Why is it thought that if you don't believe in Evolution, you're an idiot?

I don't believe men came from apes.

But yes Dinosaurs and apelike men all died, so what?

Why we make such a big deal over some old big bones?

Hello:

The heading on the list states that these people are skeptical of the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life and that thusly Darwinism should be carefully examined...At not point anywhere in your link does it state that they reject Darwinism as a whole or accept creationism. In Essence all of these (assumed) smart people are just being good scientists...they are willing to question what is accepting as the correct answer (if you remember the earth was once the center of the universe...until that was questioned).

As for why would someone be thought stupid for not believing in evolution...well to date it really is the most logical and supportable theory...and to openly scoff science...you know the thing that explains gravity and that helped build the car you probably drive and so on...To scoff what is pretty sound logic...even if it probably not correct it is still closer than anything else we have. If and when evolution is roundly dis proven that will be the day I will start handing out $20s on the corner.

I hope this helps

Rev Phil

The list seems to be shrinking rapidly. Quite a few of the people on it withdrew after they found out what it was.

In addition the statement they agreed to sign,"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” Is not quite the same as saying they believe God made man just like Genesis says.

This actually demonstrates the willingness of The Discovery Institute to distort the truth. They acted in a deceptive manner when they presented this for signatures and again when they claimed it to be evidence that many Scientists believe in Creationism.

Try this one instead.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the...

It's not Darwinian evolution, it's just evolution. Why do people persist in trying to make an entire field of science about just one person? If you were to throw out everything Darwin ever said, evolution would be just as a strong a scientific theory, back by studies, research and observations in over a dozen scientific fields of study. The theory of evolution does not require belief, the evidence is there for anyone to examine and study.

I find it interesting and a bit discouraging, that most of these folks answering still are very insulting in tone and word.

I believe in Godly Creation; that he spoke/willed the world into existence. I am not an idiot or stubbornly ignorant. There is abundant anecdotal and circumstantial evidence that supports my belief. And, while there is anecdotal and empirical evidence that supports evolution, it is not proven and it cannot be stated as absolute scientific fact. This is a question where people should politely agree to disagree and not mock each other for their beliefs!

There is a distinct difference between skepticism and outright denial. People who are deniers may be called idiots for their reasons to deny. If you say evolution can't be true "because it's not in the Bible", then you fit my description of an idiot. If you say evolution is wrong because "Look, I have a list of scientists who say the theory has some issues. That's right, a whole list!", then you might be an idiot. Etc, etc....

Non acceptance of evolution is usually from ignorance, or an ulterior motive. The only times I have seen people who are educated on the subject, and also denied the science, they were intentionally misleading for the benefit of pushing an agenda. But 99% of those who deny it are ignornant. So it is generally assumed that if you deny the science, you are probably ignorance.

It would be the same as if you found a physicist who denied gravity theory. You would know they weren't being honest, or were ignorant.

I think some of the arguments I've seen here against evolution make people look bad. One person proposed that we didn't evolve from monkeys, that men evolved from dogs and women from cats. Recently, one person, in reaction to being corrected about man evolving from monkeys reasoned that because monkeys where part of the primate family, man evolved from monkeys, according to evolution theory.

Also, I don't doubt for a second that the dissenters of evolution theory aren't doing it for political or social reasons.

I love web sites, for they are the high alter of meaningless drivel. Okay my friend, valid theoretical or observationsal objections to the theory of evolution are published in peer reviewed scientific journals. Modifications to the original theory have been made in this fashion. What you never see is the drivel that is posted on these web sites making it into any respectable journal. Why is that, because the objections of these folks to the theory have been invalidated, hosed, found wanting, found false, found to be poor science--the list goes on and on--this is why they don't publish in recognized journals--having an idea ridiculed on the web means nothing--having an idea ridiculed in a journal because it has been shown to be false, no depth, lacking in proof-looses their powerbase. So they are simply relegated to the web and as such are meaningless when it comes to having any weight for their opinion.

The statement which the signatories agreed to is not anti-evolution. It says,

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." (Discovery Institute 2004)

Since scientists are trained to examine evidence and to be skeptical of everything, even ardent evolutionists could sign such a statement.

Also, some on the list have doctorates in philosophy.

Your costs are all out of context or in simple terms undeniable lies. Louis Bounoure never reported that or held the situation you characteristic them. Sir Arthur Keith grew to become into lifeless whilst the quote you characteristic to him grew to become into released and whether he were alive, there is not record of him announcing that. i can't locate something to contradict the 0.33 quote, yet what skills does he have? Kent Hovind is a hack and a convicted felon. His standards for proving evolution have not something to do with what evolution extremely is.