Why The Public Still Refuses To Accept Darwinism?

Religions > Atheism > Why The Public Still Refuses To Accept Darwinism?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Sound of Trumpet"
Date:	05 Aug 2006 05:39:27 AM
Object:	Why The Public Still Refuses To Accept Darwinism?

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003089.html
August 03, 2006
10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design (Part I)
Eighty years after the Scopes "Monkey" Trial, the public still
refuses to accept the idea that Darwin's theory of natural selection
is a sufficient explanation for complex biological phenomena. In fact,
opinion polls show that fewer people are willing to accept the idea
that human beings developed from earlier species than they were just
ten years ago.
In Britain-a country that is not exactly known for fundamentalist
Christianity-fewer than half accept the theory of evolution as the
best description for the development of life. (And more than 40% of
those polled believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should
be taught in school science lessons.) Even doctors, who are more
informed about biology than the general public, overwhelmingly (60%)
reject the claim that humans evolved through natural processes alone.
Why do so many people have such difficulty accepting the theory? Is it
due to a resurgence of religious-based creationism? Or is it that the
Discovery Institute and other advocates of Intelligent Design are more
persuasive? I believe the credit belongs not to the advocates of ID but
to the theory's critics.
Had the critics remained silent, ID might possibly have moldered in
obscurity. But instead they launched a counter-offensive, forcing
people into choosing sides. The problem is that the more the public
learns about modern evolutionary theory, the more skeptical they
become.
I won't argue that critics of ID are always wrong or that ID is
always-or even mostly-right in its claims. But I do think a
compelling case can be made that the anti-IDers are losing the
rhetorical battle. Here is the first five in a list of ten reasons ways
in which they are helping to promote the theory of intelligent design:
#1 By remaining completely ignorant about ID while knocking down
strawman versions of the theory. - Whether due to intellectual
snobbery or intellectual laziness, too many critics of ID never bother
to understand what the term means, much less learn the general tenets
of the theory. Instead, they knock down a strawman version of ID that
they have gleaned from other, equally ill-informed, critics. The
belligerent or paranoid advocates of ID will assume that the
misrepresentation is due to dishonesty or a conspiracy by
"Darwinists." But even those who are more charitable will agree
that when a critic misrepresents the theory, it undermines their own
credibility.
#2 By claiming that ID is stealth creationism. -- Resorting to this red
herring is one of the most common arguments made against ID. While
it's true that ID could be used to promote a particular religious
agenda, this is not a sufficient argument against it being a legitimate
scientific research program. There is no a priori reason why a research
program could not be completely in adherence to accepted scientific
methods and yet be completely compatible with a particular religious
viewpoint.
But it also refuses to acknowledge the vast majority of people
throughout history have believed in at least a basic form of
creationism. Most people believe that some form of intelligent being
(i.e., God) created the universe and everything in it. For most of
these people, "creationism" is not a derogatory term. The phrase
"stealth creationism" might appeal to the pseudo-intellectuals
(those who know almost nothing about science but do know that they
despise "fundamentalist Christians") yet for most ordinary people
it sounds like bigoted nonsense.
#3 By resorting to "science of the gaps" arguments. - Critics of
ID often claim that the theory relies on a "God of the Gaps"
"argument. (Don't understand how something occurred? Well...God did
it. Case closed.) As scientific reasoning, this method is obviously
flawed. Yet the critics of ID often resort to the same tactic, only
instead of saying "God did it" they claim "Science will find
it."
The problem is that this almost never happens. Closing a "science gap"
almost always leads to the discovery of other, even more difficult to
explain gaps in knowledge. For example, when evolution was first
proposed by Darwin, there was no explanation for the mechanism of
transmission of traits from one generation to the next. With the
discovery of DNA, Watson and Crick closed that particular "gap."
But as physicist David Snoke notes, no one today has an adequate
explanation for how this highly complicated molecule arose out of
nowhere. Also, we do not have an adequate explanation within chemical
evolutionary theory for the appearance of the mechanism that gives us a
readout of the information, or for the appearance of methods that
replicate information with out error, or for the appearance of the
delicate balance of repair and maintenance of the molecular systems
that use the information stored in DNA.
Scientific discoveries tend to find that nature is even more complex
than we imagined which makes it even more unlikely that a process like
natural selection is a sufficient explanation.
#4 By claiming that ID isn't science since it's not published
peer-reviewed literature...and then refusing to allow publications of
ID papers in peer-reviewed journals. - The hypocrisy of snubbing ID
because it lacks peer-review was exposed by the treatment of Richard
Sternberg, a journal editor who made the career-killing mistake of
actually publishing an article that was sympathetic to ID.
The resulting controversy exposed just how close-minded some scientists
were to criticisms of neo-Darwinism. As Sternberg-who is not an
advocate of ID--said after the incident, "It's fascinating how the
'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any
questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. The reaction to the
paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought
police are alive and well in the scientific community."
#5 By making claims that natural selection is responsible for all
behaviors and biological features. -- Instead of saying that "God
created X", Darwinists tend to claim that "Sex selection created
X." Take, for instance, this statement made by zoologist Richard
Dawkins:
"Why did humans lose their body hair? Why did they start walking on
their hind legs? Why did they develop big brains? I think that the
answer to all three questions is sexual selection," Dawkins said.
Hairlessness advertises your health to potential mates, he explained.
The less hair you have on your body, the less real estate you make
available to lice and other ectoparasites. Of course, it was worth
keeping the hair on our heads to protect against sunstroke, which can
be very dangerous in Africa, where we evolved. As for the hair in our
armpits and pubic regions, that was probably retained because it helps
disseminate "pheromones," airborne scent signals that still play a
bigger role in our sex lives than most of us realize.
Why did we lose our body hair? Sex selection. Why do we retain some
body hair? Yep, sex selection. Why do humans walk on two legs? Again,
the same answer, sex selection. Why do dogs walk on all four? You
guessed it, sex selection.
The same goes for human behavior. Hardly a week goes by that some
newspaper or magazine article does not include a story claiming how
"evolution" is the reason humans do X, avoid Y, or prefer Z.
Even scientists grow weary of hearing such faith claims presented as if
was "science." As Philip S. Skell, emeritus professor at
Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of
Sciences, notes in a recent edition of The Scientist:
....Darwinian explanations for [human behavior] are often too supple:
Natural selection makes humans self- centered and aggressive - except
when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection
produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed - except when it
prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an
explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is
difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for
scientific discovery.
Even those who flunked high school biology can see that when a theory
can be used to prove any behavior that it ceases to be science and
enters the realm of faith. Yet when evolutionists make such claims they
are often flummoxed by the public's skeptical reaction. They can't
understand how we could be so stupid as to not accept their claims. And
we wonder how they could be so stupid as to think we are really that
gullible.
.

User: "R. Pierce Butler"
Title: Re: Why The Public Still Refuses To Accept Darwinism?	05 Aug 2006 08:50:31 AM

"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote in
news:1154774366.995195.268470@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003089.html

Being popular doesn't mean you are right. Elton John's "Candle in the Wind"
is the best selling song of all time.
.

User: "Steven L."
Title: Re: Why The Public Still Refuses To Accept Darwinism?	05 Aug 2006 11:52:43 AM

R. Pierce Butler wrote:

"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote in
news:1154774366.995195.268470@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003089.html

Being popular doesn't mean you are right. Elton John's "Candle in the Wind"
is the best selling song of all time.

Now there's an example you picked out of nowhere.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.

User: "Nebuchadnezzar II"
Title: Re: Why The Public Still Refuses To Accept Darwinism?	05 Aug 2006 01:24:04 PM

"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:1154774366.995195.268470@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003089.html

August 03, 2006

10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design (Part I)

<snipsillyshit>
Thomas Jefferson favored the idea of intelligent design over 200 years
ago and yet he was labeled an atheist at the time. Now the Christers
want it taught in schools. How ironic. Personally I think it's a great
idea. When one of the religious fascists slips through the cracks and
happens to get elected on the school board, as soon as they mention ID,
they can be quickly identified, voted out, and fully marginalized from
that point on.
.

User: "raven1"
Title: Re: Why The Public Still Refuses To Accept Darwinism?	05 Aug 2006 02:19:02 PM

On 5 Aug 2006 03:39:27 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote:

Eighty years after the Scopes "Monkey" Trial, the public still
refuses to accept the idea that Darwin's theory of natural selection
is a sufficient explanation for complex biological phenomena.

Given that approximately half the American population is unaware that
the Earth orbits the Sun, not vice versa, is that surprising?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.

User: "Gandalf Grey"
Title: Re: Why The Public Still Refuses To Accept Darwinism?	05 Aug 2006 02:32:07 PM

"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:5nr9d2ls491pqoqf10ohdcsh6mhqvvkaj9@4ax.com...

On 5 Aug 2006 03:39:27 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote:

Eighty years after the Scopes "Monkey" Trial, the public still
refuses to accept the idea that Darwin's theory of natural selection
is a sufficient explanation for complex biological phenomena.

Given that approximately half the American population is unaware that
the Earth orbits the Sun, not vice versa, is that surprising?

No. Plus there are three overarching reasons IMO.
1. It conflicts with knee jerk religious beliefs that have never been
examined by the majority of Americans.
2. It's considered unflattering. As the theory of evolution is presented,
by it's opponents, it appears to people that they are decended from monkeys.
American arrogance finds that a bitter pill to swallow.
3. The majority of Americans have a weak to poor grasp of what evolutionary
theory even is, let alone an understanding of the facts that back up the
theory. It's far easier in the long run to take your minister's word on
what the bible says at face value than to complete an adequate education in
the physical sciences.
.

User: "Tecknomage"
Title: Re: Why The Public Still Refuses To Accept Darwinism?	16 Aug 2006 06:56:38 AM

On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 12:32:07 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
<gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:

"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:5nr9d2ls491pqoqf10ohdcsh6mhqvvkaj9@4ax.com...

On 5 Aug 2006 03:39:27 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote:

Eighty years after the Scopes "Monkey" Trial, the public still
refuses to accept the idea that Darwin's theory of natural selection
is a sufficient explanation for complex biological phenomena.

Given that approximately half the American population is unaware that
the Earth orbits the Sun, not vice versa, is that surprising?

Not to mention that Darwin never said we descended from monkeys. He
said we have a common ancestor, a totally different proposition.
Evolution opponents use of the "we descended from monkeys" was a
deliberate falsehood meant to be insulting, to support their
opposition.

3. The majority of Americans have a weak to poor grasp of what evolutionary
theory even is, let alone an understanding of the facts that back up the
theory. It's far easier in the long run to take your minister's word on
what the bible says at face value than to complete an adequate education in
the physical sciences.

They also do not comprehend scientific methodology. Theory, test,
retest, adjust, test, retest, retest again, etc., until the "theory"
is accepted fact. Even then, science never stops questioning.
My personal definition: "Science is the art of asking questions."
Note that a "theory" jumps to "fact" when it predicts something that
we were not aware of and we find it in the real world/universe. The
biggest example is Einstein's "'Theory' of Relativity" predicting
(what we now call) Blackholes. His math said they should be there and
sure enough they are. We were not aware of that before.
--
==== Tecknomage ====
All technology which is sufficiently advanced becomes
indistinguishable from magic.
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Why The Public Still Refuses To Accept Darwinism?	05 Aug 2006 02:09:18 PM