why do so many god botherers lie about science and evolution?

Question

I understand that they don't like evolution because it contradicts their theology, but regardless of the evidence they don't want to believe it. But really, they are supposed to be good honest people "Thou shalt not bear false witness", yet they deliberately propagate lies about science and in particular evolution science.

Kent Hovind is one of many. As is John Mackay
http://www.kent-hovind.com/

Answer 1

Some are being deliberately untruthful but I think the greater number don't understand science enough to realize they are misled. They choose to believe those who reinforce their cherished beliefs. For many of these people it is about faith more than facts. What is annoying to me is when they try to indoctrinate others and alter school curriculums to introduce theology in science classes.

Answer 2

Evolution is a (very) strongly supported hypothesis for the why man is the way he is. It doesn't actually touch on how life began.

It is actually pretty easy to observe if you have a species that can reproduce quickly like a fruit fly.

Religion relies much too heavily on faith, which can be described as believing something without the need for any evidence. Its also pretty terrible as saying "sorry but we got that bit wrong", because if it did what else could it be wrong about. Science work far better with its paradigm shifts, if it doesn't work, discard it to the history books.

Evolutionary theory is only about 150 years old so there are bound to some holes in it, some of the tools necessary to fully explain it haven't been developed yet. Science itself needs to evolve. And this isn't an easy topic for the experts to fully understand let alone laymen. It draws from many different disciplines of science too. And just because someone says they don't understand it, doesn't rule out the possibility it could be right.

Religion, and I'm talking mainly about western christianity, has had 2000 years to come up with a good story and they have failed at every turn. Their explanation makes as much sense at the world being held by four elephants on a turtles back. Don't even get me started on intelligent design. That is absurd theory acting as a Trojan horse for creationism (which by the way, CAN be disproved by cosmologists and astro-physics...)

I suppose the undermining of a central tenant of their faith is simply too much to contemplate. I mean what is the first thing that happens in the Bible...and God created the heavens. It would be pretty crushing for mere mortals (and lets face it the scientific community do come across as a little dull) to disprove a faith based religion that is thousands of years old. I guess denial is a defence mechanism.

Answer 3

I know, like the answer above me:

1) ...and when you use different decay-series, with different logarithmic decay-rates, to date a suitable sample, you get the same result. It is not assumptions, the method mathematically proves itself.
2) Chromosome mutations happen all the time eg. speciation in plants has been observed through them in experiments, and one of our chromosome pairs represents a fusion of two ape chromosomes (hence the difference in number).
3) The fossil record shows systematic, incremental change of geographically overlapping species, through hundreds of thousands of species, up the geological column. Among the most abundant fossil groups, gradual transitions between species are also shown.
4) Doesn't make sense and can only assume that this is meant to convince people who don't understand that evolution works by natural selection.
5) Co-evolution is central to evolution.
6) Ridiculous. Speciation has been observed, let alone all the changes in gene frequencies and mutations.

Real science does not ignore contrary evidence. That is one reason that creationism is not science (apart from the compulsive lying).

Answer 4

Evolution is not true science. I will hit you with a few topics to show this:-

1) Isotope dating is extrapolation of half-lif calculations beyond observable limits. It is, therefore, based on assumptions, both on decay rate and initial isotopic proportions of the sample.
RESPONSE:- Radioactive decay haas only been observed for a relatively few number of years (compared to geological time). Actual half life calculations cannot be supported observationally, because no-one has lived that long! Radioactive decay cannot be constant. What "tells" the atoms it is their turn? Half lives are an approximation. An average. There is no reason why you could not have decay bursts where a more-than-average number of atoms decay at the same time.

2) Chromosome counts vary from species to species. Not explainable by Evolution. Blood chemistry has similar anomalies.
RESPONSE:- I am not talking about mutations. I am talking about counts. Evolution does not explain why relatively simple organisms can have huge numbers of chromosomes, nor does it explain how a change in chromosomes can be established hereditarily and consistently. Blood between "similatr" species can have incompatible chemistries (not just equivalents of group and rhesus)..

3) Fossil record is incomplete and shows fully formed species, apparently from nothing.
RESPONSE:- The gaps are there and they are huge. The fossil records indicate species appearing and remaining constant. So-called evolutionary changes are actually different species.

4) Appearance of flowers to attract pollenators must have some external influence on design. Coloration of plants, even into the ultra violet, requires formation of processes not explainable by evolution.
RESPONSE:- What would cause the change from grasses to flowers? What would influence the colour and form of the flowers? Only external influence can explain it, because the mechanisms between grasses and flowers are so great.

5) Symbiotic relationships, such as hummingbird/orchid, require parallel development if the evolutionary model is used. Certain species of orchids can only be pollenated by a certain species of hummingbird. If these developments were not synchronised, the current symbiosis would not occur.
RESPONSE:- Co-evolution requires external co-ordination. Otherwise, according to evolution, it would be random chance.

6) Lack of modern observable evidence. MRSA is held to be an example of evolution, but it is merely selection. The resistent bacteria has always been around, but grows in population as rival populations are killed off. Like eating all but the red jelly babies. The jelly babies do not evolve into red ones, now do they?
RESPONSE:- Breeding is not speciation. Mutation is not consistent and is rarely passed to later generations (genetic damage is, however. Most mutations are seen as negative changes, reducing the organisms viability).

I could go on. I have no objection to true science which is genuinely supported by observation and experimentation. I do object to something which purports to be science but is a catalogue of assumptions and ignores contrary scientific evidence.

Answer 5

Jehovah's Witnesses are absolutely *NOT* Creationists. They believe that the universe, planets, and earth itself must be untold millions of years old.

While Jehovah's Witnesses do not pretend to be privvy to the particularities of exactly how the Almighty created the spirit realm or the physical universe, they do note that the creation account in Genesis uses an interesting phrase: "[created] according to its kind".

According to Hebrew scholars, the term “kind” here means a created or family kind, but with those terms' older traditional meanings and not the modern scientific nomenclature of organisms. That seems to indicate that each general family organism "kind" was directly created, rather than allowed to evolve from a previously existing "kind".

There is no reason to assume that interesting "in between" or so-called "almost there" fossils are not simply extinct species in their own right. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the bible is in complete agreement with true science.

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/20040622/article_03.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/20020608/article_01.htm

Answer 6

Though originally just a political doctrine, "Scientific" Creationism has become a religion in its own right, placing page 1 of the Old Testament over the teachings of Christ.

Answer 7

unfortunately there is alot of arrogance & ignorance and mis teachings in some schools (like Topeka,Kansas)--just hope for the best--love and peace to all :)---by the way (inquiring) who is the person who wrote above my answer--your religious sect has no proof except faith in a book-you have no scientific or impirical evidence -sorry but it's true

Answer 8

Well, they have lived their lives by a bunch of rules that deny them the natural way to feel about things, and have had top live with the guilt that they have felt when they DO feel normal. So you need to understand, they really cannot allow people to tell them that the way they have been living their lives, and everything they have been led to believe, is wrong. They have to deny it, to keep their dignity.
So do not be angry with them. You should pity them...

Answer 9

What lies have you seem me tell? I could except evolution if it had as much evidence as creation does... I have shown the scientific principle of the chirality of both proteins and DNA here several times. It is ignored by the "scientist" of the group.. It that honest? It that the seeking after truth that a scientist is suppose to do? I see variation of animals all the time. With the life spam of some viruses millions of generation can flash by in a few weeks. Yet as much as they change they are still viruses... I think the same thing happens with terrestrial creatures and plants. Change SURE.. Become a new species NO..

Answer 10

It proves they are following a Bible full of lies,contradiction and hypocrisy...
and no-one wants to be proven to be ignorant.

"You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day" Yeah, looks liked He rushed it".
................Bill Hicks

btw preacher b I checked your 360...nice try but no cigar..........and you believe that crap????
try this site for some real truths http://www.evilbible.com/