Why do so many people refuse to accept the theory of evolution is good science?

Question

Is it because half of you out there are of below average intelligence?

Come on Caleb's....... it's a theory, but not "just" a theory. It's never going to be anything else - no different than any other theory. What do you think it matures into? A theory-plus? A super-verified theory?

Uncle Thesis -- It was a joke.

People seem to get really upset when someone points out that average IQ is 100, and just about 1/2 of of everyone is below average. They don't stop to think that just about 1/2 are above average too.... :-)

Answer 1

it threatens their entire belief system.

generally people don't like what they don't understand.

Answer 2

Actually I walked as an atheist for 30 yrs, well versed in math, science, trig., engineering, space, NASA, computers, gadgets, etc. real techno geek if you will.

But all that intelligence and an IQ of 146 (ability to see outside the box), I began to realize there were errors in science, huge errors. Simple one is how they triangulate a stars distance. Its mathematically impossible the way they claim to do it, for geometry doesn't work like that. But few doubt it as few will take the time of a few days and attempt it. Most just believe what they hear on a TV, see on a web site made by no clue who or listen and believe what some college drunk tells them as they make 31k standing in a classroom. They never think for themselves.

Due to this star issue, I dug around everything else I knew. I found hole after hole after hole. From carbon dating, to evolution, to age of earth to who ancient Egypt was to the power grid of the earth and this can go on for a while.

Best I can say, from a man who though he knew it all. Take another look at it all, not just believe what people tell you. You might get surprised at what you find. Then it becomes like a video game like Zelda... finding the next hidden treasure or lie out there. Its quite addicting.

Answer 3

I have a degree in science and sure, most of the THEORY of evolution makes sense, especially adaptation but I am not going to accept it without question...I don't accept religious dogma without question either. Seems like being intelligent means questioning everything. Why aren't you doing this?

Answer 4

Evolution is but the half of it. There are fundamentalists who don't "believe in" dinosaurs or that the Earth is any more than about 20,000 years old (I have jeans in my closet older than that).

The powerful Christians of the day tortured and murdered Galileo because he found that the Earth revolved around the Sun, not the other way around, for the same reasons.

It's because these facts contradict the fantasy they embrace.

Answer 5

You know, this is only a BIG problem in AMERICA. Typical huh?

The rest of the developed world teach evolution as science in science class NOT religious instruction. No problem.

Later in university, the kids can have all the religious debate they like about the issue when they are old enough to understand the philosophical aspects of the discussion.

Answer 6

Do you realise the implications of the idea of "half" of people being below "average" intelligence. Seriously, this is the least intelligent statement I've seen from a person professing science in a while. "Half" of the people being below "average" is a statistical impossiblity!

Answer 7

Just another religion vs science issue.

Answer 8

Most of those that refuse don't really know what science is. Their ignorance is an indicator of the poor state of the public school system in the USA. Even the Vatican officially accepted the work of Darwin.....

Answer 9

I've never met anyone that attempted to refute evolution, that had even the slightest idea what it was about.

Seriously, I have never heard of a single human being on this planet that was actually familiar with evolutionary theory that disputed it.

The only people I have ever seen dispute it, demonstrate with their own arguments that they don't know what they're talking about. They refute tenets of "evolution" that don't even exist.

Answer 10

This is a paper I wrote. It is not very in depth, but it covers the main reason why Evolution as our origin is not good science. I don't consider my self to be below average intelligence, maybe a little bit above average. Like a B or B+

Abiogenesis or Genesis: The Scientific Conundrum
By far, one of the most heatedly debated topics in our society remains between Creationism and Evolution. The main focus is on Creationism’s role in our public school system. And is Creationism worthy of being taught alongside Evolution? The fact is that both try to offer an explanation to the formation of life, but neither can prove they have a monopoly on the truth.
Allan Attie in an article entitled, “Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action.” writes about how Judge R. Overton defined science in key court ruling outlawing creationism. “… it has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; it is testable against the empirical world; its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and it is falsifiable."
These are fair requirements. It would make sense that creationism does not satisfy them, since it claims that the origin of the universe was due to divine intervention. Therefore creationism is not science, at least not as science is currently defined. However, does evolution as a theory about our origins satisfy this claim any better? And can we as Tom Krattenmaker suggests, follow the “…trails of observable evidence to logical, testable conclusions.”?
Eugene Scott thinks so. In his article entitled “Creationism, Ideology, and Science.” He says that simply because an event is unable to be witnessed again, does not mean it must be attributed to the supernatural. He does admit that the formation of life does at least appear to be the “soft underbelly” of evolution. What is interesting is that he essentially leaves it at that. He does nothing to toughen up that weak spot.
Why not? Gregg Easterbrook sums up the primary reason in a Wired magazine article entitled, What we don’t know: Where did life come from?
“What creates life out of the inanimate compounds that make up living things? No one knows. How were the first organisms assembled? Nature hasn’t given us the slightest hint. If anything, the mystery has deepened over time. After all, if life began unaided under primordial conditions in a natural system containing zero knowledge, then it should be possible - it should be easy - to create life in a laboratory today.” He goes on to add that in spite of a large reward for success, no one has yet to complete that task.
Bringing this up may seem like a traditional creationist position, by simply pointing to what we do not know as the reason for believing God did it. This is not the case at all. Rather, it shows that at some of its foundational principles, evolution fails the very tests it uses to weed out creationist teachings from science. If it can not be falsifiable, and it utilizes no known law for its function, it is not science.
If a natural mechanism was ever used for the creation of life, even its supports will admit it no longer exists. This would not be a problem if the current definition of science did not directly conflict with these facts.
Also the abiogenesis of life goes against the nature of all biological creatures. Chemistry cannot create life because it is death. Biology is life fighting its inevitable return to chemistry. Chemistry is a more stable plane, and subsequently sterile.
Some may argue and say that the artificial creation of life falls under the “tentative” discovery section mentioned in the law and it will be proved true over time. However, Christian creationists could claim that their theory is also tentative and awaiting confirmation by the return of Jesus.
Evolution is only observable on the small scale. Due to our short lifespans it is impossible to witness macro evolution taking place. Evolutionists claim that those small changes we can see add up over millions of years and in the big picture amount to large scale changes. But that is simply an inference. Those sort of statements can never truly be verifiable or falsifiable. If no one can ever witness it taking place, how can it ever be shown to be false or proven correct? Even most fossils look identical to species that currently exist. Evolution on the macro scale will never be able to observed. Therefore it once again fails the scientific test.

Until life can be artificially created, or Jesus returns this debate will continue. Evolution as a process has a lot to say about how life functions and adapts. It is a valid principle which has every right to be taught in school. But our origins are not as cut and dry as some make it out to be. There are still a lot of questions that need to be answered. Some may never be fully resolved. Until then, scientists need be honest about when evolution is truly fulfilling the requirements that they have established, and when it falls short of them.



Works Cited
Attie, Allen D. “Creationism, Ideology, and Science.” National Center for Science Education 775 (1996). 24 June 1996 ideology_and_sci_6_24_1996.asp>
Easterbrook, Gregg. “What We Don't Know: How did life begin?” Wired Feb. 2007: 15-02

Krattenmaker, Tom. “The Bible vs. science.” USATODAY.com 5 Feb. 2007


Scott, Eugenie C. “Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action” The
Journal of Clinical Investigating 116:1134-1138(2006). 2006

Answer 11

Well i personally do not believe in evolutionary science, but i can see how some people would. I mean look at dinosaurs and crocodiles.

but i personally believe in the theory of the world being created by a higher power and that power being God.