Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MANTI5" data-source="post: 7665600" data-attributes="member: 627711">&quot;When leading educators and scientists assert that evolution is a fact, and imply that only the ignorant refuse to believe it, how many laymen are going to contradict them? This weight of authority that is brought to bear on evolution’s behalf is a major reason for its acceptance by large numbers of people.An example typical of views that often intimidate laymen is this assertion by Richard Dawkins: “Darwin’s theory is now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist.”&nbsp; But is this actually the case? Not at all. A little research will reveal that many scientists, including ‘serious modern biologists,’ not only doubt evolution but do not believe it. They believe that the evidence for creation is far, far stronger. Thus, sweeping statements like that of Dawkins are in error. But they are typical of attempts to bury opposition by means of such language. Noting this, an observer wrote in New Scientist: “Does Richard Dawkins have so little faith in the evidence for evolution that he has to make sweeping generalisations in order to dismiss opponents to his beliefs?”</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MANTI5, post: 7665600, member: 627711"] "When leading educators and scientists assert that evolution is a fact, and imply that only the ignorant refuse to believe it, how many laymen are going to contradict them? This weight of authority that is brought to bear on evolution’s behalf is a major reason for its acceptance by large numbers of people. An example typical of views that often intimidate laymen is this assertion by Richard Dawkins: “Darwin’s theory is now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist.” But is this actually the case? Not at all. A little research will reveal that many scientists, including ‘serious modern biologists,’ not only doubt evolution but do not believe it. They believe that the evidence for creation is far, far stronger. Thus, sweeping statements like that of Dawkins are in error. But they are typical of attempts to bury opposition by means of such language. Noting this, an observer wrote in New Scientist: “Does Richard Dawkins have so little faith in the evidence for evolution that he has to make sweeping generalisations in order to dismiss opponents to his beliefs?” [/QUOTE]

Verification