>>13888694>i hate all the forced pseudoscience, its far, far, too prevalent >but also i do not understand how any reasonable critique in the vein of those mentioned can possibly apply to the theory of evolution.theres a lot of pseudoscience that you've been indoctrinated with, some of it you still believe, some of it you no longer believe.
>It follows so logically from demonstrably observable principlesthat you cannot conceive of an alternative is a fault of your own
> I can't even conceive of evolution as being something that requires any trust to accept.its your basic nondisprovable nonscientific nonsense
>The only thing you need to "trust" is that your basic faculties of logic and sense perception are in regular working order.the only thing you need to trust is that you were fed a story about evolution and you do not have the mental ability to conceive of an alternative, this is not because there aren't alternatives, its your abilty to conceive new ideas that is lacking.
people who are capable of that type of thinking get excommunicated from the sciences when they put their thoughts into words
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warwick_Collins>Collins studied biology at The University of Sussex, where his tutor was the leading theoretical biologist John Maynard Smith. In 1975 Collins voiced to Maynard Smith the view that natural selection could not drive evolution because it always acted to reduce variation in favour of an optimum type for any environment, whereas the central story of evolution was that of increasing variation and complexity…Maynard Smith warned Collins that he could not support his efforts to pursue a rival theory to the theory that natural selection drives evolution. Collins replied that he thought the object of science was to question and examine everything, including hallowed theories such as the theory of natural selection… 
