Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is evolution so controversial?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 61 of 969 (724009)
04-11-2014 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Cedre
04-11-2014 1:32 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
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.
Rejecting something out of incredulity can be cured by actually learning about the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 1:32 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 62 of 969 (724010)
04-11-2014 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Cedre
04-11-2014 1:32 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
If that is what you believe, believe it,as far as I am aware they cite scientific reasons for rejecting evolution.
And yet you can't cite those peer reviewed scientific papers.
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.
An argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy, especially when it is fueled by dogmatic religious beliefs. Is it any wonder why scientists don't take critics like yourself seriously?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 1:32 PM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 1:58 PM Taq has replied
 Message 66 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 2:07 PM Taq has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 63 of 969 (724011)
04-11-2014 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Cedre
04-11-2014 12:30 PM


Elite
It is however being questioned by elite scientists!
Elite scientists? Ah, the Argument from Popularity with the Cool Kids.
OK, let's see what the scientific elites are actually saying.
"Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision." --- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Acadmie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Acadmie des Sciences et Techniques du Sngal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Fsicas, Matemticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 12:30 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 64 of 969 (724012)
04-11-2014 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by ringo
04-11-2014 1:34 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
You said:
the theory of evolution, as it is understood and discussed by biologists today, is not questioned.
So from this it looks like you were in deed asking me to name critics of Neo-Darwinism not common ancestry.
You said:
But common ancestry is what the theory of evolution is all about.
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:
But if you're suggesting that real working biologists - who publish real peer-reviewed papers on biology - have major disagreements about how evolution works, you're dead wrong.
The scientists I mentioned are real scientists
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by ringo, posted 04-11-2014 1:34 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by ringo, posted 04-12-2014 11:48 AM Cedre has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 65 of 969 (724014)
04-11-2014 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Taq
04-11-2014 1:36 PM


There's alot of nonsense on this thread!
"An argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy, especially when it is fueled by dogmatic religious beliefs.
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
Is it any wonder why scientists don't take critics like yourself seriously?"
Which scientists? There are scentists who reject Neo-Darwinism I listed some.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Taq, posted 04-11-2014 1:36 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Taq, posted 04-11-2014 2:58 PM Cedre has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 66 of 969 (724016)
04-11-2014 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Taq
04-11-2014 1:36 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
You said:
And yet you can't cite those peer reviewed scientific papers.
I am not interested in peer review I am interested in the truth!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Taq, posted 04-11-2014 1:36 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2014 2:25 PM Cedre has not replied
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 04-11-2014 2:43 PM Cedre has not replied
 Message 71 by Taq, posted 04-11-2014 2:59 PM Cedre has not replied
 Message 76 by Larni, posted 04-11-2014 3:15 PM Cedre has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 969 (724018)
04-11-2014 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Cedre
04-11-2014 2:07 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
I am not interested in peer review I am interested in the truth!
Scientists who reject evolution don't publish their opinions in peer review journals because their rejections are based on religions beliefs and not scientific facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 2:07 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 68 of 969 (724019)
04-11-2014 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Cedre
04-11-2014 1:19 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
Cedre writes:
You keep talking about the critics but you haven't shown that there are any. Give us some examples of biologists who claim we did not evolve from a common ancestor with the chimps.
Dr. John Sanford,...
From the Wikipedia article on John C. Sanford:
Wikipedia writes:
An advocate of intelligent design, in 2005 Sanford testified in the Kansas evolution hearings on behalf of intelligent design, during which he denied the principle of common descent and "humbly offered... that we were created by a special creation, by God."
Sanford rejects evolution because of his religious beliefs. And if you think Sanford's beliefs are scientific, then since he probably shares your mistaken beliefs about the nature of science why don't you write and ask him to describe the experiment where he observed "special creation, by God."
...Dr. Kimberly Berrine,...
She appears in a list that appears in nearly identical fashion at what may be hundreds of creationist websites:
...
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
...
Other than her presence on this list, she appears to have no existence on the Internet whatsoever. I can find nothing about her. What makes you think she rejects evolution?
...Prof. Vladimir Betina,...
He appears immediately after Ms. Berrine on the list above - is that how you chose him? He wrote The Chemistry and Biology of Antibiotics back in 1983, otherwise I can find nothing about him. What makes you think he rejects evolution?
...Dr. Henry Zuill,...
He's a professor a biology at Union College, a Seventh-day Adventist college. He has articles posted at Answers in Genesis. In In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation he writes:
As I sat on the verandah at High Sycamore, I thought about the meaning of it all. Why did God make such abundance? Why was there so much diversity, so much biodiversity? What was the meaning of it all? What does this have to do with the six days of creation?
It's safe to conclude his views derive from his religious beliefs.
...Dr. Donald Baumann,...
Mr. Baumann has been a professor of biology and chemistry at Cedarville University since 1964. Cedarville is "an accredited, Christ-centered Baptist institution." His bio there says he's a member of the Creation Research Society. He obviously lets his religion interfere with his science.
...Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin,...
Mr. Bohlin is the Director of Research for Probe Ministries, whose "mission is to present the Gospel to communities, nationally and internationally, by providing life-long opportunities to integrate faith and learning through balanced, biblically based scholarship, training people to love God by renewing their minds and equipping the Church to engage the world for Christ." He's doesn't sound like a scientist at all, and he's definitely very religious.
...Dr Andrew Bosanquet...
Except that he's on the same list as Ms. Berrine and Mr. Betina, I can find nothing about him. What makes you think he rejects evolution?
I could find no technical papers by any except John Sanford, and no papers at all about the scientific evidence against evolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 1:19 PM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Theodoric, posted 04-11-2014 3:39 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 79 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 6:38 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 69 of 969 (724021)
04-11-2014 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Cedre
04-11-2014 2:07 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
Cedre writes:
I am not interested in peer review I am interested in the truth!
It would be nice if you'd show a little interest in making sense. You're trying to convince us that increasing numbers of scientists are rejecting evolution, not because of their religious beliefs but because of their science. Where are the peer-reviewed scientific papers they wrote describing the research that led them to reject evolution and accept the truth?
It was painfully obvious from the beginning that you're just blowing hot air, and now it's only a question of how many pages of discussion board you decide are necessary to sow with nonsense before you (once again) disappear.
Since at least the 1950's creationists have been claiming that more and more scientists are abandoning evolution for the truth of Genesis. If there were any truth to this decades long exodus away from evolution then the scientific ranks would long ago have become dominated by creationists. But they're not. Because you're making it up.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 2:07 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 70 of 969 (724022)
04-11-2014 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Cedre
04-11-2014 1:58 PM


Re: There's alot of nonsense on this thread!
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.
That is an argument from incredulity.
"Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.
Conclusion: Not-P."
Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki
Which scientists? There are scentists who reject Neo-Darwinism I listed some.
Again with the argument from popularity.
Those scientists do not reject neo-Darwinism because of scientific reasons, but for religious reasons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 1:58 PM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 7:00 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 71 of 969 (724023)
04-11-2014 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Cedre
04-11-2014 2:07 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
I am not interested in peer review I am interested in the truth!
You are not interested in the science. That much is true. Furthermore, you are about spreading a dogmatic religious belief that you call truth. You have made no attempt to support any of your claims with evidence, references to scientific research, or even surveys to find out if rejection of evolution is increasing as you claim. The last thing you appear to be interested in is the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 2:07 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 72 of 969 (724025)
04-11-2014 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Cedre
04-11-2014 12:07 PM


Re: More confusion!
I simply said more scientists are questioning Neo-Darwinism.
You can assert until you are blue in the face, but until you provide some sort of facts to back it up it is still just an assertion.
Now are you just going to make wild ass claims or provide some evidence?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 12:07 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 73 of 969 (724026)
04-11-2014 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cedre
04-10-2014 4:29 PM


Robert Camp goes looking for controversy :
Of the 158 initial query emails sent over two days I received 73 responses, 45 of which included comments (Table 1). [...] Over 97% of the responding Bio dept. heads answered in the negative affirming that there is no scientific controversy at their institution (Table 1). Just one individual (1.4%) hedged by allowing that there was one faculty member who publicly supports ID (see Comments), but this observation was followed by the assertion that the vast majority do not consider ID scientific and thus see no scientific controversy. And one individual (1.4%) responded with a positive recognition of a scientific controversy. It must be noted that this lone Yes response came from a theological medical university.
So perhaps, Cedre, instead of asking why evolution is so controversial, you should be asking why it isn't --- since the explanation for real things is usually more enlightening than the explanation for imaginary things.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cedre, posted 04-10-2014 4:29 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 74 of 969 (724027)
04-11-2014 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Cedre
04-11-2014 1:00 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
That is if you ignore the critics!
Please show us the critics so we can determine if they are in fact critics. Just because you say there are does not mean that they in fact are. You could be misunderstanding them or you could be misrepresenting them. We can never know if you do not tell us who these critics are.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 1:00 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 75 of 969 (724029)
04-11-2014 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Cedre
04-11-2014 1:19 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
Ok. A piss poor start, but a start nonetheless. Now, tell us who they are, what their academic credentials are and what they have written that refutes Evolutionary Theory.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 1:19 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024