Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Evolution

[razeontherock]

No actually, there are atheistic scientists that lament how poorly ToE is taught, which is what I meant, and what I said. The other things you mention I'm aware of, except for your claim that Bible belt states manage to stop ToE from being taught correctly. If you can leave out the newspaper clippings of sensational stories from Texas, can you flesh out what you mean by that?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

No actually, there are atheistic scientists that lament how poorly ToE is taught, which is what I meant, and what I said. The other things you mention I'm aware of, except for your claim that Bible belt states manage to stop ToE from being taught correctly. If you can leave out the newspaper clippings of sensational stories from Texas, can you flesh out what you mean by that?

They "lament" how poor science in general is taught. Incoming freshman in most cases need to be remediated in basic biology and math. American students rank way down on the list in science and math.

 

[razeontherock]

And where are you? (I'll note that you actually agree with me on what you've hotly debated for quite some time now, and made no mention of it. It's ok, I forgive you)

 

[Split Rock]

Now that question, has lots of answers!

My pet peeve is the impression given of "fact," drastically overstating what is known. For example, I trust you are aware of how much was recovered of any given skeleton. Some are good and nearly complete, many are mostly missing and ... filled in with our expectations. (Otherwise known as closure) I would like to think progress has been made wrt honesty on this subject, but usually such detail is omitted at earlier levels of education.

I'm not sure how this relates to the teaching of evolution. How much teaching is based on partial skeletons? Not very much. I think you put too much into artist recreations and such.

This is one strong bias, and it amounts to indoctrination, and honestly looks like there is something to hide. In any event it is in the best interest of science itself to teach how much remains to be discovered ...

I don't see the bias or indoctrination. People have the tendancy to want to see what an extinct organism looked like, so artistic impressions tend to be popular with the public. Often, once more is known they are shown to be inaccurate. But then, that's why they are called "impressions."

 

[Split Rock]

Well I do understand that genetic evidence is much stronger than fossil evidence, so again you demonstrate that one can have some knowledge, yet still arrive at wrong conclusions.

Its not just genetic and fossil evidence... its embryology, development, comparative anatomy, biogeography, biochemistry that all together point to one conclusion. Yet you claim it is the wrong one... why is that?

 

[Jazer]

Unfortunately, to truly understand the genetic evidence, you have to have a decent understanding of biology.

I heard that Time Magazines best selling cover was on DNA. Time is written at a 6 grade level for 11 year old students. So if you graduate from Grade School you can read a Time magazine.

 

[Jazer]

American students rank way down on the list in science and math.

Our Chinese Foreign Exchange Student was always talking about how students in American do not take their Education serious. He said that is why the jobs are going to China. In China they have to decide what school they want to go to when they are 12 years old. He the best math scores in the school and it was big high school over over 3,000 students. So compared to students in other countries that take school serious the American are falling behind. He was not worried about the Americans getting the best jobs, he was worried about other Chinese getting the top positions ahead of him in Physics and Engineering.

 

[RickG]

I heard that Time Magazines best selling cover was on DNA. Time is written at a 6 grade level for 11 year old students. So if you graduate from Grade School you can read a Time magazine.

And I do hope you realize that not only Time Magazine but any magazine is not a reliable source for scientific information.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I heard that Time Magazines best selling cover was on DNA. Time is written at a 6 grade level for 11 year old students. So if you graduate from Grade School you can read a Time magazine.

If you think Time magazine is a substitute for a college genetics course then it really all makes sense as to why you think you understand evolution but really don't.

 

[Doveaman]

Well, I'm an agnostic who accepts evolution. So much for your false dichotomy.

Do you or do you not believe in God?

 

[razeontherock]

Its not just genetic and fossil evidence... its embryology, development, comparative anatomy, biogeography, biochemistry that all together point to one conclusion. Yet you claim it is the wrong one... why is that?

No actually, I have made no such claim.

 

[razeontherock]

I'm not sure how this relates to the teaching of evolution. How much teaching is based on partial skeletons? Not very much. I think you put too much into artist recreations and such.



I don't see the bias or indoctrination. People have the tendancy to want to see what an extinct organism looked like, so artistic impressions tend to be popular with the public. Often, once more is known they are shown to be inaccurate. But then, that's why they are called "impressions."

Those "impressions" are taught as FACT.

 

[razeontherock]

Our Chinese Foreign Exchange Student ... He the best math scores in the school and it was big high school over over 3,000 students.

750 students per class is a small school. Where I grew up, a class had 2,200!

 

[Astridhere]

<edit>
Perhaps one does need appropriate credentials to fully understand evolutionary science and whether or not accepting it is more a matter of faith than science.

However some very well credentialled scientists with outstanding achievements are creationists.
Creation Scientists with Outstanding Credentials

Creation scientists and other biographies of interest

..and this list is not exhaustive for example it does not list John Sandford with published papers.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Perhaps one does need appropriate credentials to fully understand evolutionary science and whether or not accepting it is more a matter of faith than science.

However some very well credentialled scientists with outstanding achievements are creationists.
Creation Scientists with Outstanding Credentials

Creation scientists and other biographies of interest

..and this list is not exhaustive for example it does not list John Sandford with published papers.

Just out of curiosity, what would you have thought if Einstein recanted on his deathbed and claimed that his entire body of work was bogus? Would it make his theories any less true or false?

 

[Skaloop]

Perhaps one does need appropriate credentials to fully understand evolutionary science and whether or not accepting it is more a matter of faith than science.

However some very well credentialled scientists with outstanding achievements are creationists.
Creation Scientists with Outstanding Credentials

Creation scientists and other biographies of interest

..and this list is not exhaustive for example it does not list John Sandford with published papers.

Too bad most of the people on those lists aren't in the field of biology. But if you want to stoop to pulling pure numbers, I'm sure you're aware of Project Steve. Currently at over 1100 people with the first name of Steve (or some variant thereof) who support evolutionary theory. Mostly biologists. So a list restricted to a single name eclipses your little list by an order of magnitude (as best I can tell without actually counting).

As "impressive" as your list is, it still represents a tiny minority of scientists who by and large do not even practice anything related to evolution.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Too bad most of the people on those lists aren't in the field of biology. But if you want to stoop to pulling pure numbers, I'm sure you're aware of Project Steve. Currently at over 1100 people with the first name of Steve (or some variant thereof) who support evolutionary theory. Mostly biologists. So a list restricted to a single name eclipses your little list by an order of magnitude (as best I can tell without actually counting).

As "impressive" as your list is, it still represents a tiny minority of scientists who by and large do not even practice anything related to evolution.

Hey, if that many Steve's believes ToE, it must be true!

 

[Astridhere]

Dr Ian Macreadie (Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist)
Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia&#8217;s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO&#8217;s top prize, the Chairman&#8217;s Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology&#8217;s top award, for outstanding contributions to research. See Interview with Dr Ian Macreadie.

Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Skaloop you can grumble all you like and the fact remains there are appropriately qualified scientists that do not accept evolution.
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist

..just to name a few.......Rather a large array of representatives from many scientific fields are creationsist.

The point being, of course, that one can be very well credentialed and still be able to discern the falsifications of evolutionary science that is founded on non plausible scenarios and misrepresentations, while the evidence clearly supports creationist paradigms.

 

[Skaloop]

Dr Ian Macreadie (Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist)
Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia&#8217;s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO&#8217;s top prize, the Chairman&#8217;s Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology&#8217;s top award, for outstanding contributions to research. See Interview with Dr Ian Macreadie.

Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Skaloop you can grumble all you like and the fact remains there are appropriately qualified scientists that do not accept evolution.
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist

..just to name a few.......Rather a large array of representatives from many scientific fields are creationsist.

But it's still just a few. A whopping four people in a field hundreds of thousands strong. A staggering few compared to those who aren't Creationists. And I never said there weren't any, just that there weren't many.

The point being, of course, that one can be very well credentialed and still be able to discern the falsifications of evolutionary science that is founded on non plausible scenarios and misrepresentations, while the evidence clearly supports creationist paradigms.

But there are a good many more, every bit as well credentialed (or moreso), who clearly see that the evidence not only supports evolution but is contrary to Creationism.

Within the scientific community, Creationism has a drop of support. Evolution has oceans of it.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Dr Ian Macreadie (Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist)
Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO’s top prize, the Chairman’s Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research. See Interview with Dr Ian Macreadie.

Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Skaloop you can grumble all you like and the fact remains there are appropriately qualified scientists that do not accept evolution.
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist

..just to name a few.......Rather a large array of representatives from many scientific fields are creationsist.

The point being, of course, that one can be very well credentialed and still be able to discern the falsifications of evolutionary science that is founded on non plausible scenarios and misrepresentations, while the evidence clearly supports creationist paradigms.

What you have done is committed the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority." That is to say, I don't accept your argument. Ideas fall and stand on their own merits, not because of the person behind the tie, so to speak.

It helps to know what and why people accept arguments.