Why do most scientists accept evolution.

[johnhanks]

Famed atheist Antony Flew changed his mind and expressed belief that some intelligence was involved in the creation of life. What convinced him? A study of DNA.

Flew was a philosopher, with no credentials in molecular biology. The book celebrating his apparent conversion (when Flew himself was in his dotage) was not, Flew later admitted, actually written by him:

As he himself conceded, he had not written his book ... “This is really Roy [Varghese]’s doing,” he said ... When I asked [Christian apologist Roy Abraham Varghese], he freely admitted that the book was his idea and that he had done all the original writing for it.

Francis Crick, who helped discover DNA’s double-helix structure, also expressed belief an intelligent entity was involved in DNA.

Crick lived and died an atheist.

And claiming DNA is not "impressive" betrays a need to hide the truth. Fortunately, people not drunk on the ToE kool-aid can examine the evidence for themselves. I find it interesting how this seems to bother evolutionists.

Yes, as I pointed out in post 94 evolutionists are busily hiding the truth in museums, books, TV documentaries: anything to prevent the public from examining the evidence for themselves...

 

[fantome profane]

Shameless bump.

I just thought I would give creationists another chance to see if they can answer this question without resorting to baseless ad hominem attacks or absurd conspiracies.

 

[ScottySatan]

Most biologists accept evolution because they do things which require evolution to have been true for their experiments to work, and then their experiments worked.

Just like how you hear in the news once in a while "experiment yet again proves Einstein's relativity correct ".

The specific reasons are usually unfortunately technical beyond laymens' understanding.

edited to add:

And I think that is the major reason why there's a disconnect between evolutionary biologists and evolution skeptics.

e.g. I have one tattoo that I partially regret. It's a molecular biology tattoo, not a double helix of DNA or a famous equation that people recognise, but a simple cartoon of a map of a synthetic piece of DNA used for genetically engineering E. coli that is very widely used in the biology community. I did not consider the population at-large at all when getting this. And now I'm asked by people in the street once every two weeks or so, "what is that?". I CAN explain it, but it would take 15 minutes. And even then, in this case, you cannot really understand what the thing is, unless you can understand what the thing is used for. So you're looking at a 1/2 hour lecture for me to be able to explain this thing to some random dude on the street. But when they ask, they are expecting and wanting a 20-second answer, tops. So I give them an answer that's 1% of the truth..."It's DNA". They have a confused look on their face, and I can tell they don't know what I'm talking about, but I don't want to, or feel like I should, elaborate. Every biologist recognises my tattoo immediately, as easily as they would a heart symbol or an inverted pentagram.

In other words, it's not so much that biology is arrogant and condescends to communicate with the rest of the world, but biologists have simply learned that people on the street who question them are not looking for the full explanation that is modern evolutionary theory, (or bacterial cloning plasmid vectors) because that is a week long lecture at least.

Almost every critic of evolution I've read on the internet forums has used words that prooved to me that they don't understand the theory.

 

[rusra02]

Flew was a philosopher, with no credentials in molecular biology. The book celebrating his apparent conversion (when Flew himself was in his dotage) was not, Flew later admitted, actually written by him:

Crick lived and died an atheist.
Yes, as I pointed out in post 94 evolutionists are busily hiding the truth in museums, books, TV documentaries: anything to prevent the public from examining the evidence for themselves...

I notice your responses did not deny what I posted. You simply attempted to redirect the discussion. A common ploy, IMO, of evolutionist posters in RF, is to attack the person if the argument cannot be attacked; witness your deriding comments about Flew. And whether Crick remained an atheist or not, he saw intelligence at work in living things. As to evolutionists hiding the truth, readers are free to google "fraud in evolution" and see for themselves.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I notice your responses did not deny what I posted. You simply attempted to redirect the discussion. A common ploy, IMO, of evolutionist posters in RF, is to attack the person if the argument cannot be attacked; witness your deriding comments about Flew. And whether Crick remained an atheist or not, he saw intelligence at work in living things. As to evolutionists hiding the truth, readers are free to google "fraud in evolution" and see for themselves.

I noticed that your response completely fails to account for or take on board the arguments made and instead reduces them (and their sources) to merely being personal attacks rather than genuine points that successfully refute your arguments. A common ploy, IMO, of creationist posters here in RF, is to constantly accuse people of making personal attacks in order to avoid actually trying to address the refutations because they render the argument lost, then to simply re-state your point as if nothing had been refuted.

It's an easy game to play. Far easier than actually debating with facts. Facts like "Flew was not a scientist of any description and his opinion on various scientific subjects can therefore be dismissed", or "Crick's conversion was nothing but an admitted fraud".

It's clear to anyone reading this who is dodging the arguments, and who is using underhanded tactics to try and bolster their position. You are the one making experts out of people who aren't, and you're the one citing known forgeries as facts.

Rusra, you're done. Just give up already.

 

[Sculelos]

I'd say most scientist accept Evolution for these reasons.

1. They were taught it in school.
2. They typically won't get funding if they deny Evolution
3. Most are too naive to suspect that it may be wrong.

I'd say the top 3 are the only 3 that most are really concerned with, most don't care about teaching what is true, most only care about getting paid.

I did do some research into how much data is actually stored in a human body and it's surprisingly low about 667 MB as far as I can tell.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I'd say most scientist accept Evolution for these reasons.

1. They were taught it in school.
2. They typically won't get funding if they deny Evolution
3. Most are too naive to suspect that it may be wrong.

I'd say the top 3 are the only 3 that most are really concerned with, most don't care about teaching what is true, most only care about getting paid.

I did do some research into how much data is actually stored in a human body and it's surprisingly low about 667 MB as far as I can tell.

Evidence please, or you have (again) contributed nothing.


Really. Nothing at all.

PS - I would LOVE to see your 'research': particulary your methodology section.

 

[Sculelos]

Evidence please, or you have (again) contributed nothing.

Really. Nothing at all.

PS - I would LOVE to see your 'research': particulary your methodology section.

My science is based on nothing more then magnetic charge using my understanding of average weight and Ions.

For 150lb, 6 foot human = about 699,795,210 Ions = About 667 MB

One artical I found that seems to support my understanding of physics.

UC Santa Cruz Puts Human Genome Online / Programming wizard does job in 4 weeks - SFGate

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd say most scientist accept Evolution for these reasons.

1. They were taught it in school.
2. They typically won't get funding if they deny Evolution
3. Most are too naive to suspect that it may be wrong.

I'd say the top 3 are the only 3 that most are really concerned with, most don't care about teaching what is true, most only care about getting paid.

I did do some research into how much data is actually stored in a human body and it's surprisingly low about 667 MB as far as I can tell.

Why do most of the clergy accept religion?
1) They were taught it by their parents & by their church.
2) They'll lose their jobs if they deny religion.
3) Most are afraid to suspect that it may be wrong.

 

[Sculelos]

Why do most of the clergy accept religion?
1) They were taught it by their parents & by their church.
2) They'll lose their jobs if they deny religion.
3) Most are afraid to suspect that it may be wrong.

I suspect this is true as well. This is why to find answers to real questions you can not talk to professional scientist nor can you go talk to professional members of churches as they will certainly give you official answers all day but they will seldomly tell you what they really think deep down.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It's amusing that at least in those societies with unfortunately high levels of theological influence over public policies, there is a high level of religious education about their own religious mythologies (at least those that pertain to the culture specific religious traditions) and people DONT get taught evolution in schools or if they are it is done much later (after indoctrination) and in a manner that is devised to discredit evolution, mainly by people who do not accept it and/or do not understand it. The exceptions to the rule are to be commended, they often suffer in such theologically controlled societies as a result of actually teaching evolution in an impartial manner - you know, for doing their job.

Were anyone able to disprove evolution, they would attract some of the highest levels of academic funding on earth, not to mention overwhelming accolades.

Scientists always acknowledge they might be wrong, that's why they call even gravity a 'theory'. You simply could not have picked a more ludicrous comment.

 

[Skwim]

I suspect this is true as well. This is why to find answers to real questions you can not talk to professional scientist nor can you go talk to professional members of churches as they will certainly give you official answers all day but they will seldomly tell you what they really think deep down.

Then it's obvious that the truth resides in those who don't know it.

What marvelous idea.

"Ask the Ignorant"

 

[Sculelos]

Then it's obvious that the truth resides in those who don't know it.

It's safe to say that many of the Worlds leading scientist in the past have been people who had no peers, nor any major organizations during their most productive years.

 

[fantome profane]

I'd say most scientist accept Evolution for these reasons.

1. They were taught it in school.
2. They typically won't get funding if they deny Evolution
3. Most are too naive to suspect that it may be wrong.

I'd say the top 3 are the only 3 that most are really concerned with, most don't care about teaching what is true, most only care about getting paid.

I did do some research into how much data is actually stored in a human body and it's surprisingly low about 667 MB as far as I can tell.

So scientists are shallow greedy people who are more interested in a paycheck than in discovering the truth.

And they are also so incredibly stupid that they don't understand the evidence that they have studies professionally for years. And if only these scientists were as intelligent as you and knew as much about science as you do they would not accept evolution.



And I am still wondering if any creationist can respond to this question without these ridiculous ad hominems and absurd conspiracy theories.

 

[Sculelos]

So scientists are shallow greedy people who are more interested in a paycheck than in discovering the truth.

And they are also so incredibly stupid that they don't understand the evidence that they have studies professionally for years. And if only these scientists were as intelligent as you and knew as much about science as you do they would not accept evolution.

And I am still wondering if any creationist can respond to this question without these ridiculous ad hominems and absurd conspiracy theories.

I'm just saying that most major Scientist know a ton about their respective fields however Geologist aren't Biologist and neither are Cosmetologist and most aren't phosphors and engineers and alchemist and historians and quantum physicist.

In short I'm just saying that very few single individuals know enough about all those respective fields in order to put up any significant resistance to the evolution propaganda machine and it's much easier and safer to just do your job and receive funding then it is to upset someone and lose your high paying salary like this poor guy.

Suit: NASA worker fired over intelligent design - CBS News

 

[secret2]

So scientists are shallow greedy people who are more interested in a paycheck than in discovering the truth.

I would rather focus on some people's view on science itself, instead of the scientists. It seems that some see it as an institution that is somehow burdened by a preconceived ideological positions, and unable to self-correct. Is it a wishful projection because of their own world view?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

In short I'm just saying that very few single individuals know enough about all those respective fields in order to put up any significant resistance to the evolution propaganda machine and it's much easier and safer to just do your job and receive funding then it is to upset someone and lose your high paying salary like this poor guy.

Suit: NASA worker fired over intelligent design - CBS News

Demoted from 'team lead' because he was clashing with others and accussed of harassment. Doesnt sound much like discrimination; he didn't lose his job because he believes in creation, he lost his job because he was an *** (which wouldnt have been as much of a problem as a technician, but as a team lead if everyone thinks you are an *** then your team will not perform as it should, a leader is about interfacing with people to get the job done, he apparently had significant problems in terms of how he relates to others due to his conduct); he was unfit for the position of team lead and thus demoted.

He was then one of the individuals let go when the project he was on was being scaled back due to financial constraints (as part of hundreds of job cuts business wide); again not discrimination, its called the law of probability, chances were a socialist lost their job too - it wasnt because they were a socialist, its because nearly 200 people lost their jobs.

 

[sonofdad]

I'm just saying that most major Scientist know a ton about their respective fields however Geologist aren't Biologist and neither are Cosmetologist and most aren't phosphors and engineers and alchemist and historians and quantum physicist.

In short I'm just saying that very few single individuals know enough about all those respective fields in order to put up any significant resistance to the evolution propaganda machine and it's much easier and safer to just do your job and receive funding then it is to upset someone and lose your high paying salary like this poor guy.

Suit: NASA worker fired over intelligent design - CBS News

Yes, nobody is an expert in every field, but many scientists are experts in one or more fields.
That's why we need peer review.

 

[Sculelos]

Yes, nobody is an expert in every field, but many scientists are experts in one or more fields.
That's why we need peer review.

It seems to me tthat close to 50% of scientist are actually young earth creationist, however they tend not to be very public about it and just keep it to themselves.

Evolution is more philosophy then Science and Creation is more history then Science. I tend to believe well known historical facts and observations moreso then modern techno babble of what life was like millions of years ago. (When written history only dates back about 4800 years by the earliest recorded hyrogliphics)

 

[Draka]