Do those who deny evolution do so only out of bigotry and ignorance?

Question

Now I was violated for stating that evolution deniers were ignorant bigots but I stand by my assertion. When the weight of evidence for any given phenomenon is such that it would be perverse to deny it those who do deny it are doing so only because they are bigots and ignorant of the evidence. The evidence for species evolution is so great that it can't rightly be denied that it occurs so I will state once again that the challengers of evolution are ignorant bigots. If stating that very obvious fact is a violation of the user policy here too bad.

The Wizeguy- A bigot is someone who willfully ignores evidence that challenges their beliefs and ideology. The evidence for evolution of species is such that no one can reasonably reject it having studied it objectively. Therefore creationists must be bigots who aren't looking at the evidence and are choosing to wallow in ignorance.

Kenny P- I don't just question creationism I reject it out of hand on the basis that it isn't a valid scientific theory supported by any credible scientific evidence. The same cannot be said about biological evolution.

Jed,
The evidence is overwhelming-the fossil record confirms species adapt and evolve and genetic change over time is all evolution is defined as and there are no missing links and a wealth of transitional fossils. More compelling though is the evidence from the physiological similarities between species. All primates for example have a coccyx and have the same recessive gene that prevents them being able to synthesise vitamin c-that is very close to being absolute proof of a shared ancestry.

hasse_john,
Scientists were there when speciation of fruit flies and other insects has been occuring in laboratories. That means that a biological mechanism exists within nature that causes species to adapt and evolve. That mechanism must affect all species at all times and alongside the evidence from the fossil record it proves the fact of biological evolution insofaras anything in science can be proven. If you want to challenge that microevolution leads inevitably to macroevolution provide me with the biological mechanism that would prevent it from doing so. If you can provide no mechanism you have no argument.

Supertop,
The same challenge applies to you. If you accept microevolution is occuring then what happens after eons of microevolution-surely the species which emerges will be so different from its ancestors as to be defined as a new and distinct species? Provide the biological mechanism which you obviously believe exists that limits the degree of change any species undergoes.

Tommy G,
You're the perfect example that proves my point. What you have written is flawed rubbish from start to finish. It is misinformation and rhetoric not statements of fact or evidence that challenges the fact of species evolution.

Mark G,
Who mentioned abiogenesis? This is a question about species evolution which is a seperate matter. You try and drag abiogenesis into the discussion only because you know you would be unable to make any valid challenges to the fact of biological evolution.

Wayne T,
Evolution of species is an indisputable fact which has nothing to do with how the first life emerged-it even allows for the fact that God might have been the prime mover in bringing life into existence. As for human creativity and intellectual superiority over other species it is down to a gene called ASPM which triggers increased brain tissue growth in humans. It is a natural biological mechanism that leads automatically to the emergence of more intelligent and highly evolved species so we don't need to bring God into the equation to account for man's creative abilities.

Tommy G,
If you accept that species can change and adapt to their habitats you're accepting evolution. Evolution is only defined as change in the genetic structure of any species over time so in one sentence you've accepted evolution as a fact and denied that it occurs. By accepting that a mechanism for change and adaptation exists in nature it makes it virtually impossible for you to subsequently challenge evolution of species.

Answer 1

I guess you pissed off some jesusians

Answer 2

The theory is flawed. The predictions it make are not what the evidence shows. Most of the information that is available is no longer even considered true by the scientific community. When a theory fails in its ability to predict it is falsified. The prediction that evolution is slow was falsified by the Cambrian explosion and many case since. The predictions of the ages at which transitional would be found was falsified by Archeopteryx so now Archeopteryx is no longer considered a transitional. When science refuses to accept when they falsify there own theory it is no longer science it is dogma.

I don't argue that creatures and plants can't change. We have been doing that to them for at least 10,000 years long before Darwin said we could. Facts are facts the theory of evolution has been falsified many many times. So many in fact that I can not believe you have the narrow mindedness in this age to still believe in it. Biology has definitely falsified it with the relations of genes in different species.

Answer 3

The weight of evidence is only there because your only taught the evidence for. And much of that is supposition and "educated guesses" Explain your scientific method for testing Abiogenesis or spontaneous Generation? How can you test something that you think happened a couple of Billion years ago? What was the atmosphere and earth's climate like? Yet you accept as fact that that is how life started, without any proof or evidence at all. Why, because it had to if evolution is true. So your belief in the start of life is as much faith based as any Christian, or Creationist.

Answer 4

The question is: Who is the ignorant bigot? Science has to do with observable facts, and testable hypotheses. Faith has to do with inferred conclusions and untestable hypotheses. Therefore evolutionism is not science, but religion. You weren't there, you didn't see it happen. There is no conclusive test that can be set up to demonstrate an interpretation to be true. There are a number of observable facts that are persuasive toward evolutionism, and there are a number which are persuasive against it.-- consider the birds. we have hundreds of species that don't, and virtually can't interbreed. is this what you would expect under the evolutionary hypothesis? I don't think so! It is what we would expect under the creationism hypothesis.

Answer 5

You speak of evidence.
Where is it?
There has been NO evidence yet found that proves this theory can hold water. Take a closer look at how these scientist arrive at their conclusions.
Do they not come to the conclusion they want, and THEN try to make everything try to prove it?

Answer 6

No, I deny evolution of organisms into new species due to knowledge. Actually I am more concerned about the origin of life and how new things came into existence than I am about evolution of fruit flies into more fruit flies.

Answer 7

Ignorance certainly and wilful at that. Bigotry, not for the most part, fear of what it might lead to perhaps.

Answer 8

Just because someone doesn't believe in something you do, does not make them bigots unless they extort and misname the topic of what you're talking about..
Of course for Christians this is a God factor...

I see it as the plan! We are all part of some plan, I swear!!

Answer 9

I think it's more their inability to accept that they are just animals. It's arrogance more than bigotry. Their book of fairy tales told them their imaginary God created them to be precious and special and to have "dominion over the animals." Evolution dashes that notion.

Answer 10

yes thay hate the truth