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?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to H.sapiens]

Actually I think you didn't see Paarsurry1's point.

I see his point as clear as day and I find it deserving of rather mild ridicule.

A unicorn if it exists is a seen object. God never claimed to be seeable (I'll agree with that for the purposes of discussion).

Clearly since they are not seen, unicorns are, as any true believer knows, invisible to all but true believers (or so I've been told).

It's just a basic category error from you.

Wiki: A category mistake, or category error, or categorical mistake, or mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property. An example is the metaphor "time crawled", which if taken literally is not just false but a category mistake. To show that a category mistake has been committed one must typically show that once the phenomenon in question is properly understood, it becomes clear that the claim being made about it could not possibly be true.

I beg to differ with you. Gods, unicorns and leprechauns are all part of the category of things featured in fables that can not be demonstrated as existing in the real world.

Additionally, I maintain that once the phenomenon in question is properly understood, it becomes clear that the claim being made about it is downright obvious.

Of course does something have to be visible to exist is a good question. But I didn't get the impression you were asking that.

If I may suggest. Unicorns, FSM and other examples suggest some fundamental lack of understanding of religion and lack of civility. Perhaps the rejection of religion on your part is the persistent clinging to simplistic viewpoints of what religion is (let alone of what Christianity is)?

At the very least it may explain making such a simple category error?

It might, save the fact that you're abusing the definition of a simple category error just to please your peculiar religious conceit.

[William]

[Replying to post 38 by H.sapiens]

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).

Are you implying that biological evolution is not a mindless process?

Or are you merely implying that your interpretation is treasure and mine is garbage?

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.

Faith in what?

OK, hot air it must be, by elimination.

How is this one line opinion an example of good argument?

No, my claim is supported by analysis.

Armchair psychiatry? How is your making personal remarks about me more the mere opinion?

My opinion means nothing,

You armchair psychiatry is equal to your opinion.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 38 by H.sapiens]

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).

Are you implying that biological evolution is not a mindless process?

Or are you merely implying that your interpretation is treasure and mine is garbage?

The fact of the matter is that, by a week of exams, I have demonstrated mastery of the field. The fact of the matter is that through your posts you have demonstrated a rather lower level of competence. Never bet on a lame horse.

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.

Faith in what?

Theism, of course, flavor of your choice.

OK, hot air it must be, by elimination.

So you choose hot air, what amazing candor.

How is this one line opinion an example of good argument?

It is a good enouch argument to get you to cotton to being full of hot air. That'll do.

No, my claim is supported by analysis.

Armchair psychiatry? How is your making personal remarks about me more the mere opinion?

Psychiatry maybe the first word association you make for the term "analysis," but I think of analysis as:

a·nal·y·sis

əˈnaləsəs

noun

1. detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, typically as a basis for discussion or interpretation. "statistical analysis" synonyms: examination, investigation, inspection, survey, study, scrutiny;

2. the process of separating something into its constituent elements.
synonyms: examination, investigation, inspection, survey, study, scrutiny;
3. the identification and measurement of the chemical constituents of a substance or specimen.

My opinion means nothing,

You armchair psychiatry is equal to your opinion.

It beats the hell out of your compulsion to rope in a field that I have no experience with.

[William]

[Replying to post 53 by H.sapiens]

So you choose hot air, what amazing candor.

Why did you use something you said and make it appear that I had said it?

OK, hot air it must be, by elimination.

I did not write that. You did. I am beginning to understand the personality I am interacting with here.


I think it best I back away from you slowly... Have fun in your own company.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 53 by H.sapiens]

So you choose hot air, what amazing candor.

Why did you use something you said and make it appear that I had said it?

OK, hot air it must be, by elimination.

I did not write that. You did. I am beginning to understand the personality I am interacting with here.


I think it best I back away from you slowly... Have fun in your own company.

Rather a minor tags problem, thanks for the heads-up, fixed, but the change does not affect the meaning of the post so no need to get all emo over it.

[paarsurrey1]

Why some people reject evolution

They don't understand correctly both religion and science. Right, please?
Regards

[PghPanther]

It is reasonable and logical to assume that things that appeared designed which are more detailed and complex than anything thing a human can do could have a super mind designing that.

But that thinking assumes that complexity is the result of conscious thought.

Biological evolution is simply the result of the mutation of a species in which any one of those mutations may allow a given organism to be more adaptable to its environmental pressures for it to survive long enough to pass that mutation on to future generations.........that is the process of natural selection which is the mechanism of evolution.

Interesting enough we now use the same biological principles of natural selection to design various machines and components to highly technical machines.......like the wings of a jet for instance.........where setting up the natural selection process in a computer model recreates the same process in nature without any conscious thought involved in the actual process of that model...........and the result is a design so advanced that the best engineers could never conceive of that............if they didn't know that it was performed on a compute model they could have assumed some super mind far advanced from any human mind would have been its creator when in fact the random selective adaption of the natural process did it all without any conscious thought.

Here is an example.......

F1 race car...........needs a front wing that is designed to maximize the down force of air pressure to keep the front wheels in grip on the track at high speeds yet at the same time produce as little drag as possible on the car's ability to slip through the air quickly...........

The best engineers in the world came up with a wing that looked very simple and direct allowing for down force and reduced drag.............but it was still not very effective because those two principles are counter to each other.......make one better and the other becomes worse......and vice verse......

Along comes an race aero engineer whose brother happens to be a biological evolutionary scientist............the engineer discusses this with his brother and his brother says........why don't you develop a set of computer programming codes designed to replication the natural selection process of evolution and let that process be the designer instead of the human mind?

So he creates a program that does the following....

1) creates the an existing 3D computer model of the front race wing

2) Then the model makes 100s of wings (species offspring) each with a computer random generated bends, curves, extensions, etc. extension" to that wing (the mutations).

3) those individual random wings (mutated offsprings) are placed in a computer wind tunnel with a high speed wind flow over them (environmental pressure) and the result of the wing with the best combination of downforce/drag coefficient is selected (survival due to being best adapted to the environmental pressure for that coefficient trait).

4) That surviving wing (remaining offspring) is then replicated (more offspring of the 2nd generation) in 100s of wings with more random individual mutations and the process is repeated...........over and over each time selecting the wing that is best adaptable to the environmental pressure of the wind tunnel for maximize downforce/minimal drag as the survival trait needed to use for the next generation of mutations......

Within less that 20 generations the result is a wing without any conscious process being 900% more efficient that the best engineers in the world could ever conceive of.

When shown the wing the engineers said it would never work let alone be effective.........when it was demonstrated in the wind tunnel to them they were aghast until shown the process of how it was accomplished.

what did it look like?....................crazy complicated twisting and louvered thing that resembled of all things.......................fish gills...............interest huh?

In nature a fish must defuse water to obtain oxygen through its gills (which is down force) and yet in doing so much be able to slip through the water effectively with as little drag as possible..........just the wing of a race car.

Natural selection is a effective mechanism of which matter can be contorted and pressured into adaptability whether it be inert or living...........

[William]

[Replying to post 57 by PghPanther]

A clear example of intelligent process. A clear example of consciousness involved within a complicated process.

A clear example of planing rather than random accident.

A clear example of remiss bias related to the idea of evolution without the necessity of mind.

[Rufus21]

A clear example of intelligent process. A clear example of consciousness involved within a complicated process.

A clear example of planing rather than random accident.

Can you explain that a little further? How is a random process considered planned? Why is natural selection considered intelligent? Is a 4-step random process really that complicated? Where in that randomness do you find consciousness?

[William]

[Replying to post 59 by Rufus21]

Can you explain that a little further? How is a random process considered planned? Why is natural selection considered intelligent?

I was replying to post 57 wherein examples were made which are unable to be made without the condition of intelligence being present.

I could just as well ask you 'how is planned process considered random?' or 'why is natural selection considered mindless?' and the answer would be similar. It has to do with who is doing the considering and what is interpreted from that.