Why do people reject evolution?

[Nimzabaat]

\You're rejecting the idea that you are just believing a textbook that someone has written that you cannot personally verify.

I am going to stop you right here.

What is stopping anyone from verifying it? What is stopping anyone from going and doing the research and looking at the data, and checking the processes by which the data is acquired and vetting it for themselves?

No really, what barriers are there that exist that stop people from looking at the evidence for themselves?

You're absolutely right. Looking at text online is much more verifiable than reading a book. I guess the only real barrier that stops people from looking at the evidence is that we can't travel back in time. Look, seriously i've stated how many times that i'm not taking sides. But some part of you has to realize that you were taught this by somebody and you believed them. That's it and there's nothing wrong with that and there shouldn't be any shame in admitting it. I was taught the same thing in school and until life experience intervened, I just accepted it without question.

 

[Nimzabaat]

I don't know if anybody else has said something like this, but I feel like I need to say something.

When I was about four years old, I was at the Ohio State Fair. My parents, both being doctors, had given me a shirt which had "I am a product of 6,000,000 years of Evolution" (can't remember the exact number, but that's not important. We were walking together, when a man came up, he must have been an appliance salesman or something, stopped us and started to harass me about what I thought of evolution; the usual stuff that people say. I was four years old, though, so I didn't have much to say. When he left, I remember saying to my parents "Why can't both be true?"

And I still believe this to this day. Evolution certainly tells us how things work, but, as with anything else, it doesn't explain why things work. Science needs to be on the How, or else any sort of understanding of the world around us will be corrupted by subjectivity, which is no good in a scientific setting. But Philosophy and suchlike can hold on to the deeper meanings of things.

Why can't people believe evolution is a scientific observation made into a theory and also believe what they find in their religious pursuits? If evolution says to you that the strong survive and that anything else is meaningless, then ask yourself "can I prove myself worthy? Can I go beyond what nature tells me to believe and make myself better?" Social Darwinism is kind of dumb and gives Evolution as a whole a bad name, and that's not what evolutionary theory is about.

Sorry for the long post, but I hope I got my point across.

Yeah they aren't accepting reasonable views here, probably best to move along

 

[pointless vandalism]

Because religious fundamentalists are idiots? Check out Evangelical Christians in America. I rest my case.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

You're absolutely right. Looking at text online is much more verifiable than reading a book. I guess the only real barrier that stops people from looking at the evidence is that we can't travel back in time. Look, seriously i've stated how many times that i'm not taking sides. But some part of you has to realize that you were taught this by somebody and you believed them. That's it and there's nothing wrong with that and there shouldn't be any shame in admitting it. I was taught the same thing in school and until life experience intervened, I just accepted it without question.

The person who taught me explained why it was correct and presented the evidence available because he was a good teacher. i DID question. And he answered. This is how teaching should be. And it does happen. Just because YOU accepted it without question its not fair to assume we all did. Or that the teacher never tried to explain WHY we should believe them.

 

[Nimzabaat]

You're absolutely right. Looking at text online is much more verifiable than reading a book. I guess the only real barrier that stops people from looking at the evidence is that we can't travel back in time. Look, seriously i've stated how many times that i'm not taking sides. But some part of you has to realize that you were taught this by somebody and you believed them. That's it and there's nothing wrong with that and there shouldn't be any shame in admitting it. I was taught the same thing in school and until life experience intervened, I just accepted it without question.

The person who taught me explained why it was correct and presented the evidence available because he was a good teacher. i DID question. And he answered. This is how teaching should be. And it does happen. Just because YOU accepted it without question its not fair to assume we all did. Or that the teacher never tried to explain WHY we should believe them.

Your teacher took you thousands of years back in time? Best. Teacher. Ever. I am incredibly jealous. (Did you have to sign the "safety not guaranteed" form?)

 

[DracoSuave]

\You're rejecting the idea that you are just believing a textbook that someone has written that you cannot personally verify.

I am going to stop you right here.

What is stopping anyone from verifying it? What is stopping anyone from going and doing the research and looking at the data, and checking the processes by which the data is acquired and vetting it for themselves?

No really, what barriers are there that exist that stop people from looking at the evidence for themselves?

You're absolutely right. Looking at text online is much more verifiable than reading a book. I guess the only real barrier that stops people from looking at the evidence is that we can't travel back in time. Look, seriously i've stated how many times that i'm not taking sides. But some part of you has to realize that you were taught this by somebody and you believed them. That's it and there's nothing wrong with that and there shouldn't be any shame in admitting it. I was taught the same thing in school and until life experience intervened, I just accepted it without question.

I didn't say that.

I said that you can go look at the evidence yourself. You can through many means grab the data. You can GO see and touch the fossils. You can participate in the discussions. You can become involved in the process.

For example, I can go to a textbook to learn the universe wasn't created 6000 years ago--but I don't HAVE to.

I can use my own eyes to look up at the heavens and see the stars. I can go learn HOW they know the distances of stars, and I can perform those experiments myself. I can learn how we know the heavens are older than any creation myth says they must be, because we know how far away they are, and given enough time and effort, I can measure how fast light travels and thus, how much time it must have taken to reach me.

This isn't easy work, but that's how it was done the first time. So long as you have the inclination and understanding, you can participate.

Because I -know- this, I know that mistruths and false data are not going to last for very long in the scientific record. I can -trust- the data and findings because I know the vetting process, and I know that I can go find out for myself--directly.

You claim we can't look back in time? We do so every night we look at the constellations!

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Your teacher took you thousands of years back in time? Best. Teacher. Ever. I am incredibly jealous. (Did you have to sign the "safety not guaranteed" form?)

Theres more evidence than seeing with your eyes. A LOT of science is based off more than direct observation of an event. For example mass spectroscopy is a system used to determine the mass of a compound. It works, the theory is sound but it doesnt involve shrinking down to a billionth of the size. I was shown the fossil record, pictures and museums containing said record, ice core results and geological evidence. I was then instructed to go home, evaluate the evidence and write a report on which pieces were the best evidenced. I wrote about ice cores. Dont be so silly to assume "I MUST SEE WITH EYES OR ITS NOT EVIDENCE!" Oxygen is tested for via combustion. You dont SEE the oxygen directly. You see the evidence by other means.

EDIT: Are you honestly telling me the only evidence for evolution is to witness it... really? I mean really? Im surprised i replied as politely as i did.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Your teacher took you thousands of years back in time? Best. Teacher. Ever. I am incredibly jealous. (Did you have to sign the "safety not guaranteed" form?)

Theres more evidence than seeing with your eyes. A LOT of science is based off more than direct observation of an event. For example mass spectroscopy is a system used to determine the mass of a compound. It works, the theory is sound but it doesnt involve shrinking down to a billionth of the size. I was shown the fossil record, pictures and museums containing said record, ice core results and geological evidence. I was then instructed to go home, evaluate the evidence and write a report on which pieces were the best evidenced. I wrote about ice cores. Dont be so silly to assume "I MUST SEE WITH EYES OR ITS NOT EVIDENCE!" Oxygen is tested for via combustion. You dont SEE the oxygen directly. You see the evidence by other means.

EDIT: Are you honestly telling me the only evidence for evolution is to witness it... really? I mean really? I'm surprised i replied as politely as i did.

Okay. Here's where your argument breaks down. You can't see God (s) with your own eyes either. So do you disbelieve or do you believe? You are shouting people down because they believe in something they can't see with their own eyes. Do you see the similarity yet? You sound like somewhat of a more reasonable person than the standard "ape throws poo" evolutionists that were attracted to this thread. Please don't prove me wrong about that. As I've said before, I'm not a creationist, I'm just pointing out the similarities between the arguments. I have no idea why the evolutionist side chose to get all embarrassed and defensive about that.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Okay. Here's where your argument breaks down. You can't see God (s) with your own eyes either. So do you disbelieve or do you believe? You are shouting people down because they believe in something they can't see with their own eyes. Do you see the similarity yet? You sound like somewhat of a more reasonable person than the standard "ape throws poo" evolutionists that were attracted to this thread. Please don't prove me wrong about that. As I've said before, I'm not a creationist, I'm just pointing out the similarities between the arguments. I have no idea why the evolutionist side chose to get all embarrassed and defensive about that.

Im not insulting anyone or shouting at anyone. PLEASE stop making assumptions about me :C You dont know me. I know youre not a creationist. Im not saying you are. Your arguments are just a bit... wearying. Sorry. Ill address them as patiently as i can.

You can test for oxygen by MANY means just not sight. I have performed tests on oxygen. I have been shown tests to show oxygen. You cannot test for god by any means at all. I have not performed or seen or heard of tests to prove gods existance. Thats the difference. Thats why i dont believe in god but i do believe in oxygen... you dont seem very well educated on atheists at all... this is a very common very wearying argument that is shut down time and time again. Its almost as dumb as "YOUVE NEVER SEEN YOUR BRAIN STUPID ATHEIST!" and it offends me because it implies people never take a moment to try and understand my point of view at all.

I have NO problem with the religious or religion. I spent a week on a deeply christian monks retreat and deeply enjoyed it with my christian girlfriend. I just dont like people trying to make similarities where there are none. It isnt a lack of respect. Or dislike of religion. Its just a fact that how i feel and youre saying i feel are different.

Youre equating two totally different things. Which is why it makes people annoyed. What you wrote last time was like:

"I saw a man covered in blood walk away from the blood covered house with a blood covered knife. Two people are dead inside the house. Thats the evidence i have. "

"You SAW the evidence? Wanna show us your time machine lol where you went back and saw it actually happen? Nothing else counts!"

 

[DracoSuave]

Okay. Here's where your argument breaks down. You can't see God (s) with your own eyes either. So do you disbelieve or do you believe? You are shouting people down because they believe in something they can't see with their own eyes. Do you see the similarity yet? You sound like somewhat of a more reasonable person than the standard "ape throws poo" evolutionists that were attracted to this thread. Please don't prove me wrong about that. As I've said before, I'm not a creationist, I'm just pointing out the similarities between the arguments. I have no idea why the evolutionist side chose to get all embarrassed and defensive about that.

The difference is that in the case of evolution (which is an observed and observable phenomenon contrary to what many antievolution advocates claim) there is a body of supporting evidence that is overwhelming, but MORE importantly, is verifiable AND replicable.

In the case of God, there is no body of supporting evidence, what little is there is not verifiable, and is certainly not replicable.

We can take that a step further, and in specific instances of God-claims (i.e. certain specific religious dogma) we CAN test their beliefs, we CAN look at evidence, and we CAN conclude their belief is false. For example: Young Earth Creationism.

One important point, however, is that Evolution is not the opposite position to God. One can believe in a God that does not contradict Evolution. However, one who believes in a God that DOES contradict evolution is in a bad place, because they're acting in contravention to the massive body of evidence that supports evolution--verifiable, replicable evidence.

The two positions are certainly not analogous--One is the result of a position based on faith, and the other is based on a position that disallows faith. Faith is believing without evidence, and science directly prohibits that.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Your teacher took you thousands of years back in time? Best. Teacher. Ever. I am incredibly jealous. (Did you have to sign the "safety not guaranteed" form?)

Theres more evidence than seeing with your eyes. A LOT of science is based off more than direct observation of an event. For example mass spectroscopy is a system used to determine the mass of a compound. It works, the theory is sound but it doesnt involve shrinking down to a billionth of the size. I was shown the fossil record, pictures and museums containing said record, ice core results and geological evidence. I was then instructed to go home, evaluate the evidence and write a report on which pieces were the best evidenced. I wrote about ice cores. Dont be so silly to assume "I MUST SEE WITH EYES OR ITS NOT EVIDENCE!" Oxygen is tested for via combustion. You dont SEE the oxygen directly. You see the evidence by other means.

EDIT: Are you honestly telling me the only evidence for evolution is to witness it... really? I mean really? I'm surprised i replied as politely as i did.

Okay. Here's where your argument breaks down. You can't see God (s) with your own eyes either. So do you disbelieve or do you believe? You are shouting people down because they believe in something they can't see with their own eyes. Do you see the similarity yet? You sound like somewhat of a more reasonable person than the standard "ape throws poo" evolutionists that were attracted to this thread. Please don't prove me wrong about that. As I've said before, I'm not a creationist, I'm just pointing out the similarities between the arguments. I have no idea why the evolutionist side chose to get all embarrassed and defensive about that.

It doesn't break down.

*You can't see oxygen, but you CAN verify its presence. You can't see evolution happening, but you can observe its results. You can't see gravity but you can pretty accurately and reliably predict its affects.

You can't see god and you CAN'T verify his presence either. He has no verifiable properties, nor means of measurement.

They are fundamentally different things, faith and science, as is Creationism and Evolution.

 

[Nimzabaat]

It doesn't break down.

*You can't see oxygen, but you CAN verify its presence. You can't see evolution happening, but you can observe its results. You can't see gravity but you can pretty accurately and reliably predict its affects.

You can't see god and you CAN'T verify his presence either. He has no verifiable properties, nor means of measurement.

They are fundamentally different things, faith and science, as is Creationism and Evolution.

See and if I WAS a creationist (and i'm not) you left yourself wide open with that;

You can't SEE god but you can walk on the earth he created, eat the fruits of his labours etc. If the earth exists because god created it, then there is your measurement right there. You're either floating in a featureless void or god exists. So you can verify his existence by breathing the air he created, eating the animals he put there for you and walking on the ground he made.

So the evidence for both sides is equally flimsy is what you've proven there. Which is the point I was trying to make at the beginning before the evolutionists got all embarrassed and had to prove how closed-minded they could be. And you know what? Success.

I give up. "You can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think." I have failed completely in that endeavor so hat's off to you all.

 

[GildaTheGriffin]

I think what it is, is that there is not a lot of proof in evolution. Sure you can show me a diagram of evolution, but did we really witness it? No. See if we evolved from monkeys would we have evolved together? Those monkeys you see in the wild are nothing more than primitive genetic copies of what possibly God created or random mutation.

See I don't believe in evolution because: First off, the occurrence of genetic mutation being successful are astronomical, and we seem to be the most dominate creatures on this entire planet who either got really, really, REALLY lucky or something put us here for a reason. Monkeys can replicate us in a certain physical form, but they can never think like us because they have no ability to. Such as speech and literature. Dreams and hope. Beliefs and Dispossession. Please a monkey is a monkey. A human is a human.

Evolution is nothing but created by stubborn atheist who try to disprove anything they think is not real. It's always about them, never about others. It just ignorant people who twist the world to THEIR desire. As a Christian, I find offensive to twist people's mind to think like yourself and never give them the freedom to think upon themselves.

 

[GildaTheGriffin]

Your teacher took you thousands of years back in time? Best. Teacher. Ever. I am incredibly jealous. (Did you have to sign the "safety not guaranteed" form?)

Theres more evidence than seeing with your eyes. A LOT of science is based off more than direct observation of an event. For example mass spectroscopy is a system used to determine the mass of a compound. It works, the theory is sound but it doesnt involve shrinking down to a billionth of the size. I was shown the fossil record, pictures and museums containing said record, ice core results and geological evidence. I was then instructed to go home, evaluate the evidence and write a report on which pieces were the best evidenced. I wrote about ice cores. Dont be so silly to assume "I MUST SEE WITH EYES OR ITS NOT EVIDENCE!" Oxygen is tested for via combustion. You dont SEE the oxygen directly. You see the evidence by other means.

EDIT: Are you honestly telling me the only evidence for evolution is to witness it... really? I mean really? Im surprised i replied as politely as i did.

Do we breathe it? Then that is witness enough. Evolution was nothing more than history. And as we all know, history can be changed and corrupted whenever someone feels like it.

 

[Monster_user]

We need to educate people on WHY they are morons more effectively. Ignorance is meant to be targeted and explained with evidence and reason.

You want to target individuals, and convince them that the single most importact fact of their life, is false.

Their life, their existence has been framed as an upside down pyramid, everything rests on this single point of focus. Like a flower with a bloom that grows out of a stem, which grew out of a seed, their knowledge grew from this one fact. This one fact that every good person surrounding them believes. This is the foundation of their entire ethical, moral, intellectual, mindset and thought process.

If they have a kingdom, then the one thing you want to defeat is like the beloved king of that kingdom. Actually, you are targetting the king of their kingdom. The president of their nation. You are targetting their national monuments. Targetting the things that they take pride in, the things that unite them. You have to essentially destroy the kingdom they live in, to get them to defect.

These people are patriots, they believe themselves to be champions of virtue, and according to their definition you are calling them evil.

They believe that they have a lot to loose, and little to gain. What do you get out of disbelief? Better healthcare? Better pay? Better jobs? Better friends? The strength to get through your worst days? Hope for a better tomorrow? Contentment? Honestly, they would likely loose most of that. It's like the Matrix, red pill, or blue pill? How many of these people would really choose the red pill?

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

So the evidence for both sides is equally flimsy is what you've proven there. Which is the point I was trying to make at the beginning before the evolutionists got all embarrassed and had to prove how closed-minded they could be. And you know what? Success.

I give up. "You can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think." I have failed completely in that endeavor so hat's off to you all.

I tried my best to be patient and polite but this is patronizing and insulting. Who was accusing who of poop slinging again?

I explained my point. It isnt as flimsy at all. One test says "I tested this reality for X and found Y happens when i perform this test or observe this phenomenon. Y is an indicator of X inside this reality therefor X exists in the physical plain." You are using this reality to demonstrate the existence of another thing in this reality. If you attempt to say "This tissue box exists inside this reality ergo the unicorn that created it exists OUTSIDE this reality" i draw a line. You cannot use the existence of something physical to prove something non physical or metaphysical. When you start trying to use physical evidence to prove the non physical that seems to me to be illogical. Im an agnostic atheist so i dont claim god CANT exist. Merely that no evidence exists to show he exists. Unlike this oxygen DOES have evidence to prove its existence based on physical evidence pointing to the existence of a physical element. I do not believe empirical evidence can show evidence of the metaphysical. Hence agnostic "Believing god to be untestable".

Tell us about your views. Im curious. What do YOU believe?

 

[Asita]

To understand knowledge, truth, facts and everything is to keep mind open and accept that people have right to think that they are right. To go and yell that they are wrong just imprisons you to certain aspect of rainbow instead allowing one to see all the colors and the other rainbows.

You seem to misunderstand what the phrase "Open Minded" means. It's been linked in this thread before, but you might want to give this video a look.

Now i shall try to explain what i meant.

A.I agree throwing hands up in the air and calling hard things supernatural and shit is being close minded.
B.I agree that silly supernatural things should be critically judged and considered or you are throwing your hands in the air and not proving shit,
C.I am just saying that too many people yell science now instead of supernatural.
D.I am trying to say that all possibilities should allways be considered including science and green underwear stealing goblins

...I'm getting the feeling you didn't watch the video. Am I wrong? The entire gist of it was that open mindedness relies on a willingness to consider new ideas and judge them based on the available data. Using the example from a minute into the video, insisting that 'a moving lampshade be treated as evidence of ghosts' be treated as a viable explanation when the data shows other factors were responsible is NOT open minded, indeed, it is giving an idea more credit than it merits, which is intellectually dishonest.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

See and if I WAS a creationist (and i'm not) you left yourself wide open with that;

You can't SEE god but you can walk on the earth he created, eat the fruits of his labours etc. If the earth exists because god created it, then there is your measurement right there. You're either floating in a featureless void or god exists. So you can verify his existence by breathing the air he created, eating the animals he put there for you and walking on the ground he made.

So the evidence for both sides is equally flimsy is what you've proven there. Which is the point I was trying to make at the beginning before the evolutionists got all embarrassed and had to prove how closed-minded they could be. And you know what? Success.

I give up. "You can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think." I have failed completely in that endeavor so hat's off to you all.

You're not a creationist? You certainly seem like one and use the same recycled flawed arguments. You're operating under the assumed conclusion "Your" god exists and created the earth, fruit, air etc, but you can't show that and if you can't show it, you don't know it.

"You can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think."

I hope you take your own advice to heart after you calmed down from your rage quit, because you can't have assumed religious conclusions without evidence, and despite the evidence and call it evidence. That doesn't make any sense.

p.s. A bonus mark for the first person who can name the person who coined the phrase "If you can't show it, you don't know it"

 

[EvilRoy]

It doesn't break down.

*You can't see oxygen, but you CAN verify its presence. You can't see evolution happening, but you can observe its results. You can't see gravity but you can pretty accurately and reliably predict its affects.

You can't see god and you CAN'T verify his presence either. He has no verifiable properties, nor means of measurement.

They are fundamentally different things, faith and science, as is Creationism and Evolution.

See and if I WAS a creationist (and i'm not) you left yourself wide open with that;

You can't SEE god but you can walk on the earth he created, eat the fruits of his labours etc. If the earth exists because god created it, then there is your measurement right there. You're either floating in a featureless void or god exists. So you can verify his existence by breathing the air he created, eating the animals he put there for you and walking on the ground he made.

So the evidence for both sides is equally flimsy is what you've proven there. Which is the point I was trying to make at the beginning before the evolutionists got all embarrassed and had to prove how closed-minded they could be. And you know what? Success.

I give up. "You can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think." I have failed completely in that endeavor so hat's off to you all.

I think the problem you're wrestling with is falsifiability.

You can theorize that god exists and that he created the Earth. However, in order for a theory to be valid in the eyes of the scientific community a theory needs to be falsifiable. That is, you have to be able to prove it wrong for it to have any worth.

Evolution is a highly regarded theory because there are buckets of evidence for it, and it can very easily be proved false. All it would take is for one thing to not work, one fossil to defy the dating systems used and so on, and the entire theory must be remade from the ground up to account for the new evidence.

Creationism is more or less a meaningless theory because although you could claim that the earth itself is evidence of creationism, there is no way for me to prove that it is not, it is an unfalsifiable claim. It might be cliche', but look up "Russels Teapot" to learn more about this.

There is nothing wrong with believing in creationism, from my perspective it is functionally the same as believing in evolution for how much it affects most peoples life, but you cannot compare evolution and creationism because one is a theory and the other is a belief. Theories are falsifiable, beliefs are not.

I theorize that I have heartburn due to the jalapenos I just ate, based on the evidence at hand, but I could be proven wrong by going to a doctor and finding out its an ulcer. I believe that there is a teapot in orbit between Mars and the sun, and I defy you to prove otherwise.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Do we breathe it? Then that is witness enough. Evolution was nothing more than history. And as we all know, history can be changed and corrupted whenever someone feels like it.

See if we evolved from monkeys would we have evolved together?

Please a monkey is a monkey. A human is a human.

Evolution is nothing but created by stubborn atheist who try to disprove anything they think is not real. It's always about them, never about others. It just ignorant people who twist the world to THEIR desire. As a Christian, I find offensive to twist people's mind to think like yourself and never give them the freedom to think upon themselves.

1. Agreed. No evidence this has been done here though.

2. No, as long as a niche exists in the jungle for a tree swinging creature such a creature will survive to fill this niche. Not all animals will evolve to fill one niche because it would leave another niche empty. If a creature is surviving just perfectly it will not evolve. Over population or lack of resources forced some apes to leave their habitat to a new one. This change caused selection for different traits. The apes that left that had to live in this new environment became different. Apes that remained in the jungle evolved to be better suited to a jungle. As such the ancient ape evolved to become both humans and the apes you see today.

3. Agreed. No one is saying otherwise.

4. Not so. I love and cherish all other people. I work in biology for the aim of saving lives and helping others like my hero Norman Borlaug. I like people to think for themselves. I dont like people refusing to seek knowlegde because they think they know something when its actually a misconception. After all you clearly had a few issues with evolution that can actually be explained, like point 2 in my post. I wish people had the power to do what they wished based on ALL the knowlegde and not just some. Thats why i think education should be better on evolution. Almost all issues with it are based on misconceptions. As a human being i find it offencive that people are kept in the dark about issues that are important to them. I wish that mankind had free access to all our collected information, for it is truly the marvel of our species. If you take that information and do what you will with it thats fine. Im just unhappy with people being lied to about what something really is.

You want to target individuals, and convince them that the single most importact fact of their life, is false.

These people are patriots, they believe themselves to be champions of virtue, and according to their definition you are calling them evil.

They believe that they have a lot to loose, and little to gain. What do you get out of disbelief? Better healthcare? Better pay? Better jobs? Better friends? The strength to get through your worst days? Hope for a better tomorrow? Contentment? Honestly, they would likely loose most of that. It's like the Matrix, red pill, or blue pill? How many of these people would really choose the red pill?

I am not targetting god, i have nothing against religion. Just misconceptions about evolution. If someone wants to reject evolution and they fully understand it i would be baffled but would be fine with that. But i think everyone should be equiped with ALL the knowlegde to make that decision for themselves and not some half assed lies about what evolution and science really are. I think they would be more free making a choice they fully understand than one where one side is heavily distorted. I think a person should have that basic right to know what they are doing is based on what is true. I dont mind what people choose. It saddens me to think people make choices based on falisified information. I dont want to destroy a code of ethics. Or a lifestyle. Youre talking like i hate religion. I dont. I hate ignorance on a topic. I dont like misinformation. I dont like people being unaware and being unaware they are unaware. I think knowledge should be free to everyone. And our choices shouldnt be restricted because someone lied to us about what one choice really is. Religion and evolution can cooexist. And i want that option freely available to all.