Why TOE is not accepted

When I begin to contribute to this forum, naturally I accepted the theory of evolution on the basis of authority. I had read about it in many popular science books and of course I assumed that what I was reading was the truth. That seemed to me very reasonable. I accepted atomic theory in the same way. Now I have never seen an electron or even a fossil, but I have read about it quite a bit. I have also never witnessed various historic events which I accept. What I accepted was that if so many people write about the same matter in the same spirit, then one would assume that such ideas are widely accepted. It is no different from assuming that, for example, a place like "Belgium" exists. I have not seen it myself. Tbere is no way to prove mathematically that such a place exists. But still I am quite sure that there is such a place.But apparently there are many that are willing to accept many other scientific theories on authority, but not the theory of evolution, despite the fact that the theory of evolution has as much or more evidence than any of the rest.But these people don't care about evidence. Evidence means nothing to them. What they care about is maintaining what they consider a way of life at any cost. In other words, their reason is political not philosophical.They want power. They don't care about the truth. What they want is control. Why? Because they think that the world is going downhill morally.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-28-2005 11:53 PM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

quote:

---

They want power. They don't care about the truth. What they want is control. Why? Because they think that the world is going downhill morally.

---

Hmmm, well, that is true for the leaders, perhaps, but not for the everyday person, I think.I think that for the everyday person who disbelieves evolution for religious reasons it is a simple matter of ignorance combined with ego.The Bible says in Genesis that humans were created 'specially to rule over the earth, yada yada yada.If we evolved "just like everything else" that comes dangerously close to upsetting the religion-based superiority complex that people have been taught.Of course, this is the most simplistic, childish way to read the Bible and requires the most ignorance and fear of knowledge and education from the people in religions which require such reading.It is really no different from the way that the Taliban and other fundamentalist nations like Saudi Arabia require or allow only the teaching of the Quran to children and exclude modern science, mathematics, history, other languages, etc.Hey, that's something that the radical Muslims and the Fundamentalist Christians have in common! They both want to exclude modern science from the schools because it contradicts their religion!You even see many Christians actually doing what our very own Faith advocates; pulling children completely out of public school so they can be protected from dangerous ideas like Biology.This is exactly what other radical religious groups like the Taliban and the Nazi party do if they can.Thank goodness we still have basic educational requirements and standards that are enforced by law. Otherwise I am positive the religious homeschoolers in the US would be producing citizens who could recite entire Bible chapters but wouldn't know the first thing about chemistry, biology or calculus.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-29-2005 07:58 AM

quote:

---

What they care about is maintaining what they consider a way of life at any cost. In other words, their reason is political not philosophical.

---

This part I agree with. I think what is important to the literalist is the conservative ideology, and they have trouble justifying without invoking the Old Testatment; but the Old Testament is irrelevant unless the Bible is inspired by God and to be read literally.The conservatism was certainly important to me when I was a fundamentalist; so much so that I can (using hind sight) trace my initial doubts back to when I realized that Jesus' message in the Gospels was completely the opposite of the Reagan/conservative agenda at that time.

Laws can be changed. And aren't laws dealing with education state laws, not federal?

It's easier for you to think that, but most of the people I know that rejected ToE did so primarily due to the evidence, namely the misuse of the evidence by evolutionists and the fact they were taught lies, overstatements, exagerrations, etc,...as facts by evolutionists.In my own life, I like you accepted based on authority that I was being taught the truth. I remember telling another Christian who was a Creationist, "but what about all the evidence", and he challenged me to just look into the evidence for myself with an open mind. I was arguing and still do that the text of Genesis does not preclude and old earth or even evolution to a degree.As far as evolution, I confessed that up to that point, I just assumed all the stuff I was taught in school was true. By "school", at that time me education included an elite prep school and a top university. I was not raised by a religious family. My Dad was a surgeon, and my grandfather a doctor, and we were a fairly secular family, nominally Episcopalian, except we rarely if ever attended church, although my parents did go for a little while when I was little and they liked the minister.In no way was I raised around or near a fundamentalist influence.But I was raised to think for myself. I became a Christian while my brother is an atheist and Libertarian, and my Mom is a Democrat and Dad a Republican, but not a social conservative, as I am, to give you an idea of the diversity of thought in the family.I looked into the evidence, and considered that ToE is basically a sham. It does have merit, but it is so overstated and treated in such a quasi-religious manner, that it is as much a cultish ideology as real science, imo.This message has been edited by randman, 07-29-2005 12:33 PM

quote:

---

Most of the people I know that rejected ToE did so primarily due to the evidence....

---

Hmm. That's interesting, because all the people I know who rejected evolution either did so after having a religious conversion or already belonged to a faith that had a stong creationist bent.

Maybe when you were a "literalist" or "fundamentalist", you did not have a real, personal relationship with Jesus, and therefore confused the political ideology of the people you were around with spirituality.I don't see Jesus' message as being primarily political, but in a limited democracy, as we have, it is our responsibility to participate politically. The message I got from Reagan was hope, confidence in America, limited government and anti-communism.I don't see those things as opposite to what Jesus taught.I do think what Reagan did in Central America was opposite of what Jesus taught, and that's the problem with ideology in general. Sometimes, ideology can pidgeon-hole a complex situation into a simplistic formula and distort one's perception.Anti-communism was thus commendable in Europe since it helped reinforce reality, which is the Soviet Union was an evil empire, no doubt about it.But in Latin America, it's hard to tell if the leftists or the rightists were the most evil. At least, the leftists seemed to want to help the people. Then again, communism was evil and needed to be stopped.But it seems like we could have done things better without backing the death squads and monsters down there.But the general hope and confidence, and appeal to limited government, seems consistent with Jesus' message since Jesus did not advocate politics or government action to advance His kingdom.

I've just come down from the Isle of Skye,
I'm no' very big and I'm awful shy,
And the lassies shout when I go by,
"Donald where's your troosers?"TTFN,WK

Predisposition is a good argument. No doubt people's subjectivity exercises a great deal of influence on their "objective thinking" (obviously subjective too).But that works both ways. People are raised in general within a framework of societal influences, particularly in the educational system, that strongly prejudices their beliefs towards evolution.In fact, the approach to teaching evolution is to generally deride it's critics as unscientific, and to teach belief in evolution prior to understanding the evidence for evolution. In other words, for students there is very little to no critical thinking encouraged or applied to ToE, until one is already steeped in the propaganda and ideology of it, or at least can parrot back those ideas.So basically I would argue that the people that accept evolution already belong to a faith that has a strong bent towards accepting ToE, and perhaps more so than the other way around, since it is possible to be a Christian and hold to ToE, but scientists that reject ToE are, imo, likely to be discrimated against. Just look at the reaction to the guy that published the ID paper. His career may be ruined by the evolutionist witch-hunters.

You looked into the evidence?Here's what I understand about the evidence:1. at first (19th century) the evidence was purely based on fossil records. Now, what was impressive about the fossil layout? It's that no matter where anyone dug, the same pattern emerged--always. The further down you dug, the simpler the life forms.
2. They assumed, of course, that "deeper" meant "older." Later they figured out how to date these fossils, and the dating method proved the "deeper is older" idea. They also found out that these fossils were very old indeed.
3. Fossil evidence kept accumulating throughout the 20th century. Then, along came DNA analysis. This is a very recent development. The DNA analysis re-inforced what the fossils had been telling us all along about the evolutionary family tree. So we had converging proofs.I know very little about this, and so if I am mistaken, perhaps an expert can help me out.But what I am asking is, what is not convincing about the above evidence? Where is the sham?This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-29-2005 11:58 AM

Actually, the fossil evidence was one of the strongest pieces of evidence against ToE. For example, species in the fossil record generally appear in a non-gradual manner, fully-formed, without any hint of the immediate prior theorized transitional forms. It is common to hear evolutionists speak of transitional forms, but imo, this is tantamount to deception since for the evolutionists, all species are by definition "transitional."But one would expect to see the fossil record, after so much time, showing the actual transitions. What we know about mutations and evolution in general consists of pretty small changes. The theory is these changes can add up to big changes over a long period of time, and that the fossil record shows this.But the fossil record does not show that. You don't see very small changes, gradually morphing one kind of creature into a vastly different creature. No matter how much you look into it, the fossil record is at best very weak evidence for evolution, and imo, is strong evidence against it.Let me give you an example. A few years back, Nightline did a whole episode on how a fish fossil had a bone in it that, wow, could be the precursor to an arm or some such. It was very, very little scant evidence, but it was treated as big news.Why?Because there is no real evidence of these transitions taking place.We see fully formed, vastly distinct species appearing and disappearing, some appearing and never evolving at all. The fossil record, imo, is wholly inconsistent with naturalistic evolutionary theories of universal common descent.The fact that smaller organisms appear first is not profound or significant overall, imo, since we see exceptions to that, although explained by layers being jumbled up, and we don't really see documentation of the transitions, and we see irregular appearance of fossils, such as the Cambrian explosion.This message has been edited by randman, 07-29-2005 01:07 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 07-29-2005 01:09 PM

Subtle. I predict he won't get it.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Yeah, Iano is chewing up another thread with his claims that people are being indoctrinated into believing in evolution. But how do you distinguish between the critics being derided because of a pro-evolution bias, and critics being derided because they are clearly and obviously wrong? How do you distinguish between people who accept evolution because they are indoctrinated into it at an early age and people who accept evolution because it is clearly and obviously correct?As for me, I was literalist for many, many years -- I certainly don't see how I was indoctrinated into evolution. It was barely mentioned when I was in grade school, and there certainly wasn't the "pro-evolution" science shows on TV when I was a kid watching. In high school I studied evolution just to see how obvious bogus it was -- and I found out that not only did evolution make sense, but the creationist arguments were clearly bogus.

Well, not to be mean to robinroham, but I'll use him as an example. He has argued pretty passionately for evolution, but confesses on this thread, and this is sort of mean to bring it up, but that he knows very little about the evidence, and just accepted it because he was taught it.Nonetheless he feels quite sure that the only reason people reject it is due to some political motive.His situation and perspective is not at all unique.Think about that.