Why is there so much opposition to evolution?

[Agnostic75]

I am obviously referring to opposition from laymen, not from experts.

It is interesting to note that the number of theists in the world who accept evolution far exceeds the number of atheists who accept evolution. Yes, there are far more theists in the world than atheists, and the percentage of atheists who accept evolution is far higher than the percentage of theists who accept evolution, but still, as I said, "the number of theists in the world who accept evolution far exceeds the number of atheists who accept evolution."


So, theists who get up in arms against evolution should attack their fellow theists who accept evolution since atheists have far less political power than theistic evolutionists do.

Since I am an agnostic, I do not promote theism or naturalism, but regardless of the mechanisms behind evolution, it very likely occurs.

 

[Man of Faith]

I am against it because it didn't happen.

 

[outhouse]

I am against it because it didn't happen.

you shouldnt troll so much

 

[outhouse]

There is only opposition due to theism and ignorance.

that doesnt mean all theist are ignorant but rather theisms brainwashing since early childhood has deep roots, it puts road blocks and closes minds tighlty.

No matter how good the case and evidence is you cannot get through to many theist.

 

[Matthew78]

I am against it because it didn't happen.

I would defy you to prove this but I don't see much point to it.

 

[Agnostic75]

I am against it because it didn't happen.

Did a global flood occur, and is the earth young?

 

[Man of Faith]

I would defy you to prove this but I don't see much point to it.

I don't see much point either, because people are going to accept what they want to accept. If the schools have a monopoly on indoctrination then it’s practically impossible to defeat that. However I will make an attempt to show people the light.

All the sciences are against evolution happening:
Probability... (math hates evolution)
Laws of Thermodynamics... (Physics hates evolution)
Chemical Creation of life... (it doesn't happen so Chemistry hates Evolution)
Mutations that do good???... (Biology hates evolution)
Defies Bible and other Religious Texts (Religion hates evolution)
Has barely any evidence and cannot repeat experiments to prove itself....
(Science hates Evolution!!!)

We also have a lacking fossil record.

 

[Matthew78]

I don't see much point either, because people are going to accept what they want to accept. If the schools have a monopoly on indoctrination then it’s practically impossible to defeat that. However I will make an attempt to show people the light.

All the sciences are against evolution happening:
Probability... (math hates evolution)
Laws of Thermodynamics... (Physics hates evolution)
Chemical Creation of life... (it doesn't happen so Chemistry hates Evolution)
Mutations that do good???... (Biology hates evolution)
Defies Bible and other Religious Texts (Religion hates evolution)
Has barely any evidence and cannot repeat experiments to prove itself....
(Science hates Evolution!!!)

We also have a lacking fossil record.

If all of this is true, then why is the expert consensus of scientists against you?

That's right; it's nothing but misotheism, huh? They just don't want to admit their guilty sins before a righteous Creator. If they had to become disciples of Christ, they'd have to give up those delicious sins and they don't want to do that. Isn't that right? I mean, what other reason can the majority of scientists have for not abandoning evolution in favor of biblical creationism?

 

[Man of Faith]

If all of this is true, then why is the expert consensus of scientists against you?

That's right; it's nothing but misotheism, huh? They just don't want to admit their guilty sins before a righteous Creator. If they had to become disciples of Christ, they'd have to give up those delicious sins and they don't want to do that. Isn't that right? I mean, what other reason can the majority of scientists have for not abandoning evolution in favor of biblical creationism?

Because creation has been deemed as religion by a non-scientific judge that's why. It has been banished by decree from the science class. If it was given a fair shake it would defeat evolution soundly.

 

[Matthew78]

Because creation has been deemed as religion by a non-scientific judge that's why. It has been banished by decree from the science class. If it was given a fair shake it would defeat evolution soundly.

So the majority of scientists depend on one judge for their methodology to distinguish science from pseudoscience?

That doesn't answer the question of why the consensus of scientific expertise believes that evolution is a fact and creationism to be pseudoscience. The consensus of scientists came to the conclusion that evolution is a fact and is established science long before any judge ruled out creationism as being nonscientific.

So, let me ask you again, if science totally refutes evolution, why is it that the majority of scientists disagree with you?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Speaking of ignorance ...

There is only opposition due to theism and ignorance.

No, there is only opposition due to literalism and ignorance.

 

[Man of Faith]

So the majority of scientists depend on one judge for their methodology to distinguish science from pseudoscience?

That doesn't answer the question of why the consensus of scientific expertise believes that evolution is a fact and creationism to be pseudoscience. The consensus of scientists came to the conclusion that evolution is a fact and is established science long before any judge ruled out creationism as being nonscientific.

So, let me ask you again, if science totally refutes evolution, why is it that the majority of scientists disagree with you?

That is correct, one judge deemed that creation was religion. Now if you are a scientist that wants to be taken seriously and get your works published in the top literature, do you mention creation or a designer in the context of creation? Of course not, you will be the laughing stock of science and your career is essentially over. If scientists want their liberal research money to keep coming in, they stay far away from anything that even hits of creation or design talk.

That is why the the consensus is “we know it happened, we just have to figure out how”. If they don’t know how it happened, why do they know it happened? Because it is a political stance, and good for their careers. There are a lot of scientists that don’t accept it and they are called names and not taken seriously.

 

[cablescavenger]

Because creation has been deemed as religion by a non-scientific judge that's why. It has been banished by decree from the science class. If it was given a fair shake it would defeat evolution soundly.

Are you suggesting that if the Judge was scientific he would have seen creation theory as more authentic than science?

 

[Matthew78]

That is correct, one judge deemed that creation was religion. Now if you are a scientist that wants to be taken seriously and get your works published in the top literature, do you mention creation or a designer in the context of creation? Of course not, you will be the laughing stock of science and your career is essentially over. If scientists want their liberal research money to keep coming in, they stay far away from anything that even hits of creation or design talk.

So what you're suggesting is that scientists are intellectually dishonest. Scientists know deep down that creationism really happened but they pretend that evolution is true and even defend it for job security and scientific respectability?

Is this something you can demonstrate or are you just pulling this out of your pants?

That is why the the consensus is “we know it happened, we just have to figure out how”. If they don’t know how it happened, why do they know it happened? Because it is a political stance, and good for their careers. There are a lot of scientists that don’t accept it and they are called names and not taken seriously.

The scientists who reject it are in a minority and the majority of them are Christian apologists. Folks like Duane Gish and Jonathan Sarfati are apologists and spin-doctors. Their reasons for rejecting evolution are because of doctrinal loyalty and they love to pretend that they have cogent scientific reasons for rejecting evolution.

 

[Matthew78]

Are you suggesting that if the Judge was scientific he would have seen creation theory as more authentic than science?

That's what he seems to be suggesting to me. If you are scientist or scientifically educated, then you have to acknowledge biblical creationism is true. The only reason not to is because you loathe Christ and his gospel.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you are scientist or scientifically educated, then you have to acknowledge biblical creationism is true. The only reason not to is because you loathe Christ and his gospel.

You might wish to rethink this nonsense.

 

[Man of Faith]

So what you're suggesting is that scientists are intellectually dishonest. Scientists know deep down that creationism really happened but they pretend that evolution is true and even defend it for job security and scientific respectability?

Is this something you can demonstrate or are you just pulling this out of your pants?



The scientists who reject it are in a minority and the majority of them are Christian apologists. Folks like Duane Gish and Jonathan Sarfati are apologists and spin-doctors. Their reasons for rejecting evolution are because of doctrinal loyalty and they love to pretend that they have cogent scientific reasons for rejecting evolution.

Each scientist, when they go home at night has to make up their own mind as to whether evolution or creation makes more sense. They don’t have to be intellectually dishonest on the job because mainstream science accepts evolution so they just go with that. Now if a Christian scientist doesn’t accept evolution but publishes pro-evolution papers then yes I would call that scientist intellectually dishonest. But I suspect that those types are very rare because I’ve seen polls to suggest that a high number of scientists are non-religious in their beliefs.

Besides, very few scientists actually do evolutionary cutting edge work, most just do lab work on a small scale that support other scientist ventures.

 

[cablescavenger]

That's what he seems to be suggesting to me. If you are scientist or scientifically educated, then you have to acknowledge biblical creationism is true. The only reason not to is because you loathe Christ and his gospel.

What about Tyrannosaurus Jesus?

He went extinct so you wouldn't have to believe that.

:bow:

This is of course my little joke, but it has a serious point. You seem to be forgetting these big beautiful beasts once walked the earth, and went extinct. Something supported by evolution. Can you tell me how this is supported by the Bible?

 

[Matthew78]

You might wish to rethink this nonsense.

Rethink what nonsense? I don't believe any of this. I am trying my best to understand "Man of Faith" and his posts. Sometimes I just wish he'd come out and say that the reason why scientists don't believe in creationism and most folks are not Christians is because they just don't like Jesus and his gospel.

 

[Matthew78]

Each scientist, when they go home at night has to make up their own mind as to whether evolution or creation makes more sense. They don’t have to be intellectually dishonest on the job because mainstream science accepts evolution so they just go with that.

If they know that creationism is true and evolution is false, then they are being intellectually dishonest regardless of whether they're on the job or not. Just going with it because the mainstream science accepts it is still intellectually dishonest because they're pretending that they accept it when they really don't.

Besides, very few scientists actually do evolutionary cutting edge work, most just do lab work on a small scale that support other scientist ventures.

How do you know this?