Why some people reject evolution

[Danmark]

[you can skip the intro and go right to the last paragraph]

Growing up, I was seldom interested in math. At first it seemed tedious and boring. I invented my own shortcuts to make it easier. Later it required discipline when it got too difficult to do in my head. So, i loved geometry, but lost interest after trig, which I didn't even try to understand. I've been thinking of trying to teach myself calculus, just to see if, at 69 I can do it. So, I looked for a free online course of study and found this:

As Henry Ford said, " Nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs ". Too much of the world is complicated by layers of evolution. If you understand how each layer is put down then you can begin to understand the complex systems that govern our world. Charles Darwin wrote in 1859 in his On The Origin of Species,

"When we no longer look at an organic being as a savage looks at a ship, as at something wholly beyond his comprehension; when we regard every production of nature as one which had a history; when we contemplate every complex structure and instinct as the summing up of many contrivances, each useful to the possessor, nearly in the same as when we look at any great mechanical invention as the summing of the labour, the experience, the reason, and even the blunders of numerous workmen; when we thus view each organic being, how far more interesting, I speak from experience, will the study of natural history become! " http://www.understandingcalculus.com/

So here's the question, do people not believe in evolution just because the Bible tells them so? Or is there another factor; that rather than try to understand it in small steps, one tiny transition at a time, since the entirety of the process ("microbe to man") seems impossible to them, do they reject it out of hand without looking at it step by step?

[William]

[Replying to post 26 by Neatras]

As far as I am concerned, the evidence shows plainly that biological evolution is a mindful process - intelligent and purposeful.

Therein, a mindful process requires a mind and while you and I may not easily comprehend what kind of a mind would be behind that process, does not in itself force us to conclude therefore that it is better not to wonder, even to the point of deciding it is therefore not possible and that the best interpretation is a mindless process. No mind behind it.

All a matter of interpretation. You have yours and I have mine, and certainly mine is not one which disparages SCIENCE. You conflate your interpretation of what science is showing with your belief in your interpretation and in that conclude that I am disparaging of SCIENCE rather than your interpretation.

I do not agree with your interpretation of what science is able to show us. That is not the same as me disparaging SCIENCE.

Don't be the pot calling out the kettle. It may well be that the interpretations disparage each other, but since they are only interpretations, what of it? Interpretations are NOT science.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 26 by Neatras]

As far as I am concerned,

I don't care.

the evidence shows plainly that biological evolution is a mindful process - intelligent and purposeful.

You are lying. Because you cannot substantiate your claim. It's just that simple.

Therein, a mindful process requires a mind

Therein you are making stuff up based on faulty premises.

and while you and I may not easily comprehend what kind of a mind would be behind that process,

Nor can you even provide a theoretical model for what kind of actions this mind performs.

does not in itself force us to conclude therefore that it is better not to wonder,

English, please.

even to the point of deciding it is therefore not possible and that the best interpretation is a mindless process. No mind behind it.

So your invisible, unsubstantiated mind is trying to pretend it's not in charge, and therefore natural processes happen as a result of mechanical forces. But you figured out that it is NOT a result of mechanical forces, and is in fact the result of a mindful process that is not trying to convince us that it is a mindful process. Got it.

In case you're wondering, everything you say is internally inconsistent.

All a matter of interpretation.

You disparage science because you think you are justified in making up conclusions without adequate justification, and then deciding that science supports your position.

You have yours and I have mine, and certainly mine is not one which disparages SCIENCE.

That's a lie.

You conflate your interpretation of what science is showing with your belief in your interpretation and in that conclude that I am disparaging of SCIENCE rather than your interpretation.

Wrong, you are so far removed from any kind of scientific methodology that pretending your patchwork, self-serving egotistical defense of "interpretive" science actually has any place in a scientific discussion is itself an insult to actual scientific processes. That is disparaging, because what you do, what you represent, is not science. You dress yourself in the coattails of science because you demand to stand on the same stage as intellectuals, and wax on about how your interpretation deserves just as much time as any other theoretical model, while sidestepping any responsibility to actually show some mettle and do the work yourself to show your interpretation is worth taking seriously.

I do not agree with your interpretation of what science is able to show us.

My understanding is that you don't have any evidence you can present; it is supported by the fact you have never presented any evidence on this forum.

That is not the same as me disparaging SCIENCE.

So pretending to be scientific, refusing to put in any effort into a methodology, not respecting the efforts and observations, the data and empirical evidence, of countless scientists, and then declaring de facto that they all support your position, without actually justifying it, is not disparaging. What you're doing is lower than plagiarism, and it is a vile act.

Don't be the pot calling out the kettle.

If I were a hypocrite, you'd be able to do something such as showing me the hypocrisy, not reacting like a conman declaring that all your detractors don't have a leg to stand on (while simultaneously ignoring or sidestepping demands to substantiate your claims)

It may well be that the interpretations disparage each other, but since they are only interpretations, what of it? Interpretations are NOT science.

Congratulations! Interpretations are not science. And what you are doing depends on misinterpreting science, ignoring science, and deciding that science is up to interpretation, all so you can prattle on about how "the evidence shows plainly that biological evolution is a mindful process".

Now demonstrate how the evidence shows this. I demand you do so, right this second.

[Bust Nak]

You are lying. Because you cannot substantiate your claim. It's just that simple.

Moderator Warning

Please refrain from personal comments, by all means point out the falsehood in his claims, but accusation of dishonesty is against the rules.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Peter]

[Replying to post 21 by Peter]

If you assume someone "kicked it off" you get an infinite regression which isn't helpful.

infinite regression not an issue if the idea of that which "kicked it off" is eternal - having no beginning or end.

Then let's just say that life is eternal and be done with gods creating it.

If only.

But more to the point, what exactly are you referring to when you say 'life'?

Chemical complexity that results in what is considered life is probably inevitable given a sufficiently complex and stable chemical environment i.e. Earth.

[William]

[Replying to post 32 by Neatras]

You disparage science because you think you are justified in making up conclusions without adequate justification, and then deciding that science supports your position.

Rubbish. Science is not about belief or non belief in a creator. Science is a process which scientists use to examine what is available to examine and make preliminary conclusions based on those observations, with the proviso of adapting the conclusions as more examination of evidence comes into the picture.

Science is a process explaining a process and I interpret the explanation provided as evidence of an intelligent design rather than a mindless random event.

As I explained, you obviously interpret the explanation provided as evidence of a mindless random event, and feel my interpretation disparages your own, and then conflate that with somehow science being disparaged. That is just rubbish.

You have yours and I have mine, and certainly mine is not one which disparages SCIENCE.

That's a lie.

You reply is an emotional outburst attempting to be disparaging. I am in fact speaking truth.

Indeed the rest of your post is nothing more than personal attack on my integrity.
In that, it is you who are being disparaging against my person. This does not bode well with good argument. I suggest that you cease and desist with such a display of disparagement.

Congratulations! Interpretations are not science.

I did not say that they were. I made clear distinctions about that.

And what you are doing depends on misinterpreting science,

No. I am simply disagreeing with your interpretation of what science is discovering.

ignoring science,

No.

and deciding that science is up to interpretation,

Of course science has to be interpreted. Like a jigsaw puzzle has to be put together.
Science is often showing me the intelligence involved with the process of biological evolution. It is not being used to tell me that GOD is or is not.

all so you can [strike]prattle on about how[/strike] consistently point towards is the fact that "the evidence shows plainly that biological evolution is a mindful process".

ftfy

Please contemplate learning how to control your emotions, rather than be controlled by your emotions. It will prove to be beneficial to future interactions.

Now demonstrate how the evidence shows this. I demand you do so, right this second.

No need for me to do this (but I am anyways, as I am part of that process) - the process is demonstrating itself and providing the evidence constantly/consistently.

You either see that, or refuse to see that. If you refuse to see that, nothing I can say to the contrary will be able to convince you otherwise.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 26 by Neatras]

As far as I am concerned, the evidence shows plainly that biological evolution is a mindful process - intelligent and purposeful.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts, sorry.

Therein, a mindful process requires a mind and while you and I may not easily comprehend what kind of a mind would be behind that process, does not in itself force us to conclude therefore that it is better not to wonder, even to the point of deciding it is therefore not possible and that the best interpretation is a mindless process. No mind behind it.

You are wondering about something that is wonderful but does not require wondering ... evolution. It is well supported by multiple fields of science without any contradiction, save healthy discussion of some of the details. You are suffering from an extreme cases of argument from incredulity that will only possibly be fixed by attending, attentively, well taught comparative anatomy and embryology classes.

All a matter of interpretation. You have yours and I have mine, and certainly mine is not one which disparages SCIENCE. You conflate your interpretation of what science is showing with your belief in your interpretation and in that conclude that I am disparaging of SCIENCE rather than your interpretation.

No, it is a matter of your only having faith whilst evolution has evidence. Do you understand the difference between faith and evidence?

I do not agree with your interpretation of what science is able to show us. That is not the same as me disparaging SCIENCE.

Sure it is. Again, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Don't be the pot calling out the kettle. It may well be that the interpretations disparage each other, but since they are only interpretations, what of it? Interpretations are NOT science.

Again, it is a matter of your only having faith whilst evolution has evidence. You need to learn the difference between faith and evidence.

[William]

[Replying to post 36 by H.sapiens]

Again, it is a matter of your only having faith whilst evolution has evidence. You need to learn the difference between faith and evidence.

In relation to the thread topic, I do not reject evolution.

In relation to the thread topic, your opinion that i have faith is not here nor there.

In relation to your opinion that I have faith, while this is something of a claim you are making, you provide no evidence to support your claim, and in relation to what I share on this forum it is unlikely you will be able to produce such evidence - from the horses mouth, so to speak.

Therefore your claim is really just a personal opinion about me.

And your opinion about me has nothing to do with the thread topic.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 36 by H.sapiens]

Again, it is a matter of your only having faith whilst evolution has evidence. You need to learn the difference between faith and evidence.

In relation to the thread topic, I do not reject evolution.

You pretend not to, but you do. You say, "Science is a process explaining a process and I interpret the explanation provided as evidence of an intelligent design rather than a mindless random event." But the reality is that you are neither trained nor otherwise qualified to perform such an interpretation which is best described by that scientific truism: GIGO (Garbage in, garbage out).

In relation to the thread topic, your opinion that i have faith is not here nor there.

Ah Contraire, you have either faith or you have evidence, (giving you the benefit of the doubt that all in not just hot air). Since you have no evidence, faith is all that is left to you but hot air.

In relation to your opinion that I have faith, while this is something of a claim you are making, you provide no evidence to support your claim, and in relation to what I share on this forum it is unlikely you will be able to produce such evidence - from the horses mouth, so to speak.

OK, hot air it must be, by elimination.

Therefore your claim is really just a personal opinion about me.

No, my claim is supported by analysis.

And your opinion about me has nothing to do with the thread topic.

My opinion means nothing, opinions are like noses ... everyone has one. But claims backed by evidence and analysis, that's a horse's mouth of another color.

[Peter]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

Christians reject the ToE for both reasons. It's a little difficult to grasp and it doesn't require their god to "design" life.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

Christians reject the ToE for both reasons. It's a little difficult to grasp and it doesn't require their god to "design" life.

Of course, many Christians today (I don't know the percentage) completely accept the ToE and science in general. They have a more enlightened view and understand the truth of the Bible comes thru as literature; that it is symbolic rather than literal. Adaptability and flexibility, as well as the ability to accept apparent inconsistencies.