Amazon Vehicles Up to 80 Percent Off Textbooks Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Dolly Parton Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Totes Summer-Event-Garden Amazon Cash Back Offer ElvisandNixon ElvisandNixon ElvisandNixon  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Shop Now
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Why are people so offended by evolution?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 136 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 23, 2012 7:30:39 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2012 7:46:44 AM PST
(®_0) says:
I know there are many discussions in this area where people dance around the subject.

What offends people so much? Humans are only one species out of millions, distributed in patterns that actually make sense, what is wrong with the evolution theories for everything else? Genetic theories are pretty solid. Animals and plants have been "evolved" for chosen characterics for as long as there has been human civilization.

The idea that humans are similar to animals? The idea that humans might not be the most important thing in the universe?
The idea that humans may be related to apes, which implies that white people are related to black people? White people descended from black apes from Africa?
The idea that universe is older than human civilization, thereby possibly reducing the importance and significance of humans?

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 12:18:08 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2012 2:41:07 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 1:42:30 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2012 2:16:59 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
I don't think it's evolution per say. It's the idea that the bible (or other religious text or authority) is not literally true. It has nothing to do with the merits of the theory.

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 2:21:26 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2012 2:27:15 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 3:05:31 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 3:06:45 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2012 3:13:23 PM PST
(®_0) says:
What is Creationism then? Science? Magic? Wish fulfillment? Entitlement? God created the world for you because you are great and are going to become a god, all you have to do is pretend to follow the religion? You are forgiven everything no matter how pathetic you are. So easy. So simple. Just how you feel it should be. Don't ask any questions. Where are the answers?

If you want a simple answer of what "evolution" is, you are thinking of it as a religion. You could always find something to question, just the same as religion. You don't LIKE the ideas of the theories. You PREFER a subjective viewpoint which makes you feel important.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 3:12:33 PM PST
(®_0) says:
I don't understand. I must be more monkey than you.

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 5:01:41 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2012 5:05:06 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 6:04:40 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2012 6:05:20 PM PST
'Us Creationists, we call your bluff...."Please tell us what Evolution is nowadays". '

Try reading some of these, Christopher. Bear in mind that this is merely a partial list: it's only the ones that I try to check regularly from the vantage point of my own specialty.

1. Journals devoted to evolutionary biology, including paleontology.

Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, Alcheringa, Annual Reviews of Evolution, Ecology and Systematics, Annual Reviews of Paleobotany and Palynology, Evolution, Evolutionary Anthropology, Evolution and Ecology Research, Evolutionary Biology, Evolution and Development, Historical Biology, Journal of Mammalian Evolution, Journal of Molecular Evolution, Journal of Paleontology, Journal of Swiss Paleontology, Journal of Systematic Paleontology, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Leithia, Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeovenvironments, Palaeontologica Electronica, Palaeogeography Palaeoecology and Palaeoclimatology, Palaeontology, Paleobiology, Palaios.

2. Journals that regularly include articles about evolutionary biology and paleontology.

2a. High impact weekly journals: Nature, PLoS Biology, PLoS Genetics, PLoS One, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science.

2b. Other journals: Annals of the Carnegie Museum, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, American Museum Novitates, American Naturalist, Annual Reviews of Anthropolgy, Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Science, Annual Reviews of Physiology, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Biological Essays, Biological Reviews, Biology Letters, BioScience, BMC Biology, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, Bulletin of Geological Sciences University of California, Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History, Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Bulletin of Yale Peabody Museum, Bulletin of the Natural History Museum of New Mexico, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Cell, Cladistics, Current Anthropology, Current Biology, Genetics, Genomics, Geology, Geodiversitas, Global Ecology and Biogeography, GSA Today, Journal of Anatomy, Journal of Australian Biology, Journal of Australian Zoology, Journal of Biogeography, Journal of Experimental Biology, Journal of Experimental Zoology, Journal of Geology, Journal of Mammalogy, Journal of Molecular Biology, Journal of Morphology, Journal of Zoology, Mammalian Biology, Mammal Review, Memoirs of the Museum of Paleontology University of Michigan, Molecular Cell, Molecular and Cell Biology, Molecular and General Genetics, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Quarterly Review of Biology, South African Journal of Science, Systematic Biology, Systematic Zoology, Trends in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society, Zoology.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 6:07:13 PM PST
Tero says:
It's because they think they are special. ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 6:28:26 PM PST
Astrocat says:
Christopher. Evolution in biology:

"Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species."

Now you know what it is. What's your problem with it?

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 6:32:44 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2012 6:45:43 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 6:45:20 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2012 7:02:39 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 6:59:09 PM PST
Astrocat says:
Well, Christopher, you with your down-home talk and all that, you just keep on a-tryin'. One of these days you might understand it just a little bit better.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 7:06:45 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2012 7:11:18 PM PST
"Of course Peer Reviewed Scientists, the Smart guys anyhow, nowadays they say that Modern Evolutionary Synthesis it tanked. "

Name one. Besides, of course, Dr. Koonin, who has already said that you have misquoted him.

"instead of wasting your time as a Flunkie Scientist Wannabe"

Is this addressed to me, Tero or Nancy? I may be a flunkie (why, thank you, it's been years since I've been called that), but a "wannabe" is about 40 years too late.

"A humungous smokescreen, made up out of hundreds of them academic journals, "

Nope, they just illustrate the healthy nature of the field. But, tell you what, why don't you check out some specific articles from the past year and show us how they are bankrupt? Some of these journals (all the PLOS ones) are Open Access, so you can quite easily read them for yourself without the electronic access that the scientists are privileged to have (along with our humungous remunerations from Uncle Sam).

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 7:40:40 PM PST
roeselare says:
"...down-home talk and all that..."

Nobody writes like that. CH has shared with us in the past that he's a 20 something oil project manager of sorts. He's a young husband. They've become the parents/guardians of 8? needy children, which I think is very commendable.

Of course, we don't know for sure who anyone is in a forum like this. CH might be a bitter older woman who's angry about life choices she's made, and she persists in this lashing out at the efforts of scientists because it's safe and 'satisfying', to some degree.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 8:06:32 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
I doubt someone with 8 needy children has time to post like he does. He even responded to an edited post within about a minute of me editing the post (which was about an hour old at the time). He has some serous boredom and time to kill. Sounds like he is still in his mommy's basement after flunking high school.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 8:19:17 PM PST
It's only the fundies that have a problem with evolution.

<<
Public schools have taught humanistic philosophy with its permissiveness
And its theory of evolution, thus reducing man to the level of an animal
and giving him no purpose of life." --Michael R. Lowman

"With creationism in the saddle, American science will wither, and we will
raise a generation of ignoramuses who will not be equipped to run the
industry of tomorrow, much less to generate the new advances of the days after tomorrow." --Isaac Asimov

"God, the creator of the universe, can never be against learning the laws of what he has created." -- Mustafa Mahmoud

Where Science Confronts Fundamentalist Religion

Scientists have accumulated a massive amount of data that consistently points to an earth that is billions of years old, and to evolution as the mechanism for animal and plant variation around the world. There is disagreement within the scientific community regarding the exact MECHANISM by which evolution takes place, but virtual AGREEMENT that evolution of plant and animal life is a scientific fact.

Religious groups are split over their acceptance of the theory of
evolution: Many religious groups have accepted evolution as the MECHANISM through which God has created all life on earth. They therefore see no conflict with evolution and religion! For example, the Anglican theologian Charles Kingsley (who was a contemporary of Charles Darwin) wrote how he believed evolution proved that God was even MORE powerful than originally thought because this meant God must have ALSO CREATED the mechanism by which life generates new life:

"We know of old that God was so wise that he could make all things;
but behold, he is so much wiser even than that, that he can make
all things make themselves."

And according to Reverend Arthur Peacock (a winner of the Templeton Prize for progress in religion and former director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for the Study of Science and Religion in Oxford):

"... the theory of evolution, far from undermining faith, deepens it."
"The fact that the universe probably began about 12 billion years ago
with life beginning to evolve about 3 billion years ago simply underlines
the extraordinary detailed, persistent, patience of the divine creator
spirit." "This attempt to see the Book of Genesis as a rival to scientific
truth [also] stops people taking the Bible seriously. Biblical literalism
brings not only the Bible but Christianity itself into disrepute."

Even today, the vast majority of people who support evolution also believe in a God. According to a 1999 Poll, 83% of Americans want evolution taught in the classroom and about 70% believe the theory of evolution is compatible with a belief in God.

(http://www.pfaw.org/issues/education/creationism-poll.pdf) Many
religious believers (which includes scientists) have noted that the Hebrew word for "day" is similar to the word "eon", meaning a large period of time. They interpret the literal SIX DAYS of creation in Genesis as SIX EONS of time, which roughly corresponds to the formation of the universe and life on earth.

Christian fundamentalist religious groups strongly disagree. To them, the Word of God (as recorded in the Judaic-Christian Bible) is divinely inspired-- and therefore MUST BE LITERALLY TRUE! They view evolution as a REJECTION of the literal teachings of the Bible, and therefore an affront to God's authority. Whenever scientific observation "appears" to conflict with what is stated in
the Bible then either:

1. the scientific observation is in error, or else,
2. Satan and his human allies are deceitfully manipulating geological and
fossil data in order to trick mankind into believing in evolution and thus
falling away from God's Word.

To Christian fundamentalists, the battle for the teaching of evolution vs. creationism in the classroom, is part of the struggle between God and the Devil for the souls of mankind! Conservative religious groups fear that the theory of evolution weakens morality by teaching that mankind was not specially and uniquely created by God, in effect reducing him to the same level as an animal and giving him no purpose for life. Evolution also weakens the Argument from Design--considered for thousands of years as one of the best proofs for the existence of God. These ultra-conservative/fundamentalist Christian groups
insist on the absolute inerrancy of the Bible, and with it the literal
description of God's creation of earth as recorded in the book of Genesis-hence their name "Creationists".

Scientists claim creationists ignore the fact that evolution seems to be the best scientific way to explain the geological and biological data that has been accumulated over the centuries. They point out that many creationists resort to mystical explanations to account for scientific data that conflicts with the biblical account--relying on supernatural escape clauses such as the magical "waters of Noah's Flood", or quasi-scientific references to "relativity" or "quantum mechanics" (without benefit of the physics equations).

more here

http://www.entheology.org/library/winters/SCIENCE.TXT

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 8:43:12 PM PST
AE says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2012 7:01:36 AM PST
Sceptic says:
Where are the experiments that demonstrate that a supernatural being creates new species?
Come on Haynes where is your evidence for a creator and the mechanism for creation of life?
We are still waiting.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2012 7:02:57 AM PST
Sceptic says:
Where are the experiments that demonstrate that a supernatural being creates new species?
Come on Haynes where is your evidence for a creator and the mechanism for creation of life?
We are still waiting.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2012 7:03:16 AM PST
Sceptic says:
Where are the experiments that demonstrate that a supernatural being creates new species?
Come on Haynes where is your evidence for a creator and the mechanism for creation of life?
We are still waiting.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 8:39:27 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 28, 2012 8:41:20 AM PST
Ambulocetus says:
Great question. I think the best way to answer it is to look at what SCIENTISTS disliked about Darwin's theory when it was first proposed. It's fascinating to read the reviews Darwin's 1859 book garnered in just its first year, and you can find the full text of many of these reviews here:
Darwin and His Critics: The Reception of Darwin's Theory of Evolution by the Scientific Community
http://darwin-online.org.uk/reviews.html

David Hull divides criticisms of Darwin's theory into two basic types: those that dislike the lack of teleology, and those that dislike the lack of species essentialism.

Looking at life on earth, there are more complicated and less complicated organisms. Further, the less complicated ones--fish, insects--came about before the more complicated ones, like reptiles and mammals. Add to this the obvious fact that organisms have some extraordinarily impressive adaptations to their habitats and ways of life, and it is clear that there is a goal-directedness, a teleology, at work in nature.

Further, with few exceptions, different groups of organisms can't mate with one another, and most genera, families, and higher taxa are easy to differentiate from one another. But on Darwin's account, this differentiation was gradual, and seems solid now only because of the extinction of intermediate forms. So what becomes of taxonomy? What becomes of the rational harmony, the systematic nature, of life on earth?

Interesting misunderstandings of Darwin also shed some light. For example, several reviewers thought that Darwin was personifying Nature, giving Her agency in picking what survives and what doesn't. That anyone could read even the first edition of the "Origin" and come away with this view shows how ready we are to personify.

Finally, let's not forget how fundamentalism got started. At the very end of the 19th century, Biblical archaeology was casting serious doubt on the stories of the Flood, the Exodus, and the military exploits of Joshua. Biblical exegesis was suggesting that the Pentateuch was written, not by any one person named Moses, but by a variety of authors whose works then got Frankensteined together. Historical archaeology was finding other creation stories and flood stories from all over Mesopotamia and surrounding regions very like those of the Tanakh. And, on top of all of this, Darwin tells us that adaptive traits bespeak, not the hand of William Paley's amazing deity, but eons of natural selection.

Short version: evolution is counter-intuitive, and counter-theistic. A person familiar with the theory can marry it with common sense and with theism, but to someone hearing details of the theory for the first time, it sounds like preposterous and atheistic balderdash.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 9:11:44 AM PST
Deckard says:
werranth413 said:
"CH might be a bitter older woman who's angry about life choices she's made, and she persists in this lashing out at the efforts of scientists because it's safe and 'satisfying', to some degree."

That sounds more like Hewie.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 10:54:46 AM PST
Tiercel says:
"Why are people so offended by evolution?"

...'cause they haven't evolved past the emotional stage of fairy tale belief.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  38
Total posts:  136
Initial post:  Dec 23, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 12, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions