Peer reviewed study published in Science Journal turns out to be fraud.

[Homeless Nutter]

OMG! Someone faked a study! Quick - shut science down and let's all go suck off a priest...


Good thing we don't need science for anything, since religion provides us with all the technology, medicine and knowledge we'll ever need. 

Thank you Jebus, for creating micro-processors and internet, so that we could find out from an uneducated muppet, how unreliable science is...

[Anomalocaris]

I seriously don't understand why it is so hard to believe in evolution, it happens all around us, and the general process is so damn obvious. Even bible-thumpers are acknowledging "micro-evolution". Sure our understanding of evolution isn't perfect yet, as in, we cannot precisely predict each and every evolutionary branch or future changes, and we do scratch our heads a bit from time to time when nature surprises us with unpredicted fossils and records, and yes these new findings will force us to alter our definition of evolution, and maybe even lead to a different theory altogether, but that just means we are improving our understanding of things and NOT figuring out a conspiracy.

When a study is published, what do you think people do with it? Put it on the local newspaper and forget about it? Or use those results as a base to build upon? And if people are going to work with fraudulent data, is it really so hard to imagine that someone will figure out the fraud eventually?

It's just stupidity.  

[robvalue]

People don't believe in evolution because, in my experience:

1- They don't understand what it is

2- It conflicts with their religious dogma

If it wasn't for point 2, most theists would probably accept it anyway even if they didn't understand it.

If anyone really thinks the whole is science is a conspiracy and not to be trusted, then... you're kind of beyond help. Again, science is not an organization. It is a set of tools. It would be like never trusting a hammer again because someone used one to smash someone's face in.

I guess some theists see science as being a similar organization to their own religion. That would explain a lot.

[Longhorn]

I am very disappointed to see such a lack of condemnation amongst so-called science lovers.

Tsk, tsk, bad fraud scientists. You're all grounded. Happy now?

[Aoi Magi]

I don't trust hammers anyway, they always try to attack my thumb instead of the nail.

[robvalue]

I don't know what theists would have us do?

Call up science HQ: "Hey, guys! Check the theories that you have! Make sure they are legit!"

"What the fuck do you think we're doing? That's part of our job! There's like mega fame for people who disprove established theories!"

"Well... get back to work then! Why are you wasting time talking to me?"

[rexbeccarox]

Part of the problem, IMO, is the idea of "believing in" evolution rather than "accepting" evolution. To opponents of the theory (creationists), "I believe in evolution" makes it equal to "I believe in Yahweh".

[Aoi Magi]

I don't think the terms matter much when all you see is "blah blah blah...". If we say we "accept" evolution, they would just equate it to accepting the devil or something similar...

[robvalue]

I think you're right Becca. I'm sick of hearing religious faith being equated with belief in scientific theory.

I suppose when you have such a poor grasp of it as to think creatures are actually evolving into other creatures during a single lifetime, it would seem like it would require not only faith but a lack of a brain to believe it.

I think some people are genuinely scared of learning about it. Because if they found out what it really was, and it made sense, then they'd find themselves having to choose between reality and fantasy. Even more than usual

So far I've only seen evidence of one theist ever learning anything about evolution on this forum. I'd be very impressed to see this improve. What's to be scared of?

[Cyberman]

People don't believe in evolution because, in my experience:

1- They don't understand what it is

2- It conflicts with their religious dogma

If it wasn't for point 2, most theists would probably accept it anyway even if they didn't understand it.

It amazes me when religionistas condemn science when it makes their magic story look bad, then almost in the same breath cream themselves whenever a paper is published that they can twist to look as though it agrees with the ravings of primitive goatsuckers to whom a wheelbarrow would be emerging technology (to borrow from Sam Harris).