Why are 'Evolutionists' so fanatically bigoted in defence of their theory(?)?

Question

Why can't Evolutionists be civil and tollerant to those who have not had the (brainwashing?) education they've had & therefore find it difficult to accept, or even understand, this 'NEW' theory of evolution that's 'evolved'. Gravitational & quantum etc, theorists don't jump down your throat when you ask them a question, nor do they profess that their 'theories' are now 'facts', as the evolutionists do. If the 'theory' of Evolution has now changed to the 'Fact' of Evolution, then PLEASE show us this supporting, unequivocal proof & evidence. If it's because of the lack of an 'alternative' solution (other than 'Creation'), that supports the 'theory', then I have an alternative theory, that I can't prove either, but it's feasible and, imo, it fits the fossil evidence, where as evolution, as yet, does not. I am totally prepared to abandon my theory if & when evolutionists can PROVE their's is TRUE. I will reveal my 'alternative' in due course (& it has nothing to do with any religion).

'secretsauce'. You are quite pleasantly unique, both in your adult civility & better explanation of the 'theory of evolution'. Thanks! I do sympathise with the problems you have with Creationists (I'm NOT one btw), but, you can see, from the adverse remarks below alone, why I am concerned that a respected science seems to be turning into a 'creationist-like' defence! Is there really a need for this? Seriously? The Creationists do it because they only have 'faith' to support them. If you have 'evidence', then WHY the defensive, 'cultish' ranting? I gather, from your explanation, which make it all much clearer, that, you are saying, basically, that 'the theory' is based on the 'facts' of the evidence of evolution in progress today. Am I correct? The only snag there is that there are those (non-creationists too) who can't accept that evidence to be vailid (though it dosen't affect my 'alternative' offering) and suggest that it is 'adaptation' & not 'evolution' that is evident? ATB

'Caffine Fiend', you've hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately niether the Evolutionists nor the Creationist will admit, or even 'twig' your (our) observations, nor that I have just observed my very first example of evolution in progress, right here on this "Answers" page : - 'Yank' has "evolved" into a 'Parrot'!! He's learned 'mant's' (very interesting) message, word for word, and the poor sod thinks he knows someone with intelligence? (Probably another parrot. One of them, 'cockuptoo's', or whatever they're called?). Cut the 'raving' you lot, you're giving evolutionists a bad name. Let's have some 'common dog' out of you, please!

Answer 1

They cannot bear to think that they might be wrong. Many people, religious & non-religious, know that the evolutionists are wrong, but we don't insult them or treat them as children.

Darwin & the captain of the ship on which he sailed, came to diametrically opposite conclusions, based on the evidence they saw together.

Darwin himself said that he felt humble, when he thought of the human eye.

Answer 2

This really comes down to a question of faith.

On the one hand is faith in God.

Personally, I believe that a faith relationship with God does not *demand* literal acceptance of the Biblical creation story

On the other is faith in the scientific method.

Most rational people today accept that the body of conscientious and professional scientists hold and reject theories based on sound evidence and rigorous testing and observation.

So the fact that commonly accepted theories are deemed to be 'true' (not in capitals) is a matter of trust in this method as much as anything else.

However - my personal Christian faith is not subject to reproducible testing and investigation. It is personal - indeed it is a gift from God and cannot be 'discovered' by experimentation.

I consider my Christian faith to be outside of the scientific arena.

Attacking the deeply held (rational) convictions of the 'evolutionists' is not good witness. We need to get to know the individuals and relate to them. Trying to brow beat scientists into changing their theories will not save anyone!

Please focus your zeal on love - not philosophy!

Answer 3

The following, by another poster, responds to your over-long, ill-prepared assertions better than I ever could. Always remember, sir, that, in addition to spirited persons who raise high the roof beams here, there are others whose intelligence is apt to leave your opinions choking in the dust.

Quote, "So, you've got this great theory that will put all us 'evolutionists' in our place, yet you are not willing to divulge it to anyone???

"You seem quite worked up about this whole issue. I am willing to predict you were brought up in a strongly religious household. I think you are angry because you have got in to a discussion with someone about the origins of life and you have realised that the arguments you have been using to support your 'supertheory' have not stood up. So you sat in front of your computer and had a rant. Am I right?

"I was not brainwashed in to believing in evolution. Darwin was not brainwashed in to believing in evolution. Nor Steve Jones, Richard Dawkins, or even quantum theorists (who all believe in evolution) - including the great Stephen Hawking. Evolution DOES explain the fossil records really rather well, but even so it is still seen as a theory.

"One last thing... does your theory, by any chance, have anything to do with aliens?"

Answer 4

> "Gravitational & quantum etc, theorists don't jump down your throat when you ask them a question, nor do they profess that their 'theories' are now 'facts', as the evolutionists do."

Believe me, the gravitation and quantum theorists don't get the kind of unbridled hatred and bile leveled at them like we 'evolutionists' do.

I cannot speak for all supporters of evolution ... only myself ... but I can tell you that I don't "jump down your throat" when you ask a question. I *love* answering questions, and will answer them gladly and politely whenever I sense even the slightest glimmer of actually wanting to learn something. However, when it is not a question but a thinly veiled anti-science rant, then I've got no patience.

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about:
"HEY I'm only gonna ask you no-nothin punks one MORE TIME. What were Darwin's goddarned observatIONS???"
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgZVnJsIyqjRSyiPT5pP52Dty6IX?qid=20070610133848AAF8JaU&show=7#profile-info-Rq5vPsHNaa

And this is nothing compared to the private emails I get from so-called "Christians" telling me I'm on a path to hell, and that my belief is either ridiculous, or the root of all evils from abortions to homosexuality.

As for the 'theory' vs. 'fact' issue ... this is almost always traced to one of two things ... either people not agreeing on what they mean by 'evolution' ... or a complete misunderstanding of the difference between 'theory' and 'fact.'

I.e. Evolution is BOTH a fact AND a theory depending on whether you mean the process of evolution or the theory of evolution. The *process* of evolution is a fact ... this is defined as the process of slow change in an organism at the population level ... and it is a demonstrated *fact* that it occurs, can be induced (by selective breeding or isolation), and can be measured (as the change in allele frequencies in a population). But the *theory* of evolution is the theory that explains the process of evolution ... and it is and always will be a theory ... which doesn't mean it lacks truth, only that it is in the same category of explanatory system as the atomic theory of matter, the germ theory of disease, or the heliocentric theory of the solar system.

The difference between a 'fact' and a 'theory' is that a *fact* is a description of something that we can see and measure. A 'theory' is an *explanation* of facts. Thus a theory cannot become a fact, or vice versa.

But one of the things that makes us defensive is when you creationists use the phrase "just a theory" as if that diminishes evolution to a different status than the rest of science. The word "just" has no place in front of "a theory". A theory is an explanation with evidence. So to say that evolution is "just a theory" is saying that evolution is "just an explanation with evidence."

Finally, you make the classic mistake of deminding that 'evolutionists' PROVE their theory is TRUE (your all-caps). Science never "PROVES" things as "TRUE." You prove things in math, not science. Scientists do not speak of "proof" they speak of "evidence." Even though the evidence is overwhelming, we never speak of it as "proof."

I await your theory.

Answer 5

So, you've got this great theory that will put all us 'evolutionists' in our place, yet you are not willing to divulge it to anyone???

You seem quite worked up about this whole issue. I am willing to predict you were brought up in a strongly religious household. I think you are angry because you have got in to a discussion with someone about the origins of life and you have realised that the arguments you have been using to support your 'supertheory' have not stood up. So you sat in front of your computer and had a rant. Am I right?

I was not brainwashed in to believing in evolution. Darwin was not brainwashed in to believing in evolution. Nor Steve Jones, Richard Dawkins, or even quantum theorists (who all believe in evolution) - including the great Stephen Hawking. Evolution DOES explain the fossil records really rather well, but even so it is still seen as a theory.

One last thing... does your theory, by any chance, have anything to do with aliens?

(ps. there are plenty of free spell checkers on the internet)

Answer 6

Not all people who believe in the darwin's theory of evolution will jump down your throat. It's more frustration that you do not understand the term Evolution....because Evolution is real. Evolution is genetic change over time. That is very real. Natural Selection is very real. Darwin's theory that we all came from a single celled organism....is a theory. It will always BE a theory (just like God creating the universe in 7 days) until someone can reproduce it, disprove it, or go back in time and watch it happen.

Speaking of Civil...why do you call it brainwashing? Why can't it just be an opinion? See...you're guilty of it too.

One more thing, it is not a "new" theory. It is just being accepted by more people. Perhaps by a lack of faith in the previous religious mindset.

Answer 7

People do tend to get emotional when they are unable to give proof of their ideas - especially when they are trying to prove that we don't need a 'god' to explain the existence of everything.

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
- Unknown.

I also have a simple theory:
God could have created the earth with the bones of dinosaurs already in the ground.
Did he? I don't know, but he could have.
So, I guess I'm unconvinced that dinosaurs ever existed.
At least the bones don't prove it to me.

Answer 8

Why would I respect religion any more than I would respect any other ignorant superstition?

Religion is in the way of humanity. It causes war, famine, overpopulation and oppression. It hammers guilt and self-loathing into the minds of innocent children. It stands opposed to scientific investigation (stem cells, evolution, string theory) and thus impedes our only proven way towards progress.

I will not be civil towards religion. IT is not civil towards me. I find it remarkably ironic that you think atheists are brainwashed when it's YOU who has the imaginary friend!

Answer 9

Reveal your alternative now, please. If your model better fits the observed data than "evolution," then you'll be recognized as a scientific hero. Thanks.

Edit: I just had a look at your previous questions. You appear to be biased. Take care to keep your scientific objectivity.

Answer 10

I only become vehemently Darwinist in the face of Creationists who believe in peddling their theory in spite of the overwhelming evidence that supports evolution. The main problem is that religion and science are diametrically opposed on what constitutes acceptable reasoning to back up a theory. In science, there has to be evidence to support a theory - in religion, faith belies the need for proof - a complete absence of proof is better because the whole point of faith is not needing proof to believe. Faith works by filling the void left by doubt - you don't need to doubt if you just believe.

The Bible was written 2000ish years ago. Given that people used to believe the Earth was flat a few hundred years ago, we can only assume that the people who wrote the Bible were even less educated in the ways of geology, biology, chemistry, physics and any other scientific discipline you care to mention. So we can forgive them for being oblivious to a myriad of things which we now accept as fact (eg until the Victorian age, it was thought that cholera was carried in the air through smell, when it was in fact water-borne).

And like any good story, you have to start at the beginning, and the birth of the planet is as good as any place to start. So they simply came up with the best explanation that they had, that some mysterious creative force just made the world and everything in it - Dinosaurs weren't included, because they'd died out long before humans (and couldn't exactly leave a note to say "don't forget to mention us!") they were all too busy with their own lives to go digging in the dirt looking for fossils, and they quite simply didn't have any concept of whether anything had ever lived there before people.

So Christians and Jews are basing their theory of the Earth's origins on some book written by people whom, through no fault of their own, didn't know any better. Scientists are quite the opposite and always looking for a better explanation, and to fill in the gaps - "what's this? how does this work? why did that happen? is this of any relation to that? there's a pattern here, i wonder if i can guess what happens next? hmmm, well this now makes sense, but now that doesn't - i wonder if it was wrong?"

Rather than just accepting the first answer that comes along, they're constantly looking for new ways and more evidence to back things up. And it's OK to disprove things if you've got a better answer and can back it up with more evidence that the previous theory had. It's OK to add to existing theories with more information. When scientists first studied the elements, they didn't have all of them - originally they were put into a table, and filled it, but this didn't make any sense. It was only when one man came along and said "what if we don't know everything yet? could we work out which ones have things in common and fill in the gaps later?" that the Periodic table was born. Soon enough they began to find the missing elements, and when they analysed the properties, they slotted into the table exactly where they were supposed to go. They were able to make predictions about other elements, and fit them in once they were found.

For this reason, you cannot argue science vs religion - you wouldn't teach the scientific ins and outs of evolution in a religious studies classroom, so why should creationism be given the oxygen of credibility in the science classroom? Religious text is subjective. I would think it logical that Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and many other religions all have their own creation stories in their holy, yet these are clearly taught as part of a religious studies curriculum, and NOT in a science lesson - so why does Genesis get special treatment? I find it a highly offensive idea that Creationism could be taught in schools to kids of other religious backgrounds as if to say "your holy book got it wrong. THIS is what really happened". In light of this, it's just as offensive and presumptious to teach it as science to agnostics, athiests or anyone who follows a non Christian/Jewish religion.

Evolution simply means 'change'. And there are various factors which influence the change over time and over several generations. The thing is that with every child born to it's parents, they are different - they are NOT an exact genetic replication of one parent or the other - they share a mix of genes from both. The thing with evolution is it's bloody slow, and you need to observe the tiny changes over thousands of years to notice very much difference. So the problem is no one lives long enough to witness a noticeable change. It is only in hindsight that we can see how various creatures developed through the generations.

Evolution is a combination of things - mostly 'survival of the fittest' or 'natural selection'. It is influenced by environment, climate, the type of food available and how much competition there is for it, where you are in the food chain in relation to the other animals around you, your size, what your body is made of, how good you are at attacking and defending etc etc. Sometimes there is a very sudden change in one offspring - sometimes this mutation can be an advantage and sometimes it's disastrous. If it's an advantage (eg a giraffe with a longer neck to reach the leaves even higher up on a tree than the rest in your herd), you'll be much stronger and a more attractive mate, and therefore more likely to pass on your genes. If you've got a mutation that hinders you, you'll be less likely to survive and therefore less likely to mate and pass on your genes.

It's a silly little thing, but in the Western world we are much taller on average than we were a few hundred years ago. This is clearly demonstrated in older buildings (eg my friend lives in an old farmhouse which in parts dates back to the 1700s and the doorways are about 5'8" high. Now clearly 400 years ago this was plenty high enough for the occupants of the house, but given that most men now seem to be about 5'11" and above, buildings have changed to accomodate this change. The increase in height is likely to be down to better diet, living conditions and medical care, but it is still a form of evolution.