Why is the theory of evolution still so controversial to this day?

Why is the theory of evolution still so controversial to this day?

Americans.
Also I'm amused by your implications when /pol/ has the highest concentration of creationists and soft-creationists* on this site.

* meaning they reject or butcher mainstream evolutionary theory in order to promote kooky shit like Africans being "less evolved" or relic homo erectus, extreme multiregional hypothesis, pop evopsych and other stuff that would be embarrassing even for an undergrad.

Actually I'd say /pol/ is the only board who truly recognizes the theory of evolution. Others are creationists when it comes to humans.

Because atheists hate God, so they still push this pseudo-scientific nonsense.

There is nothing pseudoscientific about the theory of evolution.

>would be embarrassing even for an undergrad.
You're a pompous faggot

Yeah except no. /pol/ is anti-academia and anti-science when it comes to evolution, just like it is on every other politically sensitive subject.
I'm sure you like to pretend you're persecuted geniuses but you're simply ultracrepidarians suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect, addicted to "redpill" insight porn, your delusions reverberated in your echo chamber.

Except non-specialists from academia are the biggest creationists of all, since creationism is one of the tenets of marxism (see: lysenkoism). I see I've triggered the creationist within you.

The sooner you realize Lysenkoism (or Aryan Physics) is the sort of nonsense political radicals like you would precisely produce if you were ever put in charge, the sooner you will outgrow this childishness.

But I don't ascribe to either lysenkoism or the "jewish physics" meme, however you seem to be against the theory of evolution when applied to humans. That's creationism.

>I don't ascribe to either lysenkoism or the "jewish physics" meme
Obviously not, you ascribe to whatever pseudoscientific nonsense and fringe theories are in vogue in your own circles now.

>you seem to be against the theory of evolution when applied to humans.
You must be addressing some figment of your imagination. Not only is that not my position, I don't believe I've ever given you any material to arrive at that conclusion. Your priors are all wrong.

>Obviously not, you ascribe to whatever pseudoscientific nonsense and fringe theories are in vogue in your own circles now.
The theory of evolution is speudoscientif nonsense?

>You must be addressing some figment of your imagination. Not only is that not my position, I don't believe I've ever given you any material to arrive at that conclusion. Your priors are all wrong
Judging by your hysterical reaction to the pol boogeyman I assume you believe race is "skin deep", aka you are a creationist.

As I already said, your assumptions are wrong. Revise them.

Revise them on what grounds?

>Changs and Pajeets in the same category
Nah brah

On the grounds that they're wrong? Or do you plan to continue arguing with the ghost of Stephen Jay Gould instead of me?
A strawman in the likeness of Gould, to be fair.

Just because evolution exists doesn't mean it happened how you fantasize it did for human beings.

We can have been studying human evolution and genetics for about 70 years, and any ideas of racism rely on the conspiracy theory that all the scientists are somehow lying or withholding "the truth." Sorry, you're just dumb and only care about political goals.

You've never stated your position, you just strawmanned me as a pol boogeyman. If you actually have an opinion, state it. Until then I'll just assume you're a creationist.

Pure creationism.

...

Basically this. You can't properly understand evolution when you're rooting for a team anyway. Racialist thinking is too teleological, even essentialist, and overly concerned with... let's charitably call them extended phenotypes.