Why is evolution so controversial?

Summary: Evolution is "controversial" only to those who won't accept it for religious reasons, and who do their best to generate "controversy" because of that.Among those actually doing science the only controversy is over the details, as they try to learn more about how it all works.The few real scientists who dispute evolution do so for religious reasons, not scientific ones.And finally, those who dispute evolution for religious reasons try their best to make it appear that they accept scientific methods and findings, while twisting both in an effort to convince themselves that their religious beliefs are supported by science.That should get the thread back on topic--for a moment or two.

If we limit this to scientists with doctorates and published papers in a field of biology, way less than 1% voice claim that the theory of evolution is completely wrong, and that ID/creationism is a better explanation. If we used the criteria above, my guesstimate would be 0.005% of scientists fit those criteria. I only know of 2: Behe and Kurt Wise.

Except my understanding is that Michael Behe accepts the bulk of old Earth evolution, including man and the (other) great apes having a common ancestor. I got this from Kennith Miller's "Finding Darwin's God". I consider Behe to be a theistic evolutionist.Kurt Wise is sort of on record as conceding that the evidence supports old Earth evolution, but that he is a young Earth creationist because of what the Bible says. But this is not the sort of information you find at creationist site.My relevant topics (10 years+ old): Kenneth R. Miller - Finding Darwin's God Kurt Wise - A YAC and an old earth evolutionist?MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Change subtitle.

I think I will have to agree with you on both. Behe seems to believe in a type of theism where God's hand is invisible and would look exactly like natural evolution. Wise doesn't dispute that evolution is supported by evidence and is the most consistent scientific explanation.What about Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger? They had to invent a journal through the Discovery Institute just to get published, but at least they gave their pipette thumbs a work out in the process. Better than I can say for most anti-science types.

References (further links there):Encyclopedia of American Loons: #8: Douglas Axe
Encyclopedia of American Loons: #140: Ann GaugerAparently Axe has done some minor publishing in minor but real journals. I don't know about Gauger.Ah, heck - I'll quote the whole aboves (may be some unclickable links, go to the source page if you care):

quote:

---

Axe is a zealous creationist associated with the Discovery Institute (he is the director at their Biologic Institute"). Axe is a molecular biologist, and thus actually knows some science. He uses this knowledge to write mundane papers, at least two of which have been published in low-tier, although genuine, journals - despite being uninteresting and mundane. Axe’s work is hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence for their views. Of course, there is no actual support of intelligent design in these published papers, and Axe himself admits as much: Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function

​

Insofar as Axe is a creationist with real scientific publications to his name, Axe’s work is one of the main contributions to a sheen of legitimacy for the ID movement. But given that his publications do not at all support or even touch on their views (but are willfully interpreted as such by other ID-proponents without Axe complaining) he is an important contributor to erecting the framework of dishonesty that is the ID movement.

---

quote:

---

Gauger has a PhD in zoology and is a signatory of Discovery Institute’s 2005 petition Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. She’s currently associated with the Discovery affiliated creationist think-tank the Biologic Institute whose goal is to perform real research on ID and which has yet to produce a single publication supporting ID creationism despite big budgets and numerous employed scientists.

​

A rather infamous incident occurred when Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium, 2007, in Boston, Massachusetts. She discussed leaky growth in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner, a real scientist, asked the obvious question: So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab? at which point the moderator halted questioning - Gauger has earlier argued that any evolutionary change is non-adaptive.

---

Offhand, both seem to be in the "Michael Behe school".Another old topic of mine, not directly related to this message, but relating to the topic: Adventist Church - Geoscience Research InstituteNot a debate topic, but I put a bunch of (probably no longer valid) links there. Anyway, the Geoscience Research Institute is young Earth creationist, but they do seem to be rather in touch with worldly reality. There is (or at least used to be) a lot of better than average YEC thought there. Try Geoscience Research Institute | Home as a starting point for further exploration.Moose

The fact of the matter in my case is that years before I became a Christian, when I still considered myself an atheist, I read the usual popular accounts of evolution and at times tried to track down the evidence for it. It always seemed to disappear into assertions and assumptions. That didn't keep me from continuing to believe in it, I had no religious objections to it, but it was frustrating, and once I did become a Christian and read some books on creationism I could see why it's so frustrating: the evidence for it IS only assertions and assumptions.

Can you give us examples of these assertions and assumptions?

I'm sorry, but your body of posts here has shown that your opinions in matters scientific are not worth anything.You continually read (or skim) scientific articles and come to conclusions which are opposite of what those articles actually say. I don't have any confidence that your skills were any different in the past. Your abilities to misunderstand, misinterpret, and misread are truly astounding. Perhaps the early frustration came from your own inabilities? And perhaps the agreement with creationists is a mix of those inabilities and their unwillingness to accept the evidence based on religious grounds?In any case, as I have noted several times, your opinions and pronouncements on science really are not trustworthy. You just seem to have no talent for it, and perhaps should take this into consideration when you tell working scientists, and in fact whole scientific professions, that they don't know anything.

I've made case after case based on various observations of such things as the strata, the fossils and the decrease in genetic diversity that is the necessary result of microevolution. ABE: I emphasize: These arguments have been made on observations of facts, not theory, not assumptions etc. /ABE I grant that both of these phenomena appear to support an Old Earth, at least an older Earth than the Biblical Young Earth. There are phenomena on both sides of the question it seems to me. I SHOWED that some are making unbased assumptions. And I KNOW the Bible is the word of God.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You did. Oh how we laughed. And the inability of creationists, yourself included to think of any argument that isn't idiotic does tend to explain the absence of scientific controversy.

So you suffered from abysmal research skills even when you were an atheist? It's not something that Christianity has done to you?

You have made your case based on fantasy, not observation. It is entirely made up.

Witch clearly supports an old earth. Yea the fossils show a clear evolutionary pattern, and the whole microevolution thing yea i understand a little change over a little time can never become a lot of change over a lot of time sure. Um sure what phenomena supports a young earth?? Is there anything one can look objectivity and say hmm looks like the earth is only 6000 years old. Yea i saw you demonstrate how to make unbased assumptions, now can you start making evidence based ones. See this is where you get blinded, even a scientist testing gravity dosent know that gravity works the way it does, sure he might expect it to, but in order to find "truth" you have to have an open mind open to all possibilities, one of the possibilities being that the bible is just a bronze age fantasy book.

Lot's of people have no particular talent for or inclination to do science. There's no shame in it. But most adults in that population are well aware of their limitations. Even most YECs don't go so far as to delude themselves into thinking they have great scientific minds, regardless of how sure they are that scientists are wrong. Most of them just cite the Bible and are done with it.God is all powerful, yet a few of those with FSMs (fine scientific minds) are loathe to say that he used much of his might after the first few days of creation. No real logic for that. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Now consider that there are many things younger than the earth that can be found ... and all they show is that the earth is at least as old as these things but could be older.Curiously I have trouble conceiving of how one could find things (other than meteors perhaps) that could be older than the earth, certainly not living things, evolved things, fossils of once living things.We were discussing nested hierarchies and how they form clades.To my mind clades are the most translatable concept from evolutionary biology to creationist "kinds" -- as they are groups descended from common ancestor populations.So the question becomes on where you stop forming "kind" clades and why. This is basically the point we were at on Message 441: Or we can talk about mammals. Such as teeth: why do all (placental) mammals have the same basic pattern of teeth, why do cats have canines (like dogs) and not different specialized teeth for cats?Especially when marsupial (mammals) have a different basic pattern of teeth?Not knowing where to draw the line to divide living organisms into clades is - imho - one of the major problems with creationism: if it were true then there should be clear and distinct ends of separate clades that would show what the created kinds are.Edited by RAZD, : spling