Is credulity in evolution akin to that of fundamentalism?

Question

Hey Rob, check out tiskets ans.

I think my point has been proven, thanks!

Answer 1

When leading educators and scientists assert that evolution is a fact, and imply that only the ignorant refuse to believe it, how many laymen are going to contradict them? This weight of authority that is brought to bear on evolution’s behalf is a major reason for its acceptance by large numbers of people.

An example typical of views that often intimidate laymen is this assertion by Richard Dawkins: “Darwin’s theory is now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist.” But is this actually the case? Not at all. A little research will reveal that many scientists, including ‘serious modern biologists,’ not only doubt evolution but do not believe it. They believe that the evidence for creation is far, far stronger. Thus, sweeping statements like that of Dawkins are in error. But they are typical of attempts to bury opposition by means of such language. Noting this, an observer wrote in New Scientist: “Does Richard Dawkins have so little faith in the evidence for evolution that he has to make sweeping generalisations in order to dismiss opponents to his beliefs?”

In similar fashion the book A View of Life, by evolutionists Luria, Gould and Singer, states that “evolution is a fact,” and asserts: “We might as well doubt that the earth revolves about the sun, or that hydrogen and oxygen make water.”5 It also declares that evolution is as much a fact as the existence of gravity. But it can be proved experimentally that the earth revolves around the sun, that hydrogen and oxygen make water, and that gravity exists. Evolution cannot be proved experimentally. Indeed, these same evolutionists admit that “debate rages about theories of evolution.” But do debates still rage about the earth revolving around the sun, about hydrogen and oxygen making water, and about the existence of gravity? No. How reasonable is it, then, to say that evolution is as much a fact as these things are?

In a foreword to John Reader’s book Missing Links, David Pilbeam shows that scientists do not always base their conclusions on facts. One reason, says Pilbeam, is that scientists “are also people and because much is at stake, for there are glittering prizes in the form of fame and publicity.” The book acknowledges that evolution is “a science powered by individual ambitions and so susceptible to preconceived beliefs.” As an example it notes: “When preconception is . . . so enthusiastically welcomed and so long accommodated as in the case of Piltdown Man, science reveals a disturbing predisposition towards belief before investigation.” The author adds: “Modern [evolutionists] are no less likely to cling to erroneous data that supports their preconceptions than were earlier investigators . . . [who] dismissed objective assessment in favour of the notions they wanted to believe.” So, because of having committed themselves to evolution, and a desire to further their careers, some scientists will not admit the possibility of error. Instead, they work to justify preconceived ideas rather than acknowledge possibly damaging facts.

This unscientific attitude was noted and deplored by W. R. Thompson in his foreword to the centennial edition of Darwin’s The Origin of Species. Thompson stated: “If arguments fail to resist analysis, assent should be withheld, and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable.” He said: “The facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince. The long-continued investigations on heredity and variation have undermined the Darwinian position.”

Thompson also observed: “A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation. . . . The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.” He concluded: “This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.”

Similarly, a professor of anthropology, Anthony Ostric, criticized his scientific colleagues for declaring “as a fact” that man descended from apelike creatures. He said that “at best it is only a hypothesis and not a well-supported one at that.” He noted that “there is no evidence that man has not remained essentially the same since the first evidence of his appearance.” The anthropologist said that the vast body of professionals have fallen in behind those who promote evolution “for fear of not being declared serious scholars or of being rejected from serious academic circles.” In this regard, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe also comment: “You either believe the concepts or you will inevitably be branded as a heretic.” One result of this has been an unwillingness by many scientists to investigate the creation viewpoint without prejudice. As a letter to the editor of Hospital Practice observed: “Science has always prided itself upon its objectivity, but I’m afraid that we scientists are rapidly becoming victims of the prejudiced, closed-minded thinking that we have so long abhorred.”

Answer 2

Nope. Believing in evolution is akin to believing that the Earth revolves around the Sun; you've never personally observed it happening, but there's no reason to believe otherwise, and overwhelming evidence that this is the case.

Biologically speaking, "evolution" is the change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations. Evolution has thus been observed billions of times overs, in the field, in the lab, and in all sorts of different contexts and species. To doubt evolution is even less warranted than doubting gravity.

Fundamentalism is more akin to creationism, and, indeed, the two frequently go hand in hand. Fundamentalism, like creationism, is based on the Bible--on the presumption that the Bible is not only inerrant, but literal. Creationism and fundamentalism are unchanging, tradition-bound, religious views; evolution, in contrast, has changed enormously in the mere 150 years since Darwin unveiled his theory, is based on scientific evidence rather than on any religion, and is progressive rather than traditionalistic. They could hardly be more different.

Answer 3

No. If you don't understand religion, you talk to someone who will give you their own interpretation of a book that can be interpretted in numerous manners.

If you don't understand evolution you can read the books, study the fossils, run the genetic experiments and see the results yourself. Science has very little dogma, and those things that ARE dogmatic (but that help in understanding processes with limited technology) are completely open to question.

Answer 4

no - the "credulity" would be different as one has significantly more social acceptance than the other.

That's obvious.

And to the woman who has read a forward in a book and wants to write an entire creationism thesis upon it - keep digging.

Notice that she does not dare name a single "creationist" that she finds to be a leading authority on the subject.

Answer 5

Nope, there is plenty of evidence for evolution. No credulity necessary.

Answer 6

There's no credulity in evolution

Answer 7

Yeah it and math.

Those damn fundamentalists telling me that 1+1=2. I have an alternative theory that's just as valid.

Answer 8

credulity: willingness to believe or trust too readily, esp. without proper or adequate evidence; gullibility.

What are you implying?