Why Would An Agnostic Doubt the Theory of Evolution

[Notedstrangeperson]

That's a big if.

I would be sceptical too, if it weren't for that Pew Forum study I found a few weeks ago that showed 20% of unaffiliated Americans doubted evolution. I don't know if the same goes for other countries like Peru.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's a big if.

Why do you doubt that?

 

[Loudmouth]

He makes some valid points and it intrigues me. I feel he is consistent in his views even if I disagree with him.

What valid points?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What valid points?

Circular reasoning for one thing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do you doubt that?

Bad reasoning, rejection of science, inconsistent acceptance of scientific theories . . . all of the hallmarks of the cognitive dissonance that theism produces.

 

[Zosimus]

I was thinking more along the lines of us breathing and eating through the same hole making it possible to choke.

Or the laryngeal nerve taking a 14 foot detour in giraffe.

Or Ectopic pregnancies

Or the appendix

Or the development of the male testes

The narrow birth canal meaning babies skulls must be in three parts prior to birth leaving weak spots for 12 months

Just off the top of my head

Yeah, sure. How terrible that humans eat and breathe through the same hole. Lots of other creatures don't do that.

On the other hand, they don't talk either. It turns out that if you design a windpipe so that you can eat and breathe at the same time, it's hard to talk with it.

It's a horrible handicap to have to stop talking when I eat, but somehow I've managed to survive 41 years under this terrible handicap.

Of course the claim you've made also refutes natural selection. Had it been such a horrible handicap, why did I evolve thus?

 

[Loudmouth]

Circular reasoning for one thing.

A nested hierarchy is not circular reasoning. It is easily testable.

Why would life fall into a nested hierarchy if it was designed?

 

[Zosimus]

You are unconvinced by a scientific theory with 150 years of solid science behind it. You remain unconvinced because you don't want it to be true. We call this denial.

Just as Galileo was unconvinced by the heliocentric model despite centuries of data supporting it, so too I am unconvinced by your pathetic theory with a scant 150 years of evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yeah, sure. How terrible that humans eat and breathe through the same hole. Lots of other creatures don't do that.

On the other hand, they don't talk either. It turns out that if you design a windpipe so that you can eat and breathe at the same time, it's hard to talk with it.

It's a horrible handicap to have to stop talking when I eat, but somehow I've managed to survive 41 years under this terrible handicap.

Of course the claim you've made also refutes natural selection. Had it been such a horrible handicap, why did I evolve thus?

Why does life fall into a nested hierarchy while cars do not? Why would life fall into a nested hierarchy if it was intelligently designed?

 

[Loudmouth]

Just as Galileo was unconvinced by the heliocentric model despite centuries of data supporting it, so too I am unconvinced by your pathetic theory with a scant 150 years of evidence.

Yes, because modern science is completely comparable to the science of Galileo's time. [/sarcasm]

 

[Loudmouth]

Yeah, sure. How terrible that humans eat and breathe through the same hole. Lots of other creatures don't do that.

On the other hand, they don't talk either. It turns out that if you design a windpipe so that you can eat and breathe at the same time, it's hard to talk with it.

It's a horrible handicap to have to stop talking when I eat, but somehow I've managed to survive 41 years under this terrible handicap.

Of course the claim you've made also refutes natural selection. Had it been such a horrible handicap, why did I evolve thus?

Why does everything with hair also have three middle ear bones, but nothing with feathers does?

 

[Zosimus]

That you have found fellow crackpots does not make you less of a crackpot.

Just so we are clear, you also reject every other single theory in science, correct? You reject the theory of germs, theory of atoms, theory of gravity, etc., correct?

I consider such theories as the theory of germs, theory of atoms, theory of gravity, and theory of conservation of energy to be unproven, exactly as the theory of evolution is unproven.

As such, I don't take kindly to someone implying that I'm an idiot because I'm not on board with the latest scientific fad.

 

[Zosimus]

Yes, because modern science is completely comparable to the science of Galileo's time. [/sarcasm]

Just as the "scientists" of Galileo's time were unwilling to look through his telescope, so too the scientists of our day are unwilling to consider alternate hypotheses.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I consider such theories as the theory of germs, theory of atoms, theory of gravity, and theory of conservation of energy to be unproven, exactly as the theory of evolution is unproven.

So do you think panspermia is just an alternative to Darwinian evolution, or do you think there is more evidence in its favour?

 

[Sofaman]

Yeah, sure. How terrible that humans eat and breathe through the same hole. Lots of other creatures don't do that.

On the other hand, they don't talk either. It turns out that if you design a windpipe so that you can eat and breathe at the same time, it's hard to talk with it.

It's a horrible handicap to have to stop talking when I eat, but somehow I've managed to survive 41 years under this terrible handicap.

Of course the claim you've made also refutes natural selection. Had it been such a horrible handicap, why did I evolve thus?

Other mammals eat and breathe through separate holes and still manage to produce sound so it shouldn't be too difficult.

My claim doesn't refute natural selection. Nature selects the traits that give an animal an advantage in reproducing.That trait doesn't necessarily need to be the optimal solution to dealing with the pressures.

Any designer worth his salt would always design to optimal standards, otherwise he wouldn't be much of a designer

 

[Sofaman]

So do you think panspermia is just an alternative to Darwinian evolution, or do you think there is more evidence in its favour?

How can they be alternatives to one another. They address separate issues

 

[Loudmouth]

I consider such theories as the theory of germs, theory of atoms, theory of gravity, and theory of conservation of energy to be unproven, exactly as the theory of evolution is unproven.

As such, I don't take kindly to someone implying that I'm an idiot because I'm not on board with the latest scientific fad.

The idea that smallpox is caused by a virus is a "fad"?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

How can they be alternatives to one another. They address separate issues

Not necessarily. As I mentioned earlier, there's no reason Darwinian evolution could not have taken place after life first came to Earth, nor does panspermia explain abiogenesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just as the "scientists" of Galileo's time were unwilling to look through his telescope, so too the scientists of our day are unwilling to consider alternate hypotheses.

We would be more than happy to consider them if ID proponents were able to construct them. At this point, all they have are religious beliefs.

You are saying that we shouldn't consider hypotheses at all. None of them. You are worse than any of us.

 

[Dizredux]

As such, I don't take kindly to someone implying that I'm an idiot because I'm not on board with the latest scientific fad.

Oh I am sure there could be other reasons.

Dizredux