How responsible Is religious fundamentalism for breeding ignorance in the U S?

MayCaesar

I would say it plays an important role, although probably not the ultimate role. Another factor I would mention is the American society being relatively individualistic, leading to a wider distribution of ideas, with some commonly pretty marginal ideas gaining traction as a result. In other words, say, in the US among 1000 people you will have 100 geniuses (not intellectually, but in terms of ideas) and 100... not very smart people, and 800 average people. While, say, in Iceland you will have 5 geniuses, 5 not very smart people and 990 average people. Japan is even worse in this regard, and people there think very similarly; it is probably the most hive mind-like society I have ever lived in. Although, to be fair, Japan is changing rapidly, and individualism is gaining traction there, as the latter couple of generations are challenging the collectivist societal norms actively.

In the US, you have a lot of people believing in things like creationism or flat Earth. In Europe or Japan, such people are very uncommon. But also, in the US you will have a lot of people believing in a true free market. In Europe and Japan such people also are very uncommon. Both very good and very bad ideas can be popular in the US, while in Europe all Japan mainstream and mediocre ideas dominate the informational space.

Even the wide presence of religion in the US, in turn, can be partially explained by this. There are few truly religious people in Japan, because religion has no place in that collectivist society run by a complex ethical code existing independently of any superstitions. But in the US, a lot of people hold on to very old (and outdated) ideas, because not all of the country modernised socially at the same rate. Some remote areas will have nearly 100% Christians in them, while some multicultural city like San-Francisco can easily have less than 10% strong believers, and maybe a half, at most, "soft" believers.

sear

In mythopoeic cultures the criterion of truth is religious authority, whatever the religious leader says.

In 3rd millennium United States the criterion of truth is science.

There are enormous rewards in studying and even applying the teachings of religious myth. But it's a fundamental blunder to conflate religious myth with reality. There's no such thing as a talking serpent.

Plaffelvohfen

“One of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding.” 
― Richard Dawkins

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” 
 ― Issac Asimov

Combine the 2 and it explains a lot.......

sear

"In god we trust."

god is the asylum of ignorance: Baruch Spinoza

"I have often thought that theism is the last acceptable prejudice." Sib

"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." attributed to Niels Bohr

PropagandaSlayer

Evolution is simply not backed up by science.

Nobel Laureate and renowned chemist Richard Smalley commented that the research done for evolution was so bad that it should be labeled "bad science." [1]

He went on further to argue that "if he conducted his research the way that they did, he would never be respected in the scientific community.” [1]

The e. coli Long Term evolution experiment that is underway has just reached 68,000 generations, equivalent to 1 million years of human evolution. and the species of e. coli is still the same. [2]

Further, research conducted using fruit flies has also proven that evolutionary changes are so micro that they provide no means to support macroevolution. After 200 generations of fruit fly breeding, the fruit flies still remained fruit flies. [3]

For something to be "scientific" it must be reproduced in a laboratory. To this day, no actual application of evolution has successfully shown macroevolution happening. Therefore, evolution is not scientific.


Resources:
[1] Wainerdi, Debbie (Smalley), Email 2 April 2010.
[2] https://www.sciencealert.com/one-of-longest-evolution-experiments-overthrowing-previous-assumptions
[3] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170809140249.htm

Dee

@PropagandaSlayer

Couldnt care less what Smalley and religious crackpots have to say on Evolution when Smalley and others disprove what is accepted as fact amongst rational beings I will revise my opinion , Evolution is built upon mountains of substantial evidence and to deny such is only done by mostly religious crackpots.

Smalley is deceased now but I’ve yet to see a peer reviewed paper from deniers that even puts a dent in the mountains of evidence for Evolution .....I won’t hold my breath 

Plaffelvohfen

@Dee

I wouldn't lose time here... Look at the nickname, look at the picture and look at how long he's been participating here... There's nothing of substance, no good faith, it has only one purpose, trolling... I don't think I'll prolong my stay here, too much dogmatism for my taste and there is a lack good-faith and honest questioning... As this one named himself, I fear there is way too many propagandists present, across the spectrum... 

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

Thanks P appreciate that yes I had one look at his statement and laughed heard it all before pure nonsense 

CYDdharta

I can't get your link to work, is the study you're referencing over a decade old?

Dee

@CYD

No it’s not a decade old. Yes don’t know why the link didn’t work it’s in WIKI type in......

Level of support for evolution

PropagandaSlayer

Dee said:

@PropagandaSlayer

Couldnt care less what Smalley and religious crackpots have to say on Evolution when Smalley and others disprove what is accepted as fact amongst rational beings I will revise my opinion , Evolution is built upon mountains of substantial evidence and to deny such is only done by mostly religious crackpots.

Smalley is deceased now but I’ve yet to see a peer reviewed paper from deniers that even puts a dent in the mountains of evidence for Evolution .....I won’t hold my breath 

Appeal to consensus doesn't make an argument any more correct or incorrect. At one point the scientific consensus was that germs didn't exist. The invention of the microscope proved them wrong. [1]

As per your request for "peer reviewed" papers challenging evolution:
Here is a PDF containing hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that challenge evolution with summaries of the contents of the papers:
https://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=10141

The fact of the matter is that evolution is simply not science.

References:
[1] https://bigpictureeducation.com/history-germ-theory

PropagandaSlayer

Plaffelvohfen said:

@Dee

I wouldn't lose time here... Look at the nickname, look at the picture and look at how long he's been participating here... There's nothing of substance, no good faith, it has only one purpose, trolling... I don't think I'll prolong my stay here, too much dogmatism for my taste and there is a lack good-faith and honest questioning... As this one named himself, I fear there is way too many propagandists present, across the spectrum... 

I literally registered my account 2 days ago.

Ad Hominem attacks are one of the most pathetic of responses to have ever come to the good standing of the debate floor. They do nothing but attack the person and do not attack his ideas.

If you'd like to actually add something of worth to this conversation rather than trash the supposed "dogmatism" that you see here, then I'm awaiting a reply.

Dee

@PropagandaSlayer

You say ......Appeal to consensus doesn't make an argument any more correct or incorrect. 

My reply ....What a ridiculous claim , I merely countered your false assumptions by telling you the facts regarding Evolution ......it’s called a counter 

You say .....You say At one point the scientific consensus was that germs didn't exist. The invention of the microscope proved them wrong. 

My reply .....Correct , well done science proved germs exist not appeals to pseudoscience or a god 

You say ......As per your request for "peer reviewed" papers challenging evolution:

Here is a PDF containing hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that challenge evolution with summaries of the contents of the papers:

https://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=10141

My reply .....Your “source “ is a laughing stock amongst real scientists 

You say ......The fact of the matter is that evolution is simply not science.

My reply .....Yes better appeal to pseudoscience so , good luck with that 

Regards your crackpot source here is the actual truth of the matter 

The Discovery Institute (DI, not in any way associated with the Discovery Channel) is a non-profit religious "think"-tank notorious famous for its attempts to get intelligent-design creationism taught in American schools. It has set out many of its goals in the Wedge Document (1999). Ironically, DI has its headquarters in liberal Seattle, Washington.

The Discovery Institute is behind the growing number of "Academic Freedom Acts" being introduced in various state legislatures across the United States with varying degrees of success. These "academic freedom" statutes represent a more sophisticated approach to sneaking creationism into public schools than those advanced by Discovery Institute fellow Wendell Bird in the 1980s (prior to the founding of the Discovery Institute in 1990) by omitting any references to creationism whatsoever. Instead, the Discovery Institute proposed language for a new breed of "Academic Freedom Acts" in 2007.[1] This proposed model "academic freedom" statute made its way into a number of bills in various states, such as that in Louisiana (passed in the Senate, died in the House), which would permit teachers "to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught". As such, the Discovery Institute significantly broadened its program of attempting to permit schools to "Teach the Controversy", going well beyond the Wedge Strategy (solely directed to intelligent-design creationism) to other politicized fields of science to which right-wingers object, such as climate change.

The Discovery Institute attempts to inject intelligent design creationism into secondary education through the publication of various creationist textbooks such as Of Pandas and People (1989, the subject of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial of 2005). Pandas, written in part by Discovery Institute fellows William Dembski and Jonathan Wells, was re-titled The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems in 2007 - presumably in an attempt to duck the shame attendant on the original name following the Kitzmiller case. It remains in print at least as of 2009. The Discovery Institute published Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism in 2007. The DI toutsrepresents the book as "the first biology textbook to present the scientific evidence both for and against key aspects of Darwinian evolution".[2]

CYDdharta

Dee said:

@CYD

No it’s not a decade old. Yes don’t know why the link didn’t work it’s in WIKI type in......

Level of support for evolution

Wiki quotes the 2006 survey by Jon Miller of Michigan State University in East Lansing, which also comes up with the same finding, i.e.

The study found that over the past 20 years:

The percentage of U.S. adults who accept evolution declined from 45 to 40 percent.


The percentage overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48 to 39 percent, however.


And the percentage of adults who were unsure increased, from 7 to 21 percent.


Of the other countries surveyed, only Turkey ranked lower, with about 25 percent of the population accepting evolution and 75 percent rejecting it. In Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and France, 80 percent or more of adults accepted evolution; in Japan, 78 percent of adults did.

https://www.livescience.com/963-lags-world-grasp-genetics-acceptance-evolution.html

Dee

You say ......Wiki quotes the 2006 survey by Jon Miller of Michigan State University in East Lansing, which also comes up with the same finding, i.e.


My reply .....look at the countries in the list individually and it has dates of 2014 on most the updates I didn’t look at the dates for the U S has it changed that much regards Fundamentalist views?  Opinions  on Evolution was just one example of how Fundamentalists differ there are more, so to the broader question do you agree or disagree that’s it’s reponsible for breeding ignorance?

CYDdharta

Dee said:

You say ......Wiki quotes the 2006 survey by Jon Miller of Michigan State University in East Lansing, which also comes up with the same finding, i.e.


My reply .....look at the countries in the list individually and it has dates of 2014 on most the updates I didn’t look at the dates for the U S has it changed that much regards Fundamentalist views?  Opinions  on Evolution was just one example of how Fundamentalists differ there are more, so to the broader question do you agree or disagree that’s it’s reponsible for breeding ignorance?

My reply ... look at the sources.  Those 2014 results are from a Pew survey of Latin American countries.  Mixing survey results between different surveys can be problematic as the methodologies and questions may be very different.

While the number of people who view religion as being very important hasn't changed much since the mid 70s;

The number of people who disbelieve in evolution has changed significantly;

First; opinions on evolution are the ONLY example you cited, and you haven't proven that such beliefs demonstrate "ignorance".

Second; while such beliefs have remained pretty steady, belief in evolution has risen significantly. 

I think it's pretty obvious the premise is flawed.

Dee

@CYDdharta

You say .......First; opinions on evolution are the ONLY example you cited, and you haven't proven that such beliefs demonstrate "ignorance".

My reply ....Yes it was only one as I was hoping Americans might know a bit on the matter but there you go .

I did state clearly “ have the views changed that much regards fundamentalist views” , you decided to totally ignore that part to prove what exactly?

Regarding the list the question in asking is regards FUNDAMENTALISM  I am well aware of the changes regards other affiliations on Evolution in the U S .

Who do you think are the ones who make up the numbers that do not accept Evolution in the U S .....Fundamentalists 

Regarding Evolution the non acceptance of what is fact is one aspect  of ignorance 

You say ......Second; while such beliefs have remained pretty steady, belief in 

evolution has risen significantly.  

My reply ....I will be interested to see your proof that is the case amongst Fundamentalists 

You say .......I think it's pretty obvious the premise is flawed.

My reply .....No , it’s pretty obvious you do not know what religious fundamentalism is , and maybe you could explain why teenage pregnancy rates are highest in the Bible Belt also there’s huge problems with divorce , meth abuse , welfare, poverty , low wage, HIV , STD

Then we have climate change denial Christian Fundamentalists tend to favor a "pro-life" view, often to an extreme that would not allow exceptions for rape, incest or general (non-fatal) health of the mother. They are also generally opposed to comprehensive sex education, single parenthood, and of course gay rights.

 United States

The trend in modern US politics and modern "fundamentalism" is increasingly toward blending politics and religion, as the Republican Party and general conservatives are being pulled into an ever increasingly fundamentalist point of view (see Religious Right). There is a worrying tendency among some Christian fundamentalists to oppose democracy.

One of many fallacies that Christian fundamentalists perpetuate is that the Founding Fathers were Christian fundamentalists, when in reality George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and others were actually deists (y'know, people who aren't necessarily religious, but still believe in an invisible supreme being).

In the US, Christian Fundamentalists tend to favor a "pro-life" view, often to an extreme that would not allow exceptions for rape, incest or general (non-fatal) health of the mother. They are also generally opposed to comprehensive sex education, single parenthood, and of course gay rights.

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen ;

Great quotes , thank you

PropagandaSlayer

Dee said:

@PropagandaSlayer

You say ......Appeal to consensus doesn't make an argument any more correct or incorrect. 

My reply ....What a ridiculous claim , I merely countered your false assumptions by telling you the facts regarding Evolution ......it’s called a counter 

You say .....You say At one point the scientific consensus was that germs didn't exist. The invention of the microscope proved them wrong. 

My reply .....Correct , well done science proved germs exist not appeals to pseudoscience or a god 

You say ......As per your request for "peer reviewed" papers challenging evolution:

Here is a PDF containing hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that challenge evolution with summaries of the contents of the papers:

https://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=10141

My reply .....Your “source “ is a laughing stock amongst real scientists 

You say ......The fact of the matter is that evolution is simply not science.

My reply .....Yes better appeal to pseudoscience so , good luck with that 

Regards your crackpot source here is the actual truth of the matter 

The Discovery Institute (DI, not in any way associated with the Discovery Channel) is a non-profit religious "think"-tank notorious famous for its attempts to get intelligent-design creationism taught in American schools. It has set out many of its goals in the Wedge Document (1999). Ironically, DI has its headquarters in liberal Seattle, Washington.

The Discovery Institute is behind the growing number of "Academic Freedom Acts" being introduced in various state legislatures across the United States with varying degrees of success. These "academic freedom" statutes represent a more sophisticated approach to sneaking creationism into public schools than those advanced by Discovery Institute fellow Wendell Bird in the 1980s (prior to the founding of the Discovery Institute in 1990) by omitting any references to creationism whatsoever. Instead, the Discovery Institute proposed language for a new breed of "Academic Freedom Acts" in 2007.[1] This proposed model "academic freedom" statute made its way into a number of bills in various states, such as that in Louisiana (passed in the Senate, died in the House), which would permit teachers "to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught". As such, the Discovery Institute significantly broadened its program of attempting to permit schools to "Teach the Controversy", going well beyond the Wedge Strategy (solely directed to intelligent-design creationism) to other politicized fields of science to which right-wingers object, such as climate change.

The Discovery Institute attempts to inject intelligent design creationism into secondary education through the publication of various creationist textbooks such as Of Pandas and People (1989, the subject of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial of 2005). Pandas, written in part by Discovery Institute fellows William Dembski and Jonathan Wells, was re-titled The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems in 2007 - presumably in an attempt to duck the shame attendant on the original name following the Kitzmiller case. It remains in print at least as of 2009. The Discovery Institute published Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism in 2007. The DI toutsrepresents the book as "the first biology textbook to present the scientific evidence both for and against key aspects of Darwinian evolution".[2]

"My source is a laughing stock"

The source didn't publish the articles. It merely aggregated them. The articles it has are published in OTHER respectable, peer-reviewed journals.

You really need to check your "appeal to authority" at the door. Just because people disagree with something that doesn't make it false. The fact that there are literally hundreds of studies and a whole portion of the scientific community that says evolution is wrong, including nobel laureates, [1] should at least tell you that evolution might not be "scientific" and is probably more "dogma. 

Once again, I did not cite the Discovery Institute, I cited an aggregation of peer-reviewed studies that the Discovery Institute put together. You have effectively created a Straw Man argument instead of actually addressing my real claim that there are hundreds of peer reviewed anti-evolution studies that are published in a plethora of academic journals.

Since evolution has not been replicated successfully in a laboratory [2][3], it is not scientific.


References:
[1] https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/seven-nobel-laureates-in-science-who-either-supported-intelligent-design-or-attacked-darwinian-evolution/
[2] https://www.sciencealert.com/one-of-longest-evolution-experiments-overthrowing-previous-assumptions
[3] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170809140249.htm

Dee

@PropagandaSlayer


You say .......
The source didn't publish the articles.

My reply .....I never claimed they did but the source is a center that promotes bullsit as in I D 

 You say .....merely aggregated them. The articles it has are published in OTHER respectable, peer-reviewed journals.

My reply ....Oh , please give me the name of these journals that say Evolution has been disproved 

You say .......You really need to check your "appeal to authority" at the door

My reply .....You really need to check that red herring you keep throwing out as in I’m appealing to nothing I’m merely correcting you .....again 

.You say  ...... Just because people disagree with something that doesn't make it false. The fact that there are literally hundreds of studies and a whole portion of the scientific community that says evolution is wrong, including nobel laureates

My reply ....Let them prove it then bet they can’t whys that? Because it’s fact 

You say ......at least tell you that evolution might not be "scientific" and is probably more "dogma. 

My reply .....No it tells me religious loonies are everywhere but mostly America  

You say ...      Once again, I did not cite the Discovery Institute, I cited an aggregation of peer-reviewed studies that the Discovery Institute put together. You have effectively created a Straw Man argument instead of actually addressing my real claim that there are hundreds of peer reviewed anti-evolution studies that are published in a plethora of academic journals.

My reply ....Why use a psuedoscience site send us on a real science institute that supports your assertions that Evolution is false and not scientific? 

You say .....Since evolution has not been replicated successfully in a laboratory [2][3], it is not scientific.

My reply .....It’s fact buddy , suck it up 

CYDdharta

Dee said:

@CYDdharta

You say .......First; opinions on evolution are the ONLY example you cited, and you haven't proven that such beliefs demonstrate "ignorance".

My reply ....Yes it was only one as I was hoping Americans might know a bit on the matter but there you go .

You know what they say about opinions.

I did state clearly “ have the views changed that much regards fundamentalist views” , you decided to totally ignore that part to prove what exactly?

Regarding the list the question in asking is regards FUNDAMENTALISM  I am well aware of the changes regards other affiliations on Evolution in the U S . Who do you think are the ones who make up the numbers that do not accept Evolution in the U S .....Fundamentalists 
Regarding Evolution the non acceptance of what is fact is one aspect  of ignorance

Clearly, I've already stated as a given that Fundamentalists are the ones who don't believe in evolution.  However, as I've already pointed out, there are as many Fundamentalists today as there were 40 years ago, yet more people believe in evolution.

You say ......Second; while such beliefs have remained pretty steady, belief in 

evolution has risen significantly.  
My reply ....I will be interested to see your proof that is the case amongst Fundamentalists 

Then you should look at what I've already posted.  Once again, while the number of people who view religion as being very important (AKA Fundamentalists) hasn't changed much since the mid 70s, the number of people who disbelieve in evolution has increased significantly.  If you have the same number of Fundamentalists, but more people who believe in evolution, that means more Fundamentalists believe in evolution. 

You say .......I think it's pretty obvious the premise is flawed.

My reply .....No , it’s pretty obvious you do not know what religious fundamentalism is , and maybe you could explain why teenage pregnancy rates are highest in the Bible Belt also there’s huge problems with divorce , meth abuse , welfare, poverty , low wage, HIV , STD

Teen pregnancy?!?  The highest teen pregnancy rates are among American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Hispanics, Blacks, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders.  Are members of those groups flocking to fundamentalist religions???

Similarly, people become Fundamentalists because of problems such as divorce, meth abuse, HIV, STD.  Correlation is not causation.  You'll have to post more than your opinions.

Then we have climate change denial Christian Fundamentalists tend to favor a "pro-life" view, often to an extreme that would not allow exceptions for rape, incest or general (non-fatal) health of the mother. They are also generally opposed to comprehensive sex education, single parenthood, and of course gay rights.
 United StatesThe trend in modern US politics and modern "fundamentalism" is increasingly toward blending politics and religion, as the Republican Party and general conservatives are being pulled into an ever increasingly fundamentalist point of view (see Religious Right). There is a worrying tendency among some Christian fundamentalists to oppose democracy.One of many fallacies that Christian fundamentalists perpetuate is that the Founding Fathers were Christian fundamentalists, when in reality George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and others were actually deists (y'know, people who aren't necessarily religious, but still believe in an invisible supreme being).In the US, Christian Fundamentalists tend to favor a "pro-life" view, often to an extreme that would not allow exceptions for rape, incest or general (non-fatal) health of the mother. They are also generally opposed to comprehensive sex education, single parenthood, and of course gay rights.

...and more opinions.  If we separate the actual facts you've presented as opposed to your opinions, we're left with " ".

Dee

@CYDdharta

You say ......If you have the same number of Fundamentalists, but more people who believe in evolution, that means more Fundamentalists believe in evolution.  

My reply ...I don’t believe that Fundamentalist teachings have changed regarding their beliefs on Evolution they appear to be the only ones who constantly attempt to get I D pushed into school curriculums. 

To deny Evolution is fact is pure ignorance and I think you do accept that it is mainly the fundies do so?

Also you failed to address any of the issues below, which is proof further of how  regressive this nonsense is .

In the US, Christian Fundamentalists tend to favor a "pro-life" view, often to an extreme that would not allow exceptions for rape, incest or general (non-fatal) health of the mother. They are also generally opposed to comprehensive sex education, single parenthood, and of course gay rights , climate change denial 

You say ....

Teen pregnancy?!?  The highest teen pregnancy rates are among American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Hispanics, Blacks, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders.  Are members of those groups flocking to fundamentalist religions???

My reply ....I said “ The rates were highest in the Bible Belt?  I’m correct 

Alabama top spot Arkansas number 4 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/teen-births/teenbirths.htm

You say .....Similarly, people become Fundamentalists because of problems such as divorce, meth abuse, HIV, STD.  Correlation is not causation.  You'll have to post more than your opinions.

My reply ....Are you saying the majority are not born into? I don’t believe that for one minute maybe you can prove it?

You say .....  If we separate the actual facts you've presented as opposed to your opinions, we're left with " ".

My reply .....  If we separate the actual facts you've presented as opposed to your opinions, we're left with " ".

So basically you do not believe Fundamentalism is responsible for ignorance I wonder what it is then?

PropagandaSlayer

@Dee

I did not say that any of the journals say evolution is disproved. To argue that I said so is a Straw Man.

I simply gave you "a peer reviewed paper from deniers that even puts a dent in the mountains of evidence for Evolution" for which you requested.

In fact, I gave you more than one, I gave you over 100.

PropagandaSlayer

I am also quite disappointed that you keep saying they didn't disprove evolution. If over 100 peer-reviewed papers argue for intelligent design, then isn't that, by definition, arguing against some portion of evolution?

Not to mention that for a supposed, fact evolution has never been successfully replicated in a laboratory or study.

Surely if evolution were true then the e.coli Long Term Evolution experiment [1], the fruit fly experiments (there were multiple ones)[2] and other long term evolution experiments, would have proven macroevolution. But these studies haven't proven evolution, in fact, they have disproven it.

The fact of the matter is that, since evolution cannot be successfully replicated in a laboratory, it is unscientific.


References:
[1] https://www.sciencealert.com/one-of-longest-evolution-experiments-overthrowing-previous-assumptions
[2] https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/08/fruit-fly-100-years-later/

Dee

@PropagandaSlayer

You say ....

I am also quite disappointed that you keep saying they didn't disprove evolution.

My reply ....You shouldn’t be , if they had why is no one in the scientific community mentioning it?

You say .....If over 100 peer-reviewed papers argue for intelligent design, then isn't that, by definition, arguing against some portion of evolution?

My reply .....No it’s not science does not , is not , nor will ever be interested in speculating about nonsense that’s left to the religious  

You say .....Not to mention that for a supposed, fact evolution has never been successfully replicated in a laboratory or study. 

My reply ....Nice swerve , your attempt to get me involved in a discussion about various aspects of Evolution is a red herring to divert from the fact that you claimed Evolution had been disproved so I’m still waiting?

You say ......Surely if evolution were true then the e.coli Long Term Evolution experiment [1], the fruit fly experiments (there were multiple ones)[2] and other long term evolution experiments, would have proven macroevolution. But these studies haven't proven evolution, in fact, they have disproven it.

My reply .... Evolution is fact , and if it’s disproven why had no one received the noble prize for it? Also why are there no religious leaders world wide agreeing with your”assessment “ we know why , don’t we? Another  thing to chew on is that if Evolution was ever disproven it still doesn’t prove a creator god exists does it?

You say ....The fact of the matter is that, since evolution cannot be successfully replicated in a laboratory, it is unscientific.

My reply.......The fact of the matter is nothing  you've said has been in any way accurate or factual, if you say it’s unscientific good maybe scientists should start looking in the Bible for real science 

CYDdharta

Dee said:

@CYDdharta

You say ......If you have the same number of Fundamentalists, but more people who believe in evolution, that means more Fundamentalists believe in evolution.  

My reply ...I don’t believe that Fundamentalist teachings have changed regarding their beliefs on Evolution they appear to be the only ones who constantly attempt to get I D pushed into school curriculums. 

To deny Evolution is fact is pure ignorance and I think you do accept that it is mainly the fundies do so?

You continue to ignore the proof I've posted.  THERE ARE THE SAME NUMBER OF FUNDAMENTALISTS, BUT MORE PEOPLE BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.  The simple fact is that more Fundamentalists believe in evolution.  Since that is your benchmark for ignorance, your premise has been proven false.

Also you failed to address any of the issues below, which is proof further of how  regressive this nonsense is .

In the US, Christian Fundamentalists tend to favor a "pro-life" view, often to an extreme that would not allow exceptions for rape, incest or general (non-fatal) health of the mother. They are also generally opposed to comprehensive sex education, single parenthood, and of course gay rights , climate change denial 

To be quite honest, I reject ALL of your wedge issues as proof of ignorance; every single one of them.

You say ....

Teen pregnancy?!?  The highest teen pregnancy rates are among American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Hispanics, Blacks, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders.  Are members of those groups flocking to fundamentalist religions???
My reply ....I said “ The rates were highest in the Bible Belt?  I’m correct
Alabama top spot Arkansas number 4 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/teen-births/teenbirths.htm

Oh, so you ARE trying to say American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Hispanics, Blacks, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders are flocking to fundamentalist religions.  'd say you'll have to post some proof, but that's not something you do.

You say .....Similarly, people become Fundamentalists because of problems such as divorce, meth abuse, HIV, STD.  Correlation is not causation.  You'll have to post more than your opinions.

My reply ....Are you saying the majority are not born into? I don’t believe that for one minute maybe you can prove it?

The majority is not born into what??  You're not making any sense.

You say .....  If we separate the actual facts you've presented as opposed to your opinions, we're left with " ".

My reply .....  If we separate the actual facts you've presented as opposed to your opinions, we're left with " ".

The difference being, I've actually posted proof, you've just chosen to ignore it; you, not so much.

So basically you do not believe Fundamentalism is responsible for ignorance I wonder what it is then?

First we'd have to agree on just what is meant by the term "ignorance".

Dee

@CYDdharta

You say .....  THERE ARE THE SAME NUMBER OF FUNDAMENTALISTS, BUT MORE PEOPLE BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.  The simple fact is that more Fundamentalists believe in evolution.  

My reply .....If more fundamentalists believe as you state without proof so what?    They are still the ones that think evolution is nonsense and the only ones trying to have I D thought in schools and colleges which of course you totally ignore, to do so is pure ignorance based on biblical nonsense.

You say .....Since that is your benchmark for ignorance, your premise has been proven false.

My reply .....Nice swerve, but I said it was ONE of my criteria I gave you a list of many more which you totally ignored , so your assertions once again have been  destroyed 

You say .....To be quite honest, I reject ALL of your wedge issues as proof of ignorance; every single one of them.

My reply ....To be equally honest back , that’s another pretty good swerve as when I point out what rationalists perceive as ignorance you attempt to say it’s merely politics , nonsense 

wedge issue

Dictionary result for wedge issue

nounUS

plural noun: wedge issues

1. a very divisive political issue, regarded as a basis for drawing voters away from an opposing party whose supporters have diverging opinions on it.

You say ......Oh, so you ARE trying to say American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Hispanics, Blacks, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders are flocking to fundamentalist religions.  '

My reply .....I never stated that , I merely corrected you yet again with stats that clearly demonstrated that 1st and 4th place in teenage pregnancies were two states in the Bible Belt which of course you totally ignored 

You say .....say you'll have to post some proof, but that's not something you do.

My reply .....Resorting to insult now , fine . I posted my evidence for teen pregnancy rates you keep ignoring and if fundies are not trying to push I D who are in your opinion , maybe Atheists?

You say .....Similarly, people become Fundamentalists because of problems such as divorce, meth abuse, HIV, STD.  Correlation is not causation.  You'll have to post more than your opinions.

My reply ....People are Fundamentalists mainly because their parents are that’s not opinion but fact

You say ....The majority is not born into what??  You're not making any sense.

My reply ....Is still as above 

You say.......The difference being, I've actually posted proof, you've just chosen to ignore it; you, not so much.

My reply .....Yes you ignore anything that’s not in line with your narrative 

You say .....First we'd have to agree on just what is meant by the term “ignorance”

My reply ..... Teaching people that the teachings from a book of nonsense written by Bronze Age goat herds is to teach ignorance would be an excellent start 

Dee

@PropagandaSlayer


You say .....I did not say that any of the journals say evolution is disproved.

My reply .....Excellent, so why are you arguing against fact?

You say .....I simply gave you "a peer reviewed paper from deniers that even puts a dent in the mountains of evidence for Evolution" for which you requested. 

My reply ..... When you say “peer reviewed “ you fail to say where but I can help as they I D community has their own Journals which articles in favour of I D nonsense are printed , no one else is interested 

You say .....In fact, I gave you more than one, I gave you over 100.

My reply .....Read above again 

PropagandaSlayer

Dee said:

@PropagandaSlayer


You say .....I did not say that any of the journals say evolution is disproved.

My reply .....Excellent, so why are you arguing against fact?

You say .....I simply gave you "a peer reviewed paper from deniers that even puts a dent in the mountains of evidence for Evolution" for which you requested. 

My reply ..... When you say “peer reviewed “ you fail to say where but I can help as they I D community has their own Journals which articles in favour of I D nonsense are printed , no one else is interested 

You say .....In fact, I gave you more than one, I gave you over 100.

My reply .....Read above again 

Once again you say evolution is fact, when even evolutionists themselves can't agree on how it happened. There's 4 or 5 theories for the development of mankind and they are all quite contradictory, some even contradict the law of biogenesis.

Further, the total and complete failure of evolution to ever have been replicated in any sort of study is a death blow to the entire dogma. 

Even the fossil record is a blemish on evolution. Many of the "missing links" between species appear higher on the sedimentary level than the species they supposedly came before. If anything, the fossil record alone disproves evolution. 

To this day, no evolutionist has found the supposed "common ancestor" for man and ape. 

Finally, over 500 scientists have believe evolution is a lie.[1] Here are some of their statements:

"When Darwinian proponents claim there is no controversy regarding the cohesiveness of the scientific evidence for evolution as creator, they are merely expressing a heartfelt desire. … There is a growing contingent of scientists who have found the evidence for Darwinian evolution wanting, and who are ready and willing to debate Darwinists on scientific grounds." - Dr. Yvonne Boldt, Ph.D. Microbiology, Univ. of Minnesota [2]

"As a (bio)chemist I become most skeptical about Darwinism when I was confronted with the extreme intricacy of the genetic code and its many most intelligent strategies to code, decode and protect its information, such as the U x T and ribose x deoxyribose exchanges for the DNA/RNA pair and the translation of its 4-base language to the 20AA language of life that absolutely relies on a diversity of exquisite molecular machines made by the products of such translation forming a chicken-and-egg dilemma that evolution has no chance at all to answer.” - Dr. Marcos Eberlin, member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, founder of the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Laboratory. [3]

“Because no scientist can show how Darwin’s mechanism can produce the complexity of life, every scientist should be skeptical. The fact that most won’t admit to this exposes the unhealthy effect of peer pressure on scientific discourse.” - Dr. Douglas Axe, Director of Biologic Institute and Maxwell Visiting Professor of Molecular Biology, Biola University [4] 

"As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require — or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have — or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life — the foundation of evolution – is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact." - Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University [5]

As Dr. Douglas Axe of Biola University stated, peer pressure is keeping scientists from dissenting against evolution, even though the whole theory has major gaps and doesn't explain much.

The fact that even evolutionists themselves can't agree on a unified theory is bad enough, but when studies investigating evolution have only provided proof of microevolution, the argument against the dogma becomes even more strong.

The oldest and most proven law in biology is the law of biogenesis, that life only comes after life of its kind. 

To this date, there has not been a single study that has unilaterally proven evolution's necessary law of abiogenesis, that life can arise from non-life.

Therefore, evolution is unscientific.

References:

[1] https://dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/ ;

[2] https://dissentfromdarwin.org/2019/02/01/dr-yvonne-boldt-ph-d-microbiology-univ-of-minnesota/

[3] https://dissentfromdarwin.org/2019/02/01/dr-marcos-eberlin-member-of-the-brazilian-academy-of-sciences-found-of-the-thomson-mass-spectrometry-laboratory/

[4] https://dissentfromdarwin.org/2019/02/01/dr-douglas-axe-director-of-biologic-institute-and-maxwell-visiting-professor-of-molecular-biology-biola-university/

[5] https://dissentfromdarwin.org/2008/08/11/chris_williams_phd_biochemistr/

Dee

@PropagandaSlayer

Sorry to burst your bubble yet again but here is a comprehensive study with links disproving your claims and debunking every one of your claims , it’s quiet comprehensive and as you see the people you mention are all supporters of I D and their nonsensical claims are only posted in I D journals .

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a petition publicized in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a creationist "think" tank, which attempts to push creationism, in the guise of Intelligent design, into public schools in the United States.[2] The petition expresses denial about the ability of genetic drift and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. It also demands that there should be a more careful examination of Darwinism. The petition was signed by about 700 individuals, with a wide variety of scientific and non-scientific backgrounds when first published. It now contains 984 signatures.[3]

The Dissent is reminiscent of the 1931 anti-relativity book, Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein),[4] which only included one physicist, and can be seen now as "a dying cry from the old guard of science" based primarily on philosophical objections.[1]

The petition states that:

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. There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.

The petition continues to be used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support. However, the language of the statement is misleading. It frames the argument in a way that anyone could agree with it. So long as they don't know the Discovery Institute's true motivations (which is to undermine evolution using deceit and trickery, not to show any kind of genuine fallibility with it), anyone who is open to the idea of scientific inquiry would agree that they should be skeptical of everything, including evolution. If only the writers of the statement (i.e. creationists) were skeptical of their own ideas, which they clearly aren't.

The petition is considered a fallacious Appeal to authority, whereby the creationists at the Discovery Institute are attempting to prove that there is a dissent from "Darwinism" by finding a few creationist scientists to support the statement. The roughly 700 dissenters who originally signed the petition would have represented about 0.063% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999, except, of course, that three-quarters of the signatories had no academic background in biology.[5][6] (The roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters would hence represent about 0.013% of the US biologists that existed in 1999.) As of 2006, the list was expanded to include non-US scientists. However, the list nonetheless represents less than 0.03% of all research scientists in the world.[7] Despite the increase in absolute number of scientists willing to sign the dissent form, the figures indicate the support from scientists for creationism and intelligent design is steadily decreasing.

Since scientific principles are built on publications in peer-reviewed journals, discussion in open forums, and finally through consensus, the use of a petition should be considered the last resort of a pseudoscience rather than a legitimate scientific dissent from the prevailing consensus.

Contents [hide] 

More of Dr Axe which demonstrates again your claims are based on nothing 

It’s an interesting mix of clowns you put forward let’s take Dr Axe just for a laugh ......The divine comedy

Creationism

Running gags

• Biblical literalism

• Young/Old Earth

• Intelligent design

• Creation scientists

Jokes aside

• Carbon dating

• Evidence against a recent creation

• Plate tectonics

• Radiometric dating

Blooper reel

• Irreducible complexity

• Last Thursdayism

• Satan

• Scientific Facts in the Bible: 100 Reasons to Believe the Bible is Supernatural in Origin

v - t - e

Douglas Axe is the director of the Discovery Institute-run Biologic Institute.[1] co-author of Science and Human Origins Axe is also a signatory to the Discovery Institute petition A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.

Axe’s work has been hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence supporting their views. Interestingly, even Axe himself has admitted that this is not the case.[2]

Contents [hide] 

1

Credentials

2

Fallacies and ignorance

3

See also

4

References

Credentials[edit]

Axe is a molecular biologist, and is, as such, one of the relatively few people affiliated with the intelligent design movement with credentials the least bit relevant to the issue at hand — not counting the numerous supporters who rely entirely on fake or trumped-up credentials, as opposed to "merely" out-of-context credentials.

Drawing on his knowledge of biology, Axe has authored a few relatively mundane papers, at least some of which have been published in low-tier, although genuine, journals.

Although none of these papers contain – or even attempts to mount – any refutation of evolution, much less evidence for intelligent design. He has published extensively in the Biologic Institute’s house journal BIO-Complexity, but that obviously does not count towards anything meaningful.

Fallacies and ignorance[edit]

Axe is on the record arguing that problems with evolution are evidence for intelligent design,[3] insofar as if the theory of evolution cannot explain some data it means that there can somehow be no naturalistic explanation at all. In other words, Axe seems to think that if evolution were false, then Intelligent Design would have to be correct — which is, of course, false insofar as Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory to begin with, and is thus not even in the running.

His actual expertise in the fields relevant to assessing evolutionary explanations has also been questioned.

Regards your misunderstanding of abiogenesis 

Slightly better educated supporters of ID sometimes complain that the theory of evolution lacks any mention of, or generally accepted hypothesis about, abiogenesis. It is of interest, however, that versions of ID which pretend to be science also lack any such mechanism — though the unstated assumption is that it was the work of God.

The objection also betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, which does not propose an explanation of how life started. It merely describes what happens after some form of life is extant.

Evolution is fact and based on mountains of scientific evidence, I D is nonsense and a pseudoscience just like aromatherapy, Aura reading , faith healing etc , etc thankfully most rational beings  are aware of this 

MayCaesar

First of all, there is a difference between the theory of evolution, and theories of abiogenesis. The former explains how already existing living organisms evolve over long periods of time and why; the latter explains how those living organisms came to be on Earth in the first place. The theory of evolution is a very clear established theory based both on common sense, and on countless pieces of evidence collected over centuries. Abiogenesis, however, is still a field in which we are incredibly ignorant. We have some ideas on how organic life may have appeared on Earth, but nothing is certain. It is a very complicated subject, and due to the impossibility to experiment directly (experiments might take hundreds millions years to converge to creation of a new living organism from raw matter) our knowledge on it is, and will be for a while, extremely limited.

The difference between scientists and believers is that the former know when to accept that they are ignorant, and are okay with the fact that they do not know - and will never know - absolutely everything. While the latter make up stories to fill the gaps in their knowledge with fairy tales.

In evolution, there are certain gaps of knowledge we have. We cannot always connect different species in obvious way in terms of evolutionary paths. There are certain species that seem to defy the general trend. There are exceptions, unknowns. There are also intellectually dishonest researchers, just like anywhere else. Just because you work in a proper scientific field, does not mean what you do is necessarily proper science.

It is okay for the science to not have all the answers. As (allegedly) Einstein famously put it, "It would not be called research if we knew what we were doing". The day the science has all the answers is the day the science does; there will be nothing to "science" any more.

Science not having all the answers is not the reason to be sceptical about it, however. Mathematics does not suddenly become a questionable science just because no one has managed to prove Riemann's hypothesis. Similarly, history does not become merely an opinion just because we do not know for certain how exactly Cleopatra died.

More so, scepticism is important in science in general. Scientific consensus can only be achieved when everyone has given up on questioning evidence. It is okay for people to question evolution, to come up with hard questions and unlikely hypotheses, to put the conventional norms to the test. Scientists do this all the time. There is currently a strong notion in physics, for example, pushed by a minority of researchers, who claim that Newtonian mechanics had a few blunders in its fundamental construction - and they are trying to modify it in a way that works better and, possibly, makes relativity theory irrelevant. It is okay, science is not religion, and we do not label those who question our findings as heretics: we (usually) let them make their case, and if the case looks interesting enough, then we might study it more closely and offer a constructive criticism.

What is not okay is to put one's emotions and preconceptions before cold raw facts. No evidence supports any sort of creationism, while evolution is supported by mountains of evidence. It does not mean that evolution is necessarily true and creationism is necessarily not true - but it does mean that one is far-far-far more likely to be a good descriptor of how the world works, while another is far-far-far more likely to be just one more fairy tale that does not have a place outside the fantasy fiction.

I do not mind scientists questioning evolution; in fact, this is what everyone should do, and no one should ever accept any theory just because someone says it is right. It is another matter when it comes to such claims as "evolution is unscientific"; that is just pure dishonesty or genuine mistake. People can believe whatever they want, but they should not expect people who take things seriously to agree with them, or to even pay any attention to their position.

PropagandaSlayer

@Dee

I read nothing but a long, drawn out appeal to ridicule that didn't actually attack any of the arguments.

It also sprinkles in a healthy dose of false equivalencies and ad hominems to seem credible.

You still have failed to address a single one of my arguments.

Dee, I'd honestly like to hear you explain evolution to me at this point because it seems you do not have a working understanding of it.

PropagandaSlayer

@MayCaesar

Thank you for an informative reply. Unfortunately, though, I think that something that is unnoticeable, unreproducible, and not even fully fleshed out doesn't pass the test of "common sense."

I would love to actually investigate some of these "pieces of evidence," though, that prove evolution, since, to this date, I have not come across any.

Dee

@PropagandaSlayer

You say .....I read nothing but a long, drawn out appeal to ridicule that didn't actually attack any of the arguments.

My reply ....You’ve made several claims using deceit as a means to push your narrative , you claimed you had a sampling of a 100 papers peer reviewed published in “scientific journals” as if trying to make out actual scientists in the field agreed with your assertions , you were corrected on this as I’ve told you journals relating to pseudoscience are of no interest to credible people working in the field , you need to acknowledge this instead of denying it.

You’ve made countless appeals to authority as in noble prize winners who didn’t think Evolution was valid , these noble prize winners had no expertise in the field and never produced any “work “ to display the “veracity “ of their words

You appealed to authority again as in producing a list of I D “superstars” I took the poster boy of the group and demonstrated how lame his statements were regarding the matter I can do likewise with the others

You then throw in yet another Red Herring as in abiogenesis which I correct you on and pull apart easily below 

Here is a snippet from your post ......

You posted ......As Dr. Douglas Axe of Biola University stated, peer pressure is keeping scientists from dissenting against evolution, even though the whole theory has major gaps and doesn't explain much.

My reply .....Here is yet another example of a statement made with zero evidence to back it up and it’s made more so by the fact that Axe has no credentials in the field to back any of his many childish  assertions up 

You say .....The fact that even evolutionists themselves can't agree on a unified theory is bad enough, but when studies investigating evolution have only provided proof of microevolution, the argument against the dogma becomes even more strong.

My Reply .... Evolution is fact and accepted as such these childish straw men are typical  I D supporters , also your use of the term “dogma “ in most amusing 

You posted .......The oldest and most proven law in biology is the law of biogenesis, that life only comes after life of its kind. 

To this date, there has not been a single study that has unilaterally proven evolution's necessary law of abiogenesis, that life can arise from non-life.

Therefore, evolution is unscientific.

My reply ....That statement clearly proves you’ve no idea what you’re talking about and I provided links which of course you didn’t read , let me help .....Slightly better educated supporters of ID sometimes complain that the theory of evolution lacks any mention of, or generally accepted hypothesis about, abiogenesis. It is of interest, however, that versions of ID which pretend to be science also lack any such mechanism — though the unstated assumption is that it was the work of God.

The objection also betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, which does not propose an explanation of how life started. It merely describes what happens after some form of life is extant.

Bet you won’t read that either?

You say ......It also sprinkles in a healthy dose of false equivalencies and ad hominems to seem credible.

My reply .... But it’s entirely credible as the source is based on information that’s accurate and backed up academically and the understanding of the subject in hand , your “sources “ are based  pseudoscience and dishonesty 

You’ve made zero arguments so far you made claims that are breathtaking in their ignorance on a subject you know very little about ,  your opinion is based on pseudoscience and you of course call this science and Evolution “non scientific “ .

Your appeals to authority are likewise laughable as their peer reviewed papers are done so in I D journals which people actually working in the field avoid like the plague 

You say .....You still have failed to address a single one of my arguments.

My reply .....You put forward several names from the I D side who you place as authorities on the subject one being your poster boy Dr Axe who has no credentials in the field and is only taken seriously on his views on Evolution by I D based journals , your Red herring regarding abiogenesis I provided a link for to educate you in what you don’t seem to know, and I’ve posted my destruction of yet another of you false claims above 

You say ..... Dee, I'd honestly like to hear you explain evolution to me at this point because it seems you do not have a working understanding of it.

My reply .....But are you saying you’re more qualified than any of the individuals you put forward so far as in Dr Axe ? You hailed him and others as “experts” in the field didn’t you?

You’ve proven one thing anyway you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about as everything you say is the complete and utter opposite of the truth.

If actually read why I’ve  posted instead of making uninformed remarks you may actually learn something 

Your failure to understand the information I supplied is hardly my fault , Evolution is fact I D is not and nothing has come forward to remotely challenge the soundness of the theory of Evolution and that remains the case