Creationism and Ignorance

[John V]

Sure, which is why we've been talking about ways to make evolution more understandable.  But even those that do not accept evolution MUST acknowledge that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on the topic, and that painting the issue as a 'controversy' in science or listing of 50 PhDs that reject evolution is laughably dishonest.

Until it's understandable, no, it's not reasonable to say what anyone MUST acknowledge.

You say "those that do not accept evolution," yet 25% of those who DO accept evolution still answered "no" on the consensus question. Those people don't have an agenda. Maybe they've seen articles discussing whether humans are still evolving. Such articles are out there - some people think that, as most humans now survive to reproductive age and can find a mate, natural selection isn't much of a factor anymore, and so humans aren't evolving. Yet, with the concise definition we've discussed, natural selection isn't necessary for evolution to occur.

---

Sure, which is why we've been talking about ways to make evolution more understandable.  But even those that do not accept evolution MUST acknowledge that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on the topic, and that painting the issue as a 'controversy' in science or listing of 50 PhDs that reject evolution is laughably dishonest.

*my bold*

Contradicted by the facts sadly, but not because there isn't sufficient reason to accept it.  For those who don't accept it, reason just isn't fully engaged.

But as noted, even 25% of those who DO accept evolution said "no" on the consensus question. How do you explain that?