Why is evolution so controversial?

Dr. John Sanford, Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Prof. Vladimir Betina, Dr. Henry Zuill, Dr. Donald Baumann, Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Dr Andrew Bosanquet to name some.

They are trained biologists with PhD's from secular universities who reject evolution.

My pleasure. Whether or not they reject common ancestry is a different question, one can, like Behe accept common ancestry while rejecting Neo-Darwinism. This is not a thread on common ancestry, so lets try to keep common ancestry out!Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

If that is what you believe, believe it,as far as I am aware they cite scientific reasons for rejecting evolution. Why do I reject evolution? I do so because I cannot bring myself to accept it based on the complexity of the human body. In medical school we're taught just how complex a machine the human body is and I cannot imagine how how evolution can account for our nervous system, or digestive system even our skeletal system.

You said: So from this it looks like you were in deed asking me to name critics of Neo-Darwinism not common ancestry.You said: Evolution may well be an explanation of common ancestry but it is not synonymous with common ancestry. And therefore critics of Neo-Darwinism like Michael Behe can accept common ancestry while rejecting Neo-Darwinism as an explanation of common ancestry.you said: The scientists I mentioned are real scientists Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

How did I make an argument from incredulity? All I said was I do not believe evolution took place because the human body is too complex to have evolved.you said Which scientists? There are scentists who reject Neo-Darwinism I listed some.

You said: I am not interested in peer review I am interested in the truth!

Thanks for the response Percy. Anyway let’s get to it. This claim is proven false by just the fact that critics of evolution have written books arguing why evolution is scientifically false! Dr. Sanford argued his scientific reasons for rejecting evolution in Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome. As for your claims on the other scientists:Regarding Dr. Henry Zuill you write: Why is it safe to assume that? Like you said He has articles posted at Answers in Genesis and guess what in those articles he gives his scientific reasons for rejecting evolution! How you didn’t notice that is beyond me.Regarding Prof. Vladimir Betina you write: He is depicted on hundreds of creationist websites as a creationist that’s why, if he wasn’t a creationist he would have spoken out by now, the fact that he hasn’t makes me think that he is indeed a creationist.Regarding Dr. Kimberly Berrine you write: She is depicted on hundreds of creationist websites as a creationist that’s why, if she wasn’t a creationist she would have spoken out by now, the fact that she hasn’t makes me think that she is indeed a creationist.Regarding Dr. Donald Baumann you write: Obviously? What do you mean obviously? Where does he say he rejects Evolution because he is religious?Regarding Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin you write: So what if he is religious, where is the proof he rejects evolution for religious reasons.Regarding Andrew Bosanquet you say Andrew G. Bosanquet Ph.D., CBiol, MIBiol in Biology and Microbiology, is indeed the Director of the Bath Cancer Research Wolfson Center at the Royal United Hospital in Bath, England and the Department of Postgraduate Medicine at the University of Bath. He is in fact a creationist, and even wrote a chapter in a creationist book: On The Seventh Day: 40 Scientists and academics explain why they believe in God - Google and Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

Tag said: "That is an argument from incredulity. I didn't make that argument, I am not claiming evolution is wrong because I can't conceive of how it could have given rise to complexity. What I am saying is I cannot accept evolution because the human body is too complex to have come about by the mechanisms of the modern synthesis. What I am saying is Neo-Darwinism doesn't seem an adequate explanation for complexity.you said If you say I made an argument from popularity you do not understand what the argument from popularity is. The fact that a number of them have written books and articles outlining scientific reasons why they reject evolution exposes your above claim!Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

Thanks for the response LarniYou say:So what? The bottom-line is the authors of those books give their scientific reasons for rejecting evolution in those books?I already said I don't care about peer review, I care about the truth, knowledge and science flourished just fine in the decades prior to peer review, and doesn't depend on peer review to flourish. In fact peer review is loaded with its own problems. Little to no evidence of it's effectiveness or improvement of scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

Tom Jefferson the head of a 2003 study on peer review told The Guardian We have found little empirical evidence to support the use of peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality of research reporting, and there is even less evidence about its value in deciding what should be funded We had great difficulty in finding any real hard evidence of the system’s EFFECTIVENESS, which is disappointing, as peer review is the CORNERSTONE of editorial policies worldwide Publishing is the key to advancement and research riches. Nobel Prizes have hinged on peer review, yet it may be SERIOUSLY FLAWED.

---

Trial by peers comes up short | Science | The GuardianLike I said I am after truth, unlike you I don't suck up to peer review, for which there is no evidence of its effectiveness according to researches like the above Tom Jefferson.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

Aww... how sweet and ethical of you! Luckily my destiny doesn't depend on you or on the acceptance of evolution, like Ben Carson I can reject neo-Darwinism and still become a world class surgeon. I also intend to be the best doctor I can because I value human life, and have every reason to value human life.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

Thanks again for your reply RAZDOk let's get to it!You said: Why on earth should I do that? At least show that everything I know about evolution is false!You said:Uphold this please! Thanks.You said: I’m not studying to become a pharmacologist. My job’s to diagnose/treat with available treatments. In any case I already pointed out that although touched upon in Medical School evolution is not given front page and centre treatment.You said: What’s not quite right about what I said? Are you disputing that phyla are based on body plans? Or is your issue with claim that different body plans evolved at Cambrian explosion and later in the Palaeozoic?You then stray with this straw man: Not my claim! Body plans are sufficiently different to lay the blueprint of the phyla of animals we see around us today.You then say: Hmm Not sure what you are driving at. Organisms under Chordata obviously have body plans with general specializations that allow them to be classed under one phylum. However Chordata body plan very different for example from Echinodermata body plan and so on.You say: Perhaps you shouldn't be looking under one phylum if you want to see differences. Major body plan differences exist between different phylum, say Chordata which have bilateral body plan and Echinodermata which have radial body plan, in addition to symmetry there are many other differences that add up to allow for sufficient grouping of organism into different phyla.You show more confusion Erm (scratching my head) they both Chordata, obviously they have similar body plan. Do bats and snails have same body plan? Nope quite different!You said: And What evidence? Until you can show evidence that unguided changes are capable of generating new, viable body plans all you have is another just so story. Something else could account for the homologies.If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, shoulder to shoulder, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious.Homology can tell you nothing about how a system could have evolved by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In other words, homology doesn’t necessarily imply evolution. Evidence for common ancestry is not evidence for the mechanism of Neo-Darwinism. Common ancestry can stand independent of Neo-Darwinsim and is readily accepted by those who reject Neo-Darwinism such as Michael Behe.Finally yes I screwed up with my careless use of morphogenesis, believe it or not I knew what it means, but carelessly applied it. Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

Hello Percy, thanks for the response!Ok so you say:Obviously! However as pointed out Dr. Sanford gave his scientific reasons in Genetic entropy & The Mystery Of The Genome! Whether or not you think they are scientific reasons is a different question.See:

quote:

---

Dr. John Sanford, a retired Cornell Professor, shows in Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome that the "Primary Axiom" is false. The Primary Axiom is the foundational evolutionary premise - that life is merely the result of mutations and natural selection. In addition to showing compelling theoretical evidence that whole genomes can not evolve upward, Dr. Sanford presents strong evidence that higher genomes must in fact degenerate over time. This book strongly refutes the Darwinian concept that man is just the result of a random and pointless natural process. Amazon.com

---

Peer review process is loaded with problems and may even be Fatally FLAWED in the words of Tom Jefferson, who after investigating the effectiveness of peer review found little to no evidence of its effectiveness.You say

quote:

---

Taking a factual and scientific look at the evidence for evolution, physicists, biologists, and chemists conclude that evolution may offer no more evidence than traditional religion, and factually, it may lag behind. -- In Six Days | Answers in Genesis

---

So yes Dr. Zuill presents his scientific reasons for rejecting evolution in this book. I don't care if you think his reasons are scientific or not.You say: Funny how you equate peer review with science. Sorry mate, these things are not synonymous.You say: Proof Please!You say: He has written books! Look you are advocating a conspiracy theory, you are saying this person was made up! Prove he was made up! Otherwise I won't take you seriously.You say: Well fine if that is what you want to infer, do so, no one else has to follow your lead.Yo say What's make me think he's a creationist? Hmm I don't know maybe because he wrote a chapter in a creationist book aimed at rejecting Evolution and uplifting design in nature, and is known in creationist circles as a creationist and has not come out and say he is not a creationist. What makes you think he is not a creationist but an evolutionist? All the available evidence, points to the conclusion that he is in fact a creationist.Now, where did you get the idea from that he only talks about spirituality in the book did you read the book? From the preface of the book it's clear that this is a heavily antievolution and pro-creation book. He certainly doesn't seem like a evolutionist just by looking at what the preface of the book says the book's aim is.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

I am not interested in speculation, and analogies, science is about showing, observing, and facts. Analogies are not the same thing as proving a scientific claim. So I stand by what I said, where and when has it ever been observed that Neo-Darwinsim produces new, viable body plans?Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

Contradiction bliss!!If creationists are as powerful as you claim then shouldn't evolution be more controversial not less controversial (you say its not controversial at all)? If what you're saying is true Creationism should be taught in universities and science classes across the nation. Creationists should be winning hearings and court cases! Creationists should be able to publish in peer review using their powerful connections! This is not what we see, more often than not creationism is derided by the president no less. What power do they really have? I don't see it! Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.