentrate on scientific studies, 'chemistry, physics, zoology, despite the fact I had no interest in them, and only the scantiest knowledge of them,' he wrote in 1972.
"Four years at Cambridge did little to alter this situation," he said. "I managed to scrape up a pass degree, but have never opened a book or thought about any of my three subjects from that day to this."
Because he had also taken some education courses, Mr. Muggeridge, when he rceived his degree in 1923, joined the staff of Union Christian College in South India.'
source

​

Imagine that! A deceitful ID proponent!

Who would have thought?

 

[Sapiens]

Just found an interestin article -

https://www.google.com.au/search?so...Why+Evolution+Is+Just+A+Fairy+Tale+For+Adults

Here is one quote -

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”

Cheers!

It is neither interestin' nor an article ... it is basically a rather deep and wide quote mine.

 

[Parsimony]

Did anyone else notice that there were some things in there which had nothing to do with evolution at all? That thing about the neutron mass, for example. What is the relevance? Why do so many creationists not seem to understand that evolution has nothing at all to do with the fine-tuning argument or the Big Bang theory or atheism or other such things?

 

[Helvetios]

Did anyone else notice that there were some things in there which had nothing to do with evolution at all? That thing about the neutron mass, for example. What is the relevance? Why do so many creationists not seem to understand that evolution has nothing at all to do with the fine-tuning argument or the Big Bang theory or atheism or other such things?

Creationist criticism of evolution is not the same as scientific criticism of the ToE. A scientist's focus is more directed to the inner workings of the theory itself, and their efforts are directed to improving the theory to make it more consistent with the available evidence. A creationist's criticism does not stem from a concern for the ToE's accuracy, and is more often directed at moral/religious implications; evolution is perceived as a personal affront or attack. Many creationists are evangelical Christians who believe the entire Bible should be taken literally, and if evolution is true then this is direct evidence that at least part of the Bible is inaccurate. Also, questions about origins are contentious in a group that says humankind has a divine creation and purpose. Just as the pro-life/pro-choice debate often asks "when is the fetus considered a protected human being (soul optional)?", pro-/anti-evolution religious debate might also ask "at which point in history did humans acquire souls as beings made in the image of God?" Of course if you take the view that evolution has occurred for a very long time, the question seems silly and arbitrary. But for someone who takes their status as a child of God very seriously, the theory of evolution is a direct threat to their identity.

In short, creationists do not offer constructive criticism about the theory of evolution because it isn't about the quality or relevance of the evidence, it's about which parts of science they feel are attacking them and which counter-attacks they can retaliate with.

 

[Skwim]

Creationist criticism of evolution is not the same as scientific criticism of the ToE. A scientist's focus is more directed to the inner workings of the theory itself, and their efforts are directed to improving the theory to make it more consistent with the available evidence. A creationist's criticism does not stem from a concern for the ToE's accuracy, and is more often directed at moral/religious implications; evolution is perceived as a personal affront or attack. Many creationists are evangelical Christians who believe the entire Bible should be taken literally, and if evolution is true then this is direct evidence that at least part of the Bible is inaccurate. Also, questions about origins are contentious in a group that says humankind has a divine creation and purpose. Just as the pro-life/pro-choice debate often asks "when is the fetus considered a protected human being (soul optional)?", pro-/anti-evolution religious debate might also ask "at which point in history did humans acquire souls as beings made in the image of God?" Of course if you take the view that evolution has occurred for a very long time, the question seems silly and arbitrary. But for someone who takes their status as a child of God very seriously, the theory of evolution is a direct threat to their identity.

In short, creationists do not offer constructive criticism about the theory of evolution because it isn't about the quality or relevance of the evidence, it's about which parts of science they feel are attacking them and which counter-attacks they can retaliate with.

And god forbid that any creationist try to establish the validity of creationism without attacking evolution.

 

[Shad]

Just found an interestin article -

https://www.google.com.au/search?so...Why+Evolution+Is+Just+A+Fairy+Tale+For+Adults

Here is one quote -

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”

Cheers!

Go look up John Cleese and Malcolm with "Life of Brian" tag. Malcolm is the one that made the above quote. After that go look up the Monty Python parody of the above interview tag

 

[Midnight Rain]

Just found an interestin article -

https://www.google.com.au/search?so...Why+Evolution+Is+Just+A+Fairy+Tale+For+Adults

Here is one quote -

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”

Cheers!

Know what? I'm bored. I'm gonna run through this thing.

1. Starts off with a false statement. Unsure if author is simply ignorant or out right lying. Could be both.
2. Charles Darwin is taken out of context in quote but they are at least onto something. However Dwarinian evolution is not our current understanding of evolution. His opinion on the matter more or less is meaningless.
3/4/5. Out of context quote mining of individuals to mislead people about their meaning and intent.
6. Simply false statements. Either out of ignorance of evolution or outright lying.
7. This has been explained.
8 & 9. They are both out of context quotes. In fact the Richard Dawkins quote is explained on the very same page if they had continued to quote him.
10. False on numerous levels. Most importantly the fact that they jump to blind faith after ignoring all evidences gathered.
11/12. Yet again people who are quoted out of context to reverse their meanings. And this is a point I wan to emphasize. One of these people were quoted in way that would make you BELIEVE that they said evolution isn't real while in the SAME BREATH saying that they were an evolutionist. So obviously they believe evolution? So why would they believe that its impossible as well? Are they stupid? Or do you simply not understand what he is saying?
13. This is something I've never heard of before. Its obviously false but still at least a new one. All scientists are atheist pagans I guess.
14. Simple google search can fix this guys problem on so many levels. this one included.
15. Good thing it wasn't by chance. Neither was it by design.
16. They have in fact answers for it.
17. This was a great find. Doesn't in any way harm the theory of evolution but it was a great find. I don't understand the leap of faith taken in this point.
18. It means it fits its environment then any changes are often negative and weeded out. Until their role changes they won't.
19. There isn't an argument here. Its just a silly statement and appeal to emotion.
20. More out of context quote mining.
21. Its one hoax that was found out to be a fake by comparing it with real fossils. So if all fossils are fake (which seems to be your argument) how did they know this pitdown man was a fake? What did they compare it to?
22. The fact that it is how it is. This point makes no sense.
23. Same as 22.
24. an old quote first of all and secondly it doesn't argue against evolution.
25. I don't see how this is relevant.
26. Yes it has.
27. Actually you can in certain areas. The grand canyon is a great example.
28. Why does it? Because you stated they gained light bones in order to fly before they could fly. This is false.
29. There has been one exception and its an amazing discovery. However it is an exception based on extraordinary circumstances. Also the "soft tissue" is often far different than what people insinuate. If we were wrong about this then it means we were wrong about the assumption that no soft tissue remains. Not the age of the dinosaurs.
30. This isn't a point. Its a question. Google it. There are answers.
31/32/33/34- These are google-able questions. There are answers. You aren't being clever.
35. It didn't happen by accident. Nor by design.
36. DNA isn't a code. Its "like" a code. re8kt
37. It isn't. But we know how it came to be how it is now.
38. by people without proper training using the wrong methods.
39. If every person on the planet right now grouped together shoulder to shoulder we could all fit inside Los Angeles. The room issue isn't an issue. Not to mention graves decay over time. I figure this could be a problem in a few thousand years however.
40. How we determine design is by contrasting it with things that naturally exist. We cannot contrast naturally existing things with anything else to determine if they are designed. What would a non-designed universe look like? why?
41. You are more than welcome to bring evidence against it. People have for more than a 100 years now. None have been successful. Not because evolution is so blindly accepted but because the evidence supports it. TBH if you think evolution is silly then you probably aren't smart enough or educated enough to be part of the scientific community.
42. Time magazine is irrelevant.
43. A wrong person is wrong. I figured as much soon as I saw Philosopher was his title. What is his evidence?
44. go take a biology course. they set it out easy enough for children to understand. Leave your Church at the door and come with a mind willing to learn.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes, we are all thoroughly familiar with the fact that people who disbelieve in evolution never actually understand what it is.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, we are all thoroughly familiar with the fact that people who disbelieve in evolution never actually understand what it is.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Creationist criticism of evolution is not the same as scientific criticism of the ToE. A scientist's focus is more directed to the inner workings of the theory itself, and their efforts are directed to improving the theory to make it more consistent with the available evidence. A creationist's criticism does not stem from a concern for the ToE's accuracy, and is more often directed at moral/religious implications; evolution is perceived as a personal affront or attack. Many creationists are evangelical Christians who believe the entire Bible should be taken literally, and if evolution is true then this is direct evidence that at least part of the Bible is inaccurate. Also, questions about origins are contentious in a group that says humankind has a divine creation and purpose. Just as the pro-life/pro-choice debate often asks "when is the fetus considered a protected human being (soul optional)?", pro-/anti-evolution religious debate might also ask "at which point in history did humans acquire souls as beings made in the image of God?" Of course if you take the view that evolution has occurred for a very long time, the question seems silly and arbitrary. But for someone who takes their status as a child of God very seriously, the theory of evolution is a direct threat to their identity.

In short, creationists do not offer constructive criticism about the theory of evolution because it isn't about the quality or relevance of the evidence, it's about which parts of science they feel are attacking them and which counter-attacks they can retaliate with.

Is it a coincidence that the world's most renowned evolutionist's best selling book is called 'The God Delusion' ? i.e. which side is basing their beliefs on ideological implications?

"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..."

With this sort of vitriol, which we see fairly commonly, Can you blame people for feeling evolution is a little more ideological than scientific?

belief in Darwinian evolution is <20% in the U.S. despite being taught in schools as fact, I have nothing against it in principle, I just don't find it very convincing.

 

[Altfish]

You know it is propaganda when the websites are called...

the truthwins.com
proofthebibleistrue.com

Any site that has the word truth in its title is lying. George Orwell pointed that out in '1984'

 

[Helvetios]

Is it a coincidence that the world's most renowned evolutionist's best selling book is called 'The God Delusion' ? i.e. which side is basing their beliefs on ideological implications?

"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..."

With this sort of vitriol, which we see fairly commonly, Can you blame people for feeling evolution is a little more ideological than scientific?

belief in Darwinian evolution is <20% in the U.S. despite being taught in schools as fact, I have nothing against it in principle, I just don't find it very convincing.

It is wrong to point at a single well-known scientist and claim that his published works unrelated to evolutionary theory discredit the theory itself, which is bolstered by reams of evidence that have nothing to do with that scientist. Evolutionary theory does not need Richard Dawkins. He is an evolutionary biologist, yes, but it would be a grave mistake to suggest that his religious views are responsible for his conclusions made in a scientific context. His religious views and the general consensus of scientists so far agree with each other, but they do not depend on each other. (I would also mention that I think his views and public comments outside of evolutionary biology are often inflammatory, poorly reasoned, arrogant, and unnecessary. I listen when he talks about biology and I ignore him when he doesn't. He is a good scientist when he sticks to science. Don't turn this into an ad hominem attack. How many scientists can you name who agree with Dawkins' brash statements about people with Down syndrome, for example?)

Do you know anything about the scientific method? It is a process of observation, measurement, analysis, inference, and continued observation to synthesize a conclusion from all the evidence they can find. If the scientific method does not find God then it has nothing to say about God.

The numbers you cite may have come from this Gallup poll. They indicate that as of 2014: 19% of Americans state that (a) human evolution (not just Darwinian, the theory has come a long way since his day) occurred and (b) no deities, supernatural or religious beings had any part in the process. 31% of Americans believe the first part but assert that God was involved somehow in the process, which is an unprovable statement since the scientific method cannot measure God (doesn't mean it isn't true, just that science has nothing to say about it). 42% of Americans state that not only was God involved (still unprovable but possible to believe), humans were created in their present form less than 10,000 years ago (absolutely untrue given conclusive evidence, despite what hypotheses you might read in the Journal of Creation).

Furthermore, it isn't entirely correct that all children are being taught the theory of evolution. The Wikipedia article on the subject shows a divisive country with no single standard for education. Some states mandate equal time for alternative, unsupported viewpoints. Others encourage teachers to present evidence they feel is critical of the theory. This is a problem because these teachers are not experts, and the evidence they present may not be rigorously supported. If the states want to give children a firm foundation in science they must not allow a teacher's faulty reasoning to undermine it. The states also do not have complete control over school curricula. Private schools have more leeway, and homeschooling is often an option for religious parents who are unsatisfied with public education. (Others too, but this is a way for children to grow up without hearing about evolution at all, or at the most in a negative context.)

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

It is sad to see how deep the lack of proper scientific education runs.

People still talk of evolution as if it had not been verified, evidenced and applied consistently for about a century already. And they even have such numbers that their political reach is considerable.

We have become too alienated from the very resources (including scientific knowledge) that support our current situation. That bodes ill for our near future.

Enlighten us

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is wrong to point at a single well-known scientist and claim that his published works unrelated to evolutionary theory discredit the theory itself, which is bolstered by reams of evidence that have nothing to do with that scientist. Evolutionary theory does not need Richard Dawkins. He is an evolutionary biologist, yes, but it would be a grave mistake to suggest that his religious views are responsible for his conclusions made in a scientific context. His religious views and the general consensus of scientists so far agree with each other, but they do not depend on each other. (I would also mention that I think his views and public comments outside of evolutionary biology are often inflammatory, poorly reasoned, arrogant, and unnecessary. I listen when he talks about biology and I ignore him when he doesn't. He is a good scientist when he sticks to science. Don't turn this into an ad hominem attack.)

Fine, but you brought up perceptions, and if some perceive evolution as an ideological attack on alternative beliefs, you have to give Dawkins some credit for this. He sells a lot of books, fills a lot of auditoriums, does a lot of TV shows, so obviously he does not alienate too many evolutionists with his extreme and aggressive stance. If skeptics feel under attack, it is because they very much are so here, I don't think Dawkins would even deny this.

As for being a good scientist- certainly in terms of awards, prizes, book and ticket sales... he amounts to a very successful pop scientist, but what has he contributed to scientific understanding?

Do you know anything about the scientific method? It is a process of observation, measurement, analysis, inference, and continued observation to synthesize a conclusion from all the evidence they can find. If the scientific method does not find God then it has nothing to say about God.

when did we observe, measure, repeat the experiment, where a single cell morphs into a man? evidence can be a highly subjective thing

"It's as if they [Cambrian fossils] were just planted there with no evolutionary history" Dawkins

I agree with him on the observation, how we interpret it is another matter

The numbers you cite may have come from this Gallup poll. They indicate that as of 2014: 19% of Americans state that (a) human evolution (not just Darwinian, the theory has come a long way since his day) occurred and (b) no deities, supernatural or religious beings had any part in the process. 31% of Americans believe the first part but assert that God was involved somehow in the process, which is an unprovable statement since the scientific method cannot measure God (doesn't mean it isn't true, just that science has nothing to say about it). 42% of Americans state that not only was God involved (still unprovable but possible to believe), humans were created in their present form less than 10,000 years ago (absolutely untrue given conclusive evidence, despite what hypotheses you might read in the Journal of Creation).

yes, only 19% believe in Darwinian as-taught-in-school evolution, where man morphed from a single cell via millions of random mutations

Furthermore, it isn't entirely correct that all children are being taught the theory of evolution. The Wikipedia article on the subject shows a divisive country with no single standard for education. Some states mandate equal time for alternative, unsupported viewpoints. Others encourage teachers to present evidence they feel is critical of the theory. This is a problem because these teachers are not experts, and the evidence they present may not be rigorously supported. If the states want to give children a firm foundation in science they must not allow a teacher's faulty reasoning to undermine it.

As long as children remember that no teacher, government curriculum, politician, or scientist is the source of all truth that's a valuable lesson. I went to what most would call a good school, I was taught global cooling, and that oil would have run out 20 years ago...

"when I think back on all the c**p I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all' Paul Simon

 

[Helvetios]

Fine, but you brought up perceptions, and if some perceive evolution as an ideological attack on alternative beliefs, you have to give Dawkins some credit for this. He sells a lot of books, fills a lot of auditoriums, does a lot of TV shows, so obviously he does not alienate too many evolutionists with his extreme and aggressive stance. If skeptics feel under attack, it is because they very much are so here, I don't think Dawkins would even deny this.

As for being a good scientist- certainly in terms of awards, prizes, book and ticket sales... he amounts to a very successful pop scientist, but what has he contributed to scientific understanding?

I completely agree with you there, as far as popular perception goes he is a well-known scientist. So is Lawrence Krauss, who is doing some fascinating work in physics right now; so are Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson, who are public figures in the world of science education to the general public. I find Dawkins to be a bit of an *******, but fortunately he isn't the only scientist publishing books and making himself known outside the scientific community. I don't think it's right to say 'evolutionists' are not alienated, since he says some pretty ridiculous things and most people are reasonable enough to know better. Again, this is a public perception problem, not an evidence problem. Evolution challenges some key questions and assumptions about human nature, origins, morality, future, and religion. It's natural to want to find an alternative explanation that preserves pre-existing knowledge and beliefs.

when did we observe, measure, repeat the experiment, where a single cell morphs into a man? evidence can be a highly subjective thing

"It's as if they [Cambrian fossils] were just planted there with no evolutionary history" Dawkins: I agree with the observation, how we interpret it is another matter

Evolution is not subjective. Interpretation is.

You know you ask something impossible. If you don't, then it would be beneficial to do some reading on how cells evolve and how long it takes for that many changes to occur. We don't have another 4.5 billion years and another planet to repeat the process -- and we never could, because it would happen differently the next time anyway. We will never know all the details. We won't know all of the potential and all of the ancient species lost to extinction, never fossilized or discovered. Human beings are just one possibility of billions that never came to pass. We do have forensic evidence in our own bodies to illustrate the story of our past, and that is why we can say "we're more closely related to this species than that one" or "our mitochondria came from these bacteria, they weren't always part of us". It's because when evolution occurs it leaves evidence behind, and we can follow it and look at its footprints to see where it came from. Don't ask the impossible and blame scientists for dishonesty when they deliver something possible.

Re: the Cambrian explosion, that's an open question and it's perfectly fine for scientists to admit they don't know what happened. Please don't take a single comment as license to discard the whole evolutionary process. It just complicates the problem. If the Cambrian organisms had no evolutionary history, who or what put them there? For what purpose? Doesn't that imply that all present organisms still have an evolutionary history even if the Cambrians didn't?

yes, only 19% believe in Darwinian as-taught-in-school evolution, where man morphed from a single cell via millions of random mutations

If you're trying to impress me with numbers it isn't working. I don't care how many people are right or wrong, I care about being right. If 81% of the country believes something about science that cannot be proven (or is plain wrong) then that's their problem. I'll focus on my own education.

As long as children remember that no teacher, government curriculum, politician, or scientist is the source of all truth that's a valuable lesson. I went to what most would call a good school, I was taught global cooling, and that oil would have run out 20 years ago...

As long as adults remember that no pastor, scientist, politician, person on the internet, or non-expert is worth trusting without verification of their claims, that's a valuable lesson.

Surprise, scientists learn more and then they change what they teach. They're still learning and some of the things they teach are still wrong, but other scientists will be the ones to investigate and correct them.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I completely agree with you there, as far as popular perception goes he is a well-known scientist. So is Lawrence Krauss, who is doing some fascinating work in physics right now; so are Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson, who are public figures in the world of science education to the general public. I find Dawkins to be a bit of an *******, but fortunately he isn't the only scientist publishing books and making himself known outside the scientific community. I don't think it's right to say 'evolutionists' are not alienated, since he says some pretty ridiculous things and most people are reasonable enough to know better. Again, this is a public perception problem, not an evidence problem. Evolution challenges some key questions and assumptions about human nature, origins, morality, future, and religion. It's natural to want to find an alternative explanation that preserves pre-existing knowledge and beliefs.

Dawkins is the most outspoken atheist, but the others (I might exclude Nye somewhat) are similarly involved primarily with philosophical speculation and pop science careers from a particular well defined ideological stance, their combined contribution to actual practical scientific knowledge? somewhere behind the inventor of the Chip Clip?

That may be a bit harsh! But I don't think there is much question ,that Dr Ben Carson for example has contributed more to practical science, medicine, with a particular focus on the most complex organism known in nature, than all of them. I don't write him off as less qualified and unworthy to have a valid opinion on the evidence, or lack thereof for evolution.

Evolution is not subjective. Interpretation is.

You know you ask something impossible. If you don't, then it would be beneficial to do some reading on how cells evolve and how long it takes for that many changes to occur. We don't have another 4.5 billion years and another planet to repeat the process -- and we never could, because it would happen differently the next time anyway. We will never know all the details. We won't know all of the potential and all of the ancient species lost to extinction, never fossilized or discovered. Human beings are just one possibility of billions that never came to pass. We do have forensic evidence in our own bodies to illustrate the story of our past, and that is why we can say "we're more closely related to this species than that one" or "our mitochondria came from these bacteria, they weren't always part of us". It's because when evolution occurs it leaves evidence behind, and we can follow it and look at its footprints to see where it came from. Don't ask the impossible and blame scientists for dishonesty when they deliver something possible.

Re: the Cambrian explosion, that's an open question and it's perfectly fine for scientists to admit they don't know what happened. Please don't take a single comment as license to discard the whole evolutionary process. It just complicates the problem. If the Cambrian organisms had no evolutionary history, who or what put them there? For what purpose? Doesn't that imply that all present organisms still have an evolutionary history even if the Cambrians didn't?

Right, it's impossible to provide the direct empirical evidence. One can, as Dawkins does, go on to speculate about why certain evidence is missing, but 'the dog ate my homework' does not equal a passing grade.

Classical physics was far more directly observable, testable, immutable even, for longer than evolution as a comprehensive explanation for all physical reality. And was similarly touted by some atheists/ academics to make God redundant. And skepticism of it, the existence of deeper mysterious, unpredictable forces necessary for such a complex observed reality- was the realm of ignorant religious masses.

A coincidence that Max Planck was a skeptic of atheism?

If you're trying to impress me with numbers it isn't working. I don't care how many people are right or wrong, I care about being right. If 81% of the country believes something about science that cannot be proven (or is plain wrong) then that's their problem. I'll focus on my own education.

well I agree with that also, it doesn't prove anything, but I don't think we can write off 81% of the population as ignorant- or worse, either, that's a lot of pretty smart people who are well aware of what the theory claims.

As long as adults remember that no pastor, scientist, politician, person on the internet, or non-expert is worth trusting without verification of their claims, that's a valuable lesson.

Surprise, scientists learn more and then they change what they teach. They're still learning and some of the things they teach are still wrong, but other scientists will be the ones to investigate and correct them.

Agree here also- though while science progresses, scientists don't always- Hoyle Dismissed Lemaitre's primeval atom theory he mocked as 'Big Bang' till his dying day.

'Science progresses one funeral at a time' as Max Planck said, some will never change their minds, no matter the evidence. Particularly the ones who make their career mocking alternative theories.

Must go but appreciate the civil discussion!

 

[LuisDantas]

Enlighten us

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...-tutorials-on-the-theory-of-evolution.100967/

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is it a coincidence that the world's most renowned evolutionist's best selling book is called 'The God Delusion' ? i.e. which side is basing their beliefs on ideological implications?

"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..."

With this sort of vitriol, which we see fairly commonly, Can you blame people for feeling evolution is a little more ideological than scientific?

belief in Darwinian evolution is <20% in the U.S. despite being taught in schools as fact, I have nothing against it in principle, I just don't find it very convincing.

Fine, but you brought up perceptions, and if some perceive evolution as an ideological attack on alternative beliefs, you have to give Dawkins some credit for this. He sells a lot of books, fills a lot of auditoriums, does a lot of TV shows, so obviously he does not alienate too many evolutionists with his extreme and aggressive stance. If skeptics feel under attack, it is because they very much are so here, I don't think Dawkins would even deny this.

As for being a good scientist- certainly in terms of awards, prizes, book and ticket sales... he amounts to a very successful pop scientist, but what has he contributed to scientific understanding?


when did we observe, measure, repeat the experiment, where a single cell morphs into a man? evidence can be a highly subjective thing

"It's as if they [Cambrian fossils] were just planted there with no evolutionary history" Dawkins

I agree with him on the observation, how we interpret it is another matter


yes, only 19% believe in Darwinian as-taught-in-school evolution, where man morphed from a single cell via millions of random mutations


As long as children remember that no teacher, government curriculum, politician, or scientist is the source of all truth that's a valuable lesson. I went to what most would call a good school, I was taught global cooling, and that oil would have run out 20 years ago...

"when I think back on all the c**p I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all' Paul Simon

Still quote mining, I see.
I guess you aren't all that interested in being taken seriously.