One of the primary objections that I see used against evoluton is that nobody has actually seen it happen (although speciatation actually has been observed).
Does this mean that an evolution denier would be unwilling to convict somebody of a crime if there were no eyewitnesses?
2007-02-02 01:19:01 · 19 answers · asked by mullah robertson 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I see no reason to think this question is absurd. Criminal cases frequently hinge on infer guilt through use of various forensics.
2007-02-02 01:27:44 · update #1
I think they would be more likely to take the defendant's guilt on faith based on what the authority figures (lawyers) told them. Whichever one was the most passionate and convincing would be considered the "right" one.
After all, they don't need evidence to believe.
2007-02-02 01:40:33 · answer #1 · answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Just think man about this. I don't belive in god just to let you know but evolution happed to an extint is a proven fact. But you can't take everything sencie says to haert up until last year we had nine planets in our solar system now we have eight just b/c pluto doesn't follow the new requirements of a planet, i didn't know humans could change that. Anyway think if if we evolved from monkeys how come they are still here obviusly we are more dominant then they are so why didn't they all evolve also why don't we have wings or gills it would make our lives alot easier if we had these. Also if you have ever looked and read up on a monkey, ape, gorilla, or chimps brain and then studied a human brain there is absolutly no way they could have come from the same place. Also where did the protons and nutrons come from.
2007-02-02 01:37:20 · answer #2 · answered by joe d 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You stated, "One of the primary objections that I see used against evolution is that nobody has actually seen it happen (although speculation actually has been observed). "
I have a science degree and I have never used this argument. I have never seen x-radiation and I know it exists!
Evolution is a theory and I haven't seen enough evidence to show where life can come from non life. Matter from non matter. This is my biggest objection to evolution. It takes too much faith. There's one thing that was not discovered during Darwin's time that has changed many scientists minds, DNA. The complexity of life (DNA) to come from a warm soup (yea right where did this matter come from?) is preposterous!
There are other reasons I do not believe but that is my biggest objection.
†
2007-02-02 01:31:24 · answer #3 · answered by Jeanmarie 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It would seem that way.
If you go into a cave you will see white fish without any eyes. You will also see crickets with similar characteristics.
A few feet from the cave entrance you will see fish and crickets that are identical in every way to their subterranean counterparts except for the fact that they have eyes and pigmentation. Two traits that are useless if there is no light.
This is most certainly evolution on a scale that only the most narrow minded could miss, but of course it is not an observable phenomena.
Love and blessings Don
2007-02-02 01:30:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Evolution deniers do not like proofs or facts, so they should be disqualified from sitting on a jury. They do not understand the meaning of the word theory and science, so how can they understand scientific evidence in a crime case?
2007-02-02 01:30:32 · answer #5 · answered by darth_maul_8065 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Clearly you are not familiar with what the average person is in society.
Get real. Remember what the whole pie consists of. Draw yourself a pie. Divide it into the sections that you would classify people into. Then add what percentage you think each section represents in the country where you live. Now look at your pie.
What percentage of these people do you attribute enough education and intelligence to even understand the philosophy of evolution? Get real dude you are out on the far end of the bell curve.
Some people run the risk of being too smart for their own good and you are getting close to the line.
2007-02-02 01:28:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
as Jean mentioned, many people have degrees in science and believe in creation. I have 4 engineering degrees.
speaking of the emperors new cloths of the 21st century...actually there are many many argument against macro evolution
1) irreducable complexity
2) information does not arise by random process and decreases in point mutations
3) the fossil evidence is best explained by catastrophism, like a flood scenario
4) the c14 accross the geological column and the helium rates of movement in zircons lean toward a young earth not an old one
5) the evidence for non life to life evolution aint there, neither is single cell to multi cell, asexual to sexual, on type to another or ape to men evolution
on the subject of qualified to be in court...
there actually used to be laws against atheists witnessing in court in the US because they could not swear on anything... not felt trustworthy
2007-02-02 01:32:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Unfortunately, I'm guessing the majority of jury members are of this kind. After all, I'm guessing they wouldn't be as adept at getting out of jury duty.
2007-02-02 06:15:10 · answer #8 · answered by Phil 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Given their contempt for valid evidence and complete lack of objectivity I wouldn't trust a creationist to sit on a jury.
2007-02-02 01:51:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
That has to be one of the stupidest questions I've ever seen. Just because person believes in Creationism doesn't mean that they are so stupid that they can't figure out evidence in a crime.
2007-02-02 01:26:32 · answer #10 · answered by sister steph 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋