What is the appeal of evolution?

I think this commentary speaks loudly the current disposition of many people. To answer Percy's question, one has to first come to realize what they actually 'know' about evolution and what they were taught to know about evolution. Showing that millions of people have total belief in Darwin's version of evolution has no backbone, just as for the atheist that millions of people could believe in a Higher Power means nothing.How much investigation does the average student give in ascertaining the veractiy of such claims? Not many. Who would challenge it? On what merits would they question it in the first place? In fact, I think it would be a safe assumption to presuppose that it wasn't until creationism reared its face on the scene that the laymen really took up arms in understanding their own beliefs about biology.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Yes of course, that's it.All dem evilutionists is stoopid and jes' b'lieve what dey tole.Sure is a good thing we have all these creationists, so committed to the purity of science, to point out our error.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Just a small technical point: a valid answer to "how much" cannot be "Not many."Carry on.

Of course. This is exactly what high-moral-tenor organizations like ICR, AiG, and well-intentioned individuals such as Dr. Hovind, Mr. Baugh, et al, have done. See the reaction of the evolutionists? They denigrate these heroes' credentials, and do everything in their power to discredit them.

I may be wrong here, but didn't creationism exist prior to the establishment of evolutionary theory as a part of science? I was under the impression that for a few thousand years human beings had followed the doctrines of one church another, never questioning the veracity of the claims of religious "experts". It was only when evolutionary theory became an established part of science that laypersons really took up arms in understanding their own beliefs about biology. It was only when laypeople rejected the authority of witchdoctors and actually started to question things for themselves that the "controversy" began.Non-evolutionary theories about the diversification of life on Earth have been the dominant theories for the vast majority of human history. And, to be honest, they haven't achieved much of intellectual credit other than a few nicely-written fairy stories. Evolutionary biology is, by comparison, a young rebellious upstart in the field of enquiry. The fact is that laypeople are very keen to learn about the science of biology and keen to escape from the stultifying non-explanation that has been offered by theology throughout human history.For creationists to pretend that they are the new kid on the block, fighting against an authoritarian structure of knowledge in the form of "Darwinism", is to read history upside down.Mick

It is 20th century, made in America.

god has to not exist for us to eat babies? what about fetuses?
i like to snack on a few while i do stem cell researchwhat about cruxifying children and drinking their blood is that allowed?

nah this is revisionism creationists are trying to claim as history, many church fathers didn't believe any of the things creationists believe now. augustine thought to take the bible as 100% fact is denying the world around us and not using our own mindsmost people before the 20th century may have thought somethings had happend like the gospels, but not genesis or the flood
what really makes evolution popular i guess is it gives you another answer to the questions being asked, and more answers to questions the religlions can't answer well the idea of god creating the earth is pretty old, but its nothing remotly like what we have now on the board.

Percy, please tell me this is satire and not really what you thinkthis sounds right out of the fundie handbook of paranoid arguments and PRATTSi invoke poe's law!
Poe's law - Wikipedia
"Without the use of a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to make a parody of Fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

Thanks ReverendDG and NWR,I don't think I agree with you but I won't discuss it here as I don't want to stray off-topic. I have however proposed a new topic to discuss historical antecedents to modern-day christian fundamentalism.Cheers
Mick

you are giving creationism too much credit, waaaay too much. the fact is to question the theory you have to understand it first, going by what creation considers evolution, i doubt anyone is going to learn a damn thing from creatonists
in high school you have to learn it first,there is so much to learn you only get part of it till college. the basics help you to understand it, if you want to. the rest comes from college mostly i think
most people don't care,unless the anti-evo people say they will get their rights taken away or die or something

Nemesis, I don't think that you understood Pecy's point. If the theory of evolution is false, and if the data really do not support it, then how is it that the theory of evolution exists as a single theory that most scientists accept? How is it that whenever new evidence comes up, the entire scientific establishment accepts the same revisions to the theory?Remember, there is no "Central Committee" that acts as the clearing house for official doctrine. The theory and its revisions are accepted as a result of consensus among the scientific community.Also, the scientific community is a very broad one, composed of many, many different individuals in many very different fields of science, in many different countries with many different social and religious backgrounds. It is difficult to figure out how some kind of "group think" could be maintained in such a large, heterogenous group of people.

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

My impression is that it was the science of geoplogy that really upset the religious applecart -- a bunch of (relatively amateur) geologists all got together and decided that the age of the earth was significantly older than any age derived from the bible -- and that this predated the publishing of Darwin's books (it was also information available to Darwin via friend Charles Lyell).The current 'fundamentalist' movement was founded in the USof(N)A well after Darwin's book, in the 1920's
Fundamentalist—Modernist controversy - WikipediaAs I understand it a lot of the amateur geologists were priests etc, and they also came to the same conclusions about the age of the earth.Why they should arbitrarily choose such an interpretation of great age in spite of their proper education in religion is another question - why couldn't they interpret it as an earlier age?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

It is 20th century, made in America.

---

It depends what you mean by "creationism.""Creation Science" is 20th century, made in the USA, while "creationism" (with a small 'c') has been around for millenia.

Yes, this hits upon another aspect of the problem. Too many people just accept what they're taught without questioning it. We are indeed fortunate that laypeople increasingly reject what the evolutionists attempt to ladle into their brains.But that isn't the topic of this thread. In order to successfully battle evolution we have to understand it, and that means finding a solid answer to the question, "Why evolution?" We already know that it stems from a rejection of God's given Word in the Bible, but there must be literally hundreds of other interpretations that contradict the Bible. Why do scientists choose evolution?I can think of a couple explanations, and here they are, but none of them feel very satisfactory:

1. If the Bible is left aside from consideration, then a correct interpretation of the evidence leads to evolution (though I don't think anyone really believes this). We only really know what happened from reading the Bible.
   ​
2. The evidence doesn't lead to evolution, but scientists uniformly accept evolution anyway. This just makes no sense. It feels like it requires believing in immense secret conspiracies or brainwashing on a worldwide scale.

So I just don't see any answer to the question, "Why evolution?" Until we understand why scientists seem to focus so exclusively on this answer I don't think we'll ever be able to throw the bums out.--Percy