There is a creation-evolution controversy (a major one at that) precisely because evolution means far more than what TO leads its readers to believe here.
Are you insinuating that I took the phrase "decent with modification" from talkorigins? If so then I will take this opportunity to reveal what to you is likely a startling piece of information:
Most of us do not plagerize. In fact, most of us can actually think independent of a propaganda site. "Descent with modification" is one standard textbook definition of evolution. I learned it by taking a science class (no not the kind your mom's been ordering for you through the mail, dj2).
There is a creation-evolution controversy (a major one at that) precisely because evolution means far more than what TO leads its readers to believe here. The controversy exists because evolution—the full-fledged manifestation of evolution (including Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution)—is for many a metaphysical belief that elevates the philosophy of materialistic naturalism (hailing purely natural laws and processes, including time and chance, as our “creators&rdquo😉, and dismissing God (a Creator with purpose) as an irrelevant product of superstition.
There are a few quacks out there yes, but shouldn't you reject this 0.000001% of the scientific community by Dj2's Argument from Probability? Besides, all science hypothesizes natural explanations for natural phenomena. Consider scientific theories of: the formation of a star, electricity, reproduction, the behavior of gases, the motion of the planets, the spread of disease, the essence of light, optics, the structure of cells, flight, neurology, fluid dynamics.
These are just a tiny subsample of all types of scientific theories. Nevertheless, each one is based upon the assumption that there are natural explainations for natural processes. If you reject evolution then you should reject every single scientific theory.
After all, why is it that so many people are offended by the theory of evolution to the point of fiercely opposing it? Why is it that emotions run so high and intellectual battles persist? Because of ignorance?
Yes. That and brainwashing.
Although there will always be uninformed people on both sides of any dispute, a great many well-educated people in science, mathematics and other disciplines are among those who disagree adamantly with the precepts of evolution.
By "great many" you mean a few hundred? Because that's really what you have among scientists if that many.
Evolution is offensive because it is bad science and is as equally bad a metaphysic—in short, on close examination, evolution fails on all counts.
Do you have any clue how offensive the heliocentric model of the solar system was? How about how offensive the Kepler's elliptical planetary orbits were? A scientific model should not be judged based upon how much it inflates some people's egos or comforts others insecurities. If you need to feel that the whole universe was designed for you and that you are the apex of it then so be it. Your vanity does not change the fact that you and chimpanzees descended from from a common species.
Despite all of this, TO promotes the view that the creation-evolution controversy is a war of ‘religion versus science’—‘emotion versus reason.’
Back onto talkorigins again? Where did this urge to berate that website come from? By the way, it is a war of religion vs. science, emotion vs. reason. It seems the lot of science to be continually nipped at the heels by religion. Over the last 500 years though science has been winning.
This view is held mostly out of ignorance, but there are undoubtedly those within the TO organization that understand the matter well enough to know better. However, TO does very little to educate its audience on the philosophical foundation of its position. This is deception by omission.
Conspiracy theories? Is that what you've got? Sheesh. You are desperate.
refer to:http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp
Oh, I see. Until now I thought you had come up with all this blatherskeit by yourself. Should have known.