Because there is something fundamentally wrong with its typical view of life. Life forms are not merely matter in motion.
From Jonathan Wells at Evolution News & Views on Third Way (for evolution) thinker Stephen L. Talbott:
According to his profile at The Third Way of Evolution, Talbott spent many years working in the engineering organizations of computer manufacturers before he joined the Nature Institute in 1998 (the same year I joined Discovery Institute). He “attempts to show how our understanding of the organism and its evolution is transformed once we recognize and take seriously the organism as an intelligent agent meaningfully (though not necessarily consciously) pursuing its own way of life.”
In his most recent article (the first in a projected trilogy), Talbott asks why the public is still so skeptical of evolution. He answers that the public refuses to believe that their most basic perception of living things is an illusion. “Ever since humans began to think in a scientific or philosophical way about their fellow creatures,” he writes, they have observed that living things “possess a kind of active agency whereby they pursue their own ends. But now we hear that this age-old and self-evident understanding was a mistake.” Instead, agency has been transferred to natural selection, which “becomes rather like an occult Power of the pre-scientific age — all in order to render ‘illusory,’ and indeed to usurp, the visible agency of the organism.” More.
Yes, exactly. Life forms seek to stay alive whether they are conscious or not.. Evolutonary theory today means propounding mehacnistic explanations for a situation thatcannot be explained by mechanistic explanations.
Talbott’s article is here.
Also: What DO organisms mean? Tom Bethell looks at Stephen Talbott’s work
and
It’s all about information, Professor Feser
See also: How will rethinking Darwin affect the ID community?
and
What can we hope to learn about animal minds?
Follow UD News at Twitter!
————
“Why people still don’t believe evolutionary theory?”
————
A thesis from a Catholic:
. . .based on the conviction that “Theistic Evolution” is heresy, debilitating the Church today and causing more harm ultimately than atheistic evolution because of its reduction of God to a mechanism for the supposed natural processes of evolution, its lack of reverence for Holy Scripture as the revealing Word of God, and its insidious attack upon Catholic doctrine and tradition. – December 1976
http://www.catholicapologetics.....eistic.htm
The “blind designer” is a cheat. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning — it assumes what it claims to explain:
People don’t believe in evolution because the know, at least intuitively, that one cannot build Sagrada Família by haphazardly collecting nearby materials and combining them together via a series of engineering and construction accidents.
People don’t believe evolutionary theory because their gut feeling is that it doesn’t explain what is claimed – namely, common descent. That feeling is correct, as I have shown that the “theory” is not a valid theory. When one asks, How could it work? Evolutionists shout one down by yelling NATURAL SELECTION! But they have not addressed the crucial issue of the probabilities of getting the right mutations for natural selection to work on. It turns out that they are incapable of showing that the probability is anything but vanishingly small. The probability issue is crucial because the “theory” is based on random mutations. It turns out that these gut feelings happen to be correct.
People don’t believe in it because it doesn’t make a good case to defeat other cases or no case.
its not persuasive like so many other things are.
Listen to any defender of evolution and they try to say its proved by evidence unrelated to visual observation. their evidence is about invisible things.
Science is about the visible or showing the invisible by visible. like gravity pr germs etc
People understand this. Instinctively.
If evolution is to be believed then show biological scientific evidence for this evolutionary process.
How hard can it be?
Please no fossils. Actual process and not results from it as alleged. Thats not bio sci evidence.
Information in software code pales in comparison to the infinitely complex, layered, intricately interwoven, information in a living, ever changing, dynamic organism, which compels us to hold that software code must be easier to “evolve” by random copy-errors, than DNA-code.
Suppose a DVD copy machine which produces a few random copy-errors every time it makes a copy. Further suppose that this machine is used to make 10 copies of a newly purchased DVD containing Windows 7. Now remove the original DVD and repeat the imperfect copy process (10 copies) starting with functional second generation “mutated” copies (dysfunctional copies are removed from the process). Next remove all second generation copies and repeat the copy process starting with functional third generation mutated copies. And so forth.
Two questions: who would expect that this imperfect copy process is anything other than the degeneration of Windows 7 eventually leading to mutated copies which are, without exception, dysfunctional? Who of us expects versions of Windows 7 with improved functionality?
// Notice that adding a layer of extra hurdles, a la natural selection, would only accelerate the process towards total dysfunctionality.
I just wanted to remind you that “Why people still don’t believe evolutionary theory” is NOT a question and shouldn’t end with a question mark. An inability to compose simple English sentences hurts any other argument you might make. But then the group of words used as the title is also NOT a sentence, so it shouldn’t end with ANY punctuation.
I’m guessing what you intended to say is something like:
Why DO people still disbelieve in the Theory of Evolution?
Hint: When you write a “sentence”, you want it to have both a Subject and a Verb.
The main reason why people don’t believe evolutionary theory is basically, as Talbott stated, people refuse to believe the design they see in life is ‘illusory’ or only an ‘appearance of design’ as Dawkins puts it. I think this following quote sums up the ‘gut reaction’ most people have against Darwinism best:
And although most people are too busy with raising their families and such as that to look into the details of evolutionary theory, it turns out that that ‘gut reaction’ most people have against Darwinism is spot on. After perhaps a decade or more of looking evolutionary theory over, I find Darwinian evolution to be a pseudo-science that is on par with tea-leaf reading.
What the vast majority of Darwinists fail to realize (or to ever honestly admit to) is that Darwinian evolution is not even a ‘real’ physical science in any proper sense that can be tested but that Darwinian evolution is more realistically thought of as a pseudo-science. Even Jerry Coyne himself, the self-appointed Grand Inquisitor of Darwinian evolution, who won the ‘censor of the year award’ in 2014 from ENV, admits that Darwinian evolution lacks the rigor of a proper physical science:
And without any way to test, and potentially falsify, Darwinian evolution in the real world, it simply fails to qualify as a rigorous science.
The primary reason why Darwinian evolution cannot be tested in the real world like other overarching theories of science can be tested is because Darwinian evolution does not have a rigid mathematical basis to test against as other overarching theories have. (in fact, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, mathematics constantly shows us that Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),,
The reason why no scientist has been able ‘quantify its dictums’ is because there are no known laws of nature for Darwinists to appeal to to base their math on. In other words, there is no known ‘law of evolution’ in the physical universe:
And whereas Darwinian evolution has no law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such a disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ in order to establish itself as a proper and rigorous science.
And since Intelligent Design is mathematically based on the ‘law of conservation of information’, that makes Intelligent Design testable and potentially falsifiable, and thus makes, unlike Darwinism, Intelligent Design a rigorous science.
Because modern science is exposing the fatal flaws in Darwinian theory, and Darwinists have not effectively addressed those fatal flaws.