Why is evolution so controversial?

It is often enunciated that Modern biology only makes sense in light of evolution. Yet a growing number of scientists are frowning upon the modern synthesis and seem to be still quite useful scientists.When I started my General Medicine course some three years ago, I was surprised to discover just how modest a role Evolution plays in medical school, aside from an introduction level treatment (1st year) it only received passing mentions for the most part. I expected it to be given as a subject on its own, but lo and behold that is not the case in medical school! It doesn't look like Medicine is that into Evolution!Even more shocking was my biology professor's reply when I asked her to elaborate on some detail of evolution during a class, she told me not to trouble myself with such question that will only distract the lesson, and then she added evolution is contentious anyway. "Evolution is contentious!" From the lips of a research professor!Many would say that doubters are in denial since evolution happens all the time, and they would speak of malarial resistance to chloroquine. Yet this is not the theory of evolution that is typically inflicted on the public. This relatively minor population changes has been empirically observed, what we haven't seen is body-plan level changes.So why is evolution so controversial? Is there something wrong with the science or are people just stubborn? I would say that although many reject it on religious reasons other still reject it on grounds of science! As for me, after a full course in anatomy, topographical anatomy, and neurology, I simply cannot accept evolution, life looks very designed and so for the time being I will side with those scientists who call nonsense on the modern synthesis. Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

Thread copied here from the Why is evolution so controversial? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

A growing number?Tell you what. Let's do a little comparison. You count the number of scientists who reject evolution, have a degree in the biological sciences, and whose first name is Steve (or a derivation thereof, such as Estaban or Stephanie). I will do the same for the number of scientists who do accept evolution as the best explanation for biodiveristy in biology.Sould like a deal? Please, show us the peer reviewed papers where these claims are tested and supported.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I think we all agree evolution is contentious. That's why this site exists. But it isn't contentious within scientific circles. Body plan changes? You mean that happened recently rather than 500 million years ago? From what we understand of evolution, body plan changes would be pretty unexpected at this point. And *I* would say that those who say they reject it on scientific grounds are misrepresenting the truth that their grounds are actually religious. If they actually rejected on scientific grounds then they would actually know something about evolution. Such as that it doesn't predict that we should be seeing new body plans.--Percy

It isn't. A "growing" number? This has been a mantra of religious kooks for several decades and yet none of them can show any such "growing" number.What the National Center for Science Education has shown, however, is that for every scientist you can mention as an evolution naysayer there are multiple thousands who aren't.Ever heard of the Steve Project?Some choices here.Either you picked this crap up from some creationist website that has been lying to you which makes you look like an idiot, orYou know this is a lie and you really are an idiot.You're in here unarmed trying to do battle with the monster.You might want to consider actually finding out what you're talking about before returning.

And truth is not a popularity contest, consensus is not how truth is arrived at, otherwise you're just left with a argument from consensus/popularity!

Yes there is a growing number of scientists who do question the Neo Darwinism.

No new body plans, no information-rich systems, no complex functional machines have ever been observed or seen by direct experimentation to come about through alleged evolutionary mechanisms. All of the interesting questions about evolution lie at the end of a long trail of inferences, suppositions, and speculations.

I should hope so. Neo-Darwinism went out years ago. The Theory of Evolution is now many steps in advance of what used to be called the Modern Synthesis.Such a lack of knowledge on your part is understandable. You do not know what you are talking about.But let's get down to it ... Prove it.

What are you talking about? Neo Darwinism is the modern evolutionary synthesis. It is still the standard model! Looks like the ignorance is strong in you.If as you say the Neo-Darwinism went out years ago, then clearly it has been questioned by enough scientist in order to be thrown out years ago! Hence your demand that I prove that the modern synthesis is questioned is rather odd.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

Wow. You really don't understand what's going on, do you!

Neo-Darwinism is the conventional view of evolution. By saying it isn't you're the one who seems not to understand what's going on.

I think that medicine is concerned about the current state of the human body, not how said body came to be as it is. Again, evolution is at least largely irrelevant to medical procedure. Contentious? Yes, it is socially contentious, as per Percy's comment in message 4. There is also scientific contention concerning details in the theory of (biological) evolution. That is not to say that there is not broad scientific agreement (consensus) about the bulk of the theory.Moose

I just told you that evolution doesn't predict that there should be new body plans today. What are you, the visual equivalent of deaf? Every unique mutation creates new information. Evolution doesn't predict we should see complex functional machines being created before our very eyes. Everything we know about evolution says that it makes tiny changes to what already exists, and that these accumulate over time into change of ever increasing magnitude. We do see what evolution predicts we should see, and of course it makes perfect sense that we do not see what you're making up. Good luck defining scientific knowledge as limited to what we learn through experiment.In reality, science includes hypothesis, experimentation, observation, analysis, inference, replication and theory building.--Percy

And you claim to be studying medicine? I see a chiropractors office in your future. I also worry for any patients you might ever have.