Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
mike the wiz

No Evidence Could Convince Me Evolution Occured

Recommended Posts

Why is it that some 99.98% of biologists accept evolution,

because they have NO CHOICE but to accept it.

did you forget koonin and his "ready made" comment?

it's quite likely his paper would not have been published if he hadn't changed it.

also, let's not forget that 80% of the people feel they are more than physical laws can explain.

and this group contains people from a wide range of religious and philosophical beliefs? You are conflating "atheist" with "scientific community". It is not the atheists that insist we teach evolution in school; it is the scientific community. I have had many theistic biology professors, and every single one accepted evolution as a fact.

and it IS NOT the scientific community that forced religion from our schools.

schools should retaliate by forming a class that teaches the worlds religions.

 

it's my opinion that science should completely disassociate itself with atheists

science should have the ability to sue atheists for defamation of character if atheists used any kind of peer reviewed material in any manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in my opinion, when you start forcing something like evolution by threat of lawsuit, then the evidence is either nonexistent, or so meager that it cannot withstand scrutiny.

Of course, what is conveniently forgotten here is that the lawsuits were in response to laws passed banning the mere mention of evolution in the classroom.  

 

What do you call it when you force something by passing laws banning the opposing viewpoint?

 

What do you call it when the ban reaches the extent of a professional death sentence to a teacher who even mentions the viewpoint exists?

 

What is the correct action when confronted by laws mandating the teaching of religion in the classroom?

 

Since the laws were passed to mandate the teaching of creationism, does that mean "the evidence is either nonexistent, or so meager that it cannot withstand scrutiny."

 

It was the creationists who made this a legal issue.

 

I sense an overwhelming tsunami of hypocrisy on its way from the creationists ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also, let's not forget that 80% of the people feel they are more than physical laws can explain.

 

Hi what if

 

You use this line a lot.  What bearing does a feeling that you claim 80% of people experience have on whether they actually are more than physical laws explain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi what if

 

You use this line a lot.  What bearing does a feeling that you claim 80% of people experience have on whether they actually are more than physical laws explain?

the sober, second opinion of the people is seldom wrong.

- thomas jefferson.

 

furthermore, it isn't a "claim".

it's the results of a poll i ran on a different forum.

 

i'm curious, how would you answer the following question, yes or no:

do you feel you are more than what physical laws can explain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, what is conveniently forgotten here is that the lawsuits were in response to laws passed banning the mere mention of evolution in the classroom.  

 

What do you call it when you force something by passing laws banning the opposing viewpoint?

 

What do you call it when the ban reaches the extent of a professional death sentence to a teacher who even mentions the viewpoint exists?

 

What is the correct action when confronted by laws mandating the teaching of religion in the classroom?

 

Since the laws were passed to mandate the teaching of creationism, does that mean "the evidence is either nonexistent, or so meager that it cannot withstand scrutiny."

 

It was the creationists who made this a legal issue.

 

I sense an overwhelming tsunami of hypocrisy on its way from the creationists ......

i wouldn't know anything about any of this.

 

the point of my post is that science IS NOT atheist in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that some 99.98% of biologists accept evolution, and this group contains people from a wide range of religious and philosophical beliefs? You are conflating "atheist" with "scientific community". It is not the atheists that insist we teach evolution in school; it is the scientific community. I have had many theistic biology professors, and every single one accepted evolution as a fact. 

 

Curiously, virtually the only people that deny evolution have a clear religious motivation to reject evolution, and the paradigm they put forth in place of evolution corresponds to their religious beliefs with these varying creationist paradigms not converging at all on a coherent alternative to evolution or 'orthodox' science. For example the Christian creationist is usually of the YEC variety and claims the evidence points to a recent creation. On the other hand you have Hindu creationists that also deny evolution and the standard ages for the Earth and universe in 'orthodox' science, but they claim the evidence points to a much older Earth and universe, and that humans (in our present form) didn't evolve but were present for millions (billions?) of years. 

 

The point is that evolution is accepted by scientists who hold widely different religious beliefs, but the various alternatives to evolution each advocate paradigms that diverge from main-stream science in opposite directions towards their respected religious beliefs. Why is that?

 

 

"Why is it that some 99.98% of biologists accept evolution,"

 

One has to be able to believe that they are an Accidental Ape that came from a fish in order to believe that 99.98% figure of yours that probably came came from Talk Origins or something of the sort

 

I believe that the number is probably closer to 50/50 but due to economic factors that FORCE people to respond in lock step with the establishment paradigm you come up with more that CLAIM to believe in "Evolution" (Whatever that is) Finches beaks, moth colors....

"Accept Evolution" is just another sales pitch by slick marketers

 

I would just love to try an experiment to see what the REAL numbers are.. A BLIND CONFIDENTIAL Study where EVERY Biologist is asked this MORE HONEST question concerning what using a Lie Detector... Do you believe that Abiogenesis followed by Universal Common Ancestor for all Flora and Fauna is REALLY how Man originated?.. I would wager the doubters would be much more than the True Believers..

 

Your poll numbers resemble the Election Day Numbers from the Washington Post that predicted a 98.98% (Or So) Victory for Clinton. WRONG!!-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why is it that some 99.98% of biologists accept evolution,"

 

One has to be able to believe that they are an Accidental Ape that came from a fish in order to believe that 99.98% figure of yours that probably came came from Talk Origins or something of the sort

 

I believe that the number is probably closer to 50/50 but due to economic factors that FORCE people to respond in lock step with the establishment paradigm you come up with more that CLAIM to believe in "Evolution" (Whatever that is) Finches beaks, moth colors....

"Accept Evolution" is just another sales pitch by slick marketers

 

I would just love to try an experiment to see what the REAL numbers are.. A BLIND CONFIDENTIAL Study where EVERY Biologist is asked this MORE HONEST question concerning what using a Lie Detector... Do you believe that Abiogenesis followed by Universal Common Ancestor for all Flora and Fauna is REALLY how Man originated?.. I would wager the doubters would be much more than the True Believers..

 

Your poll numbers resemble the Election Day Numbers from the Washington Post that predicted a 98.98% (Or So) Victory for Clinton. WRONG!!-

 

The 99.98% figure comes from "Project Steve". It isn't a scientific poll or anything, but basically any scientist named Steve, or a variant thereof, can sign the statement saying evolution is real. Since the name Steve is about 1% of the population, and there are more signatures in Project Steve than the creationist's list of scientists promoting ID, we can estimate that over 99% of scientists accept evolution. People that look at demographics and crunch the numbers have concluded that the estimate is 99.98% IIRC. Either way it is a good indication that somewhere in the ball park of 99% of scientists are evolutionists. 

 

The lowest figure I have ever found was a poll that did all types of scientists including engineers and social scientists, and the figure they got was 90%. Over the years I have challenged creationists to find me a reputable poll that shows a lower figure for the acceptance of evolution among scientists, but so far I have yet to see such a poll. 

 

I highly doubt that the actual figure is anywhere near 50/50. About 60% of natural scientists are atheist, and much to the irk of creationists there are many Christians that are evolutionists too. I can assure you that overall Christian scientists are not merely saying they accept evolution out of fear of academic ostracization. I won't say that it never happens, but having grown up as a theistic evolutionist with several theistic evolutionist professors I am confident in saying that the vast majority of Christian scientists that say they accept evolution really do accept evolution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 99.98% figure comes from "Project Steve". It isn't a scientific poll or anything, but basically any scientist named Steve, or a variant thereof, can sign the statement saying evolution is real. Since the name Steve is about 1% of the population, and there are more signatures in Project Steve than the creationist's list of scientists promoting ID, we can estimate that over 99% of scientists accept evolution. People that look at demographics and crunch the numbers have concluded that the estimate is 99.98% IIRC. Either way it is a good indication that somewhere in the ball park of 99% of scientists are evolutionists. 

 

And the answer to this is probably really simple. It's called paradigm and I think I've mentioned that earlier in this thread. If Kuhn is correct questioning evolution will probably not come from established scientists which started out working with evolutionary biology, but rather from people who work outside that particular field and later became interested in the theory.
 
Another thing is that most biologist never work with evolutionary biology / population genetics, that's just something they read in a textbook during school and don't really think about in their day to day work. So personally I'm not surprised by the numbers, but it really don't need to say anything about the merit of the theory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 99.98% figure comes from "Project Steve". It isn't a scientific poll or anything, but basically any scientist named Steve, or a variant thereof, can sign the statement saying evolution is real. Since the name Steve is about 1% of the population, and there are more signatures in Project Steve than the creationist's list of scientists promoting ID, we can estimate that over 99% of scientists accept evolution. People that look at demographics and crunch the numbers have concluded that the estimate is 99.98% IIRC. Either way it is a good indication that somewhere in the ball park of 99% of scientists are evolutionists. 

 

The lowest figure I have ever found was a poll that did all types of scientists including engineers and social scientists, and the figure they got was 90%. Over the years I have challenged creationists to find me a reputable poll that shows a lower figure for the acceptance of evolution among scientists, but so far I have yet to see such a poll. 

 

I highly doubt that the actual figure is anywhere near 50/50. About 60% of natural scientists are atheist, and much to the irk of creationists there are many Christians that are evolutionists too. I can assure you that overall Christian scientists are not merely saying they accept evolution out of fear of academic ostracization. I won't say that it never happens, but having grown up as a theistic evolutionist with several theistic evolutionist professors I am confident in saying that the vast majority of Christian scientists that say they accept evolution really do accept evolution.

 

 

" the statement saying evolution is real. "

 

 

Sure... Arent finches beaks, moth colors, dog ears, bacterial resistance all proven examples of REAL "Evolution"?

 

BUT

 

What if the statement, instead of using the purposely vague, duplicitous, and ambivalent term "Evolution"

 

WERE TO USE THE MUCH MORE ACCURATE..

 

Abiogenesis, followed by UCA for all Flora and Fauna?

 

Guess what would happen to your 98.98% number? LOL

 

Your dishonest polls with dishonest questions are skewed worse than the ones showing Hillary had a 98% Chance of winning...

 

 

BUT KEEP IN MIND..

 

 

Science is not determined by polls or mob rule is it?

So your polls, even if they are true, which I showed they are not,

are MEANINGLESS....

 

But You already know that dont you..

 

 

 

"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

 

(Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, what is conveniently forgotten here is that the lawsuits were in response to laws passed banning the mere mention of evolution in the classroom.  

 

What do you call it when you force something by passing laws banning the opposing viewpoint?

 

What do you call it when the ban reaches the extent of a professional death sentence to a teacher who even mentions the viewpoint exists?

 

What is the correct action when confronted by laws mandating the teaching of religion in the classroom?

 

Since the laws were passed to mandate the teaching of creationism, does that mean "the evidence is either nonexistent, or so meager that it cannot withstand scrutiny."

 

It was the creationists who made this a legal issue.

 

I sense an overwhelming tsunami of hypocrisy on its way from the creationists ......

 

"What do you call it when you force something by passing laws banning the opposing viewpoint?"

 

We call them Darwinists..

 

 

"I think in fifty years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum...I think people will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind, have believed this, because it's so implausible when you look at the evidence."

 

(Dr. Johnathan Wells,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And the answer to this is probably really simple. It's called paradigm and I think I've mentioned that earlier in this thread. If Kuhn is correct questioning evolution will probably not come from established scientists which started out working with evolutionary biology, but rather from people who work outside that particular field and later became interested in the theory.

 
Another thing is that most biologist never work with evolutionary biology / population genetics, that's just something they read in a textbook during school and don't really think about in their day to day work. So personally I'm not surprised by the numbers, but it really don't need to say anything about the merit of the theory. 

 

 

I've read several articles over the years talking about how people outside of a field of study can often see insights into that field that professionals in said field miss. As I understand it this is explained by saying that people outside of a given field come to the table with a fresh perspective and thus think outside of the box. I think that is the same point you are making about paradigms. So I do think there is something to be said for that. 

 

However, I would not hold your breath for anyone in or outside the evolutionary sciences to overthrow the evolution paradigm. While the details are being worked out, I think the basic outline is too well established to be overturned in favor of something like ID. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" the statement saying evolution is real. "

 

 

Sure... Arent finches beaks, moth colors, dog ears, bacterial resistance all proven examples of REAL "Evolution"?

 

BUT

 

What if the statement, instead of using the purposely vague, duplicitous, and ambivalent term "Evolution"

 

WERE TO USE THE MUCH MORE ACCURATE..

 

Abiogenesis, followed by UCA for all Flora and Fauna?

 

Guess what would happen to your 98.98% number? LOL

 

Your dishonest polls with dishonest questions are skewed worse than the ones showing Hillary had a 98% Chance of winning...

 

 

BUT KEEP IN MIND..

 

 

Science is not determined by polls or mob rule is it?

So your polls, even if they are true, which I showed they are not,

are MEANINGLESS....

 

But You already know that dont you..

 

 

 

"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

 

(Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)

 

"Evolution is real" was simply a shorthand statement for brevity. 

 

The statement that people sign in Project Steve reads:

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."

 

 

I never said the poll determines science. I brought the number up in passing while trying to explain to you that it's a hard sell to say 'evolution is an atheist plot and that only atheists really accept evolution' when virtually all biologists from all walks of life with many different religious views accept the theory of evolution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that some 99.98% of biologists accept evolution, and this group contains people from a wide range of religious and philosophical beliefs? You are conflating "atheist" with "scientific community". It is not the atheists that insist we teach evolution in school; it is the scientific community. I have had many theistic biology professors, and every single one accepted evolution as a fact. 

 

Curiously, virtually the only people that deny evolution have a clear religious motivation to reject evolution, and the paradigm they put forth in place of evolution corresponds to their religious beliefs with these varying creationist paradigms not converging at all on a coherent alternative to evolution or 'orthodox' science. For example the Christian creationist is usually of the YEC variety and claims the evidence points to a recent creation. On the other hand you have Hindu creationists that also deny evolution and the standard ages for the Earth and universe in 'orthodox' science, but they claim the evidence points to a much older Earth and universe, and that humans (in our present form) didn't evolve but were present for millions (billions?) of years. 

 

The point is that evolution is accepted by scientists who hold widely different religious beliefs, but the various alternatives to evolution each advocate paradigms that diverge from main-stream science in opposite directions towards their respected religious beliefs. Why is that?

 

To address some of the points you make in this post, I will borrow an argument you used in one of your other posts: An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Evolution is real" was simply a shorthand statement for brevity.

 

The statement that people sign in Project Steve reads:

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry.

So goes the spiel of the greatest con-job in the history of mankind.

 

Athesit theology - regardless of how desperatley it is believed and how dogmatically, widely and arrogantly it is preached - does not necessarily equate to a scientific fact.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read several articles over the years talking about how people outside of a field of study can often see insights into that field that professionals in said field miss. As I understand it this is explained by saying that people outside of a given field come to the table with a fresh perspective and thus think outside of the box. I think that is the same point you are making about paradigms. So I do think there is something to be said for that.

Just to make things clear. The things said about paradigms is nothing that I say, it's something Kuhn presented in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" more than 50 years ago. If you discuss anything about science and how it works this is something you should at least have read about. Sometimes it feels like people discussing these things have missed the debate around science that have been taking place during the last 50 years or so.

 

However, I would not hold your breath for anyone in or outside the evolutionary sciences to overthrow the evolution paradigm. While the details are being worked out, I think the basic outline is too well established to be overturned in favor of something like ID.

You don't need to hold your breath Goku, this was done 3 years ago :-)

 

I dare you to actually read the book Genetic Entropy by John C. Sanford. As Kuhn predicted the scientist came from another field (plant breeding/plant genetics) and later on started working with the field where he disproves the current paradigm (population genetics). But the fall of the paradigm could still take another 50 - 100 years, even though the paradigm in principle is already falsified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the sober, second opinion of the people is seldom wrong.

- thomas jefferson.

 

furthermore, it isn't a "claim".

it's the results of a poll i ran on a different forum.

 

i'm curious, how would you answer the following question, yes or no:

do you feel you are more than what physical laws can explain?

 

So it comes from an unscientific poll you did on a forum once and on the premise that what people feel is sometimes right?  That doesn't sound convincing.  And it still has no bearing on whether or not we are more than physical laws can explain.

 

My answer would be 'no'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in my opinion, when you start forcing something like evolution by threat of lawsuit, then the evidence is either nonexistent, or so meager that it cannot withstand scrutiny.

 

 

 

As far as I know, the lawsuits were not "forcing" evolution; they were denying the teaching of religious doctrine in public schools.  I don't think there is any law that says the public schools must teach the theory of evolution as part of the science curriculum.  Now, they almost always do because the college entrance tests usually include it to some degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To address some of the points you make in this post, I will borrow an argument you used in one of your other posts: An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

That's one I often see here.  The problem with it is that citing a true expert is not a fallacy.  

 

For example, would you give the same credibility to a third grader as Einstein or Newton on matters of physics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My answer would be 'no'.

really?

so you have been able to rationalize things such as love and hate, and the "voice" of your thoughts, among others.

 

tell me, how do these things come about from a mechanistic process such as abiogenesis and evolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....  I don't think there is any law that says the public schools must teach the theory of evolution as part of the science curriculum.  Now, they almost always do because the college entrance tests usually include it to some degree.

That is correct.  

 

No law has ever been passed requiring the teaching of evolution.  Multiple states have passed laws banning it.  Some have passed laws requiring creation be taught if evolution is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, the lawsuits were not "forcing" evolution; they were denying the teaching of religious doctrine in public schools.

can you give a coherent reason as to why our students must not know about the worlds religions?

there is no law anywhere that forbids it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the sober, second opinion of the people is seldom wrong.

- thomas jefferson.

Actually, one of the things I advise my students is that once they mark an answer, change it only if they are CERTAIN it is wrong.  Studies have been done on this and more right answers are changed to wrong than wrong to right.  It turns out, our "gut" instinct is usually right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because they have NO CHOICE but to accept it.did you forget koonin and his "ready made" comment?

it's quite likely his paper would not have been published if he hadn't changed it.

also, let's not forget that 80% of the people feel they are more than physical laws can explain.

and it IS NOT the scientific community that forced religion from our schools.

schools should retaliate by forming a class that teaches the worlds religions.

 

 

They already do; one can take religious classes in school that discuss the origins, history, and tenants of different religions.  I know I did.

 

 

 

it's my opinion that science should completely disassociate itself with atheists

science should have the ability to sue atheists for defamation of character if atheists used any kind of peer reviewed material in any manner.

 

That's not going to happen here in the US.  That would be a clear violation of civil rights laws prohibiting religious discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can you give a coherent reason as to why our students must not know about the worlds religions?

there is no law anywhere that forbids it.

 

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, the lawsuits were not "forcing" evolution; they were denying the teaching of religious doctrine in public schools.  

can you give a coherent reason as to why our students must not know about the worlds religions?

there is no law anywhere that forbids it.

There is no reason at all.  Classes on comparative religions are fine.

 

The problem is when you ban the teaching of mainstream science in science classes and/or mandate the teaching of your religious belief instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms