why do evolutionists call non-evolution believers ignorant?

Question

just because we are not convinced of the model and/or the evidence of how life began and formed.
Too many holes in the theory and not enough polyfilla of proof

Answer 1

Projection. Evolutionists still maintain that evolution is fact despite its failure of every single scientific inquiry, test and objective observation. Many smugly assume the reverse that there is tons of evidence in support of evolution. Not only is there none but it is quite dramatic just how many observations should be present if evolution were true and are not (example: the fossil record). It's evolutionists who are ignorant. Ignorant of the facts. Ignorant of the scientific method. Ignorant of history of this silly idea. And ignorant of the agenda of those who advance evolution even though they should know better.

What this is really about is the attempt by marxists to seperate reason and morality (the pope recently gave a really good lecture about this.....which drove the muslims into a rage, lol). The idea here being that, since evolution is scientific and creationism is religious, evolution must be right and creationism must be wrong. This is argument is neither reasoned, nor moral....which is, of course, the point.

Evolution is scientific, alright. Scientifically proven to be false. Lol.

Answer 2

There is a very clear distinction between "ignorant" and "stupid," so don't get too upset when you think you're being called something you're not. The fact is that evolution has been proven beyond any shadow of scientific doubt. People who talk about it being "only a theory" or "not being proven" are ignorant; that is, they do not understand what they are talking about. If you want to believe the Biblical account, fine. But you have no right to call your belief "scientific." The word "science" has a very clear meaning, and the account of creation in the Bible simply has no scientific credibility, no matter what the "creation scientists" and "intelligent design" folks tell you. Just do a little independent research instead of relying on folks with a political agenda. Google "evolution" and actually read the articles. There is no real question about the validity of the Theory of Evolution. Just for fun, look up the word "theory" while you're doing research. You will be a little less ignorant.

Answer 3

It's funny how people who totally just accept the bible on blind faith (which has NO scientific proof) want *excruciating* proof from the scientific community that evolution happened. Well, guess what - anthropology is not perfect (and thus there are holes with evolutionary theory - but there are holes with most theories), but it is a hell of a lot closer to reality than the bible. We don't have a time machine, just basic methods of digging up fossils and making assumptions. We can deduce a lot from the fossil record, but it's not 100% perfect because evolution took place over millions of years and we've only been studying it for the last 100. With genetic technology, it has become even more clear that humans evolved from apes (we share 95% of our genes with them) but this is obviously not enough to go up against THE BIBLE. Which makes more sense to you - noah's ark or evolution? You think someone took every living being of every species and put them all on a boat? That is more plausible to you than evolution?

So, just beause there is not a perfectly detailed fossil record of every single pre-human species, this does not mean evolution didn't happen. Aside from actual biological evolution, what is more important (in my view) is that sociological evolution turned us from apes who hunted in bands to farmers who settled down over the same territory. We then evolved language and other traits that sociobiologists have been constructing theories about since the 1970s. These Darwinian based theories have been tested with tribal cultures such as the Yanomamo (who have not been influenced by our modern way of life), and have demonstrated exactly what Darwin & Hamilton (his successor in the social sciences) would predict. My answer has only scratched the surface because this is an immense topic, but the reason I would consider you ignorant is just because you haven't done enough reading of actual scientific articles and books. Most of the "holes" in the theory have already been plugged - you are just choosing not to believe and/or accept them...or you haven't read them.

Answer 4

Ignorant does not mean stupid. For example I am completely ignorant of the banking system of Mongolia. I simply do not know anything about it.

Evolution is not summed up by some quick and easy slogan like "survival of the fittest" or "Life forms change over time due to the environment and various mutations" etc. It is a detailed and very established scientific theory (which is a different use of the word theory then is used in common language). Unless one has spent a great deal of time studying this theory of science why would one be so quick to dismiss it out of hand? (Sometimes on TV - a creation of science most do not fully understand as well - but seem able to accept.)

I have yet to meet someone who chooses not to believe in evolution who truly understands it. They are, usually by choice, completely ignorant of that which they dismiss because it seems to conflict with mythical beliefs they already hold.

Answer 5

Evolution is based on three observations:
1) Offspring tend to resemble their parents, i.e. some of the traits of an organism are inherited.
2) Nevertheless, occasionally an organism appears with a trait that none of its ancestors ever had, i. e. mutations happen.
3) These traits can often affect (both positively and negatively, and sometimes subtly) how long an organism survives and how many offspring it produces in the environment where it finds itself.
So successful new species and varieties can arise from old species, and some (but not all) old species or varieties can disappear.
People who raise plants and animals take advantage of these three observations every day, and while in this case it is the people who are choosing the successful (and unsuccessful) lines, in the wild the conditions that nature provides are also always affecting the survival of populations of plants and animals.
These are very reasonable observations and it is easy to find good examples to back them up. I do not call non-evolution believers ignorant, but I think that when they reject these ideas, they are preventing themselves for various reasons from judging the ideas on their own merits.

Answer 6

Well i believe that may be because they turn their backs on all the evidence that evolution happened.

Also many non believers fundamentally misunderstand the difference between theory and fact. They think it indicates levels of proof. I nteh sense
Fact is something we know for sure
Then you have hypothesis which are a bit more guess work
Then you have theories that are really weak
Thats basically the same as what my mate Frank told me in the pub that a man told him.

Evolution is a scientific fact - the evidence that species and populations have changed over time is immense from fossils to hiv - to the development of bugs immune to various antibiotics. - its not really up for debate.

The theory part relates not to - we don't know this is a guess - but rather to HOW we account for these changes over time and diffferent scientists have different interpretations of how the many different mechanisms that account for change over time work and which factors are more important at which particular time.

Its like gravity - you can't deny that something draws us back to earth when we jump - theres tons of evidence for that - and we have a theory of gravitational force -drawn from all the evidence that fits with all the empirical data we have about it.
Denying evolution is like denying that we are pulled back to earth when we jump. It is a fact with a robust theory to back it up.
So you can say that individual theories to account for the process of evolution that we can see are flawed.
However it is ignorant to say that evolution is not happening. Its the same as hanging onto a belief that the World is Flat despite all the evidence that we have to support it and all the theories that explain it.

So evolution is demonstated as fact, you can choose to ignore if if you want and believe that the world was created 6000 years ago and that dinasours walked with us like in the flintstones. However, I on the other hand wil stick with the scientific evidence and fact that are the culmination of several thousand years of scientific investigation, knowledge and rigour.

Answer 7

It is ok to not be convinced. I personally don't believe evolution word for word. I just think it makes a lot more sense than the creation story. Nobody knows what the hell is going on in this life. People have beliefs because it makes them feel better. Any religious person who says they KNOW the TRUTH is only deluding themselves. Faith is a common, albeit life preserving form of mental illness. Like alcoholism.

Answer 8

I will throw it back. Why do creationists insist eolutionists are misguided and ignorant? Truth is, there is plenty of room to be of the faith and still believe in evolution. After all, a day in the creation could have been a million years, or 100 million years. None of were here to time it.

Answer 9

Good question. The non evolution theory is based on the bible, which are handed down stories with no scientific basis. The evolution theory is based on books, based on science.
If you were schooled on one, you will tend to put credence on it over the other.
The word "ignorant" simply means that the person you are talking to knows you did not go to school to learn about science. That you simpy based your belief on Sunday school sermons and bible reading.
Ignorance is not a fault, and perhaps the word was neither intended to imply anthing derogatory or inflammatory.

Answer 10

I know it's rude, but some evolutionists say it out loud, and the rest think it. The main argument I hear is that "there's not enough evidence", but their alternate theory is the Biblical version, which has no evidence at all. Hence, the rude comments, because we can't understand your logic.