If You Don't Believe in Evolution, Why?

[FightThePower]

First, the method at which it was arrived is not, strictly speaking, the scientific method. In the scientific method, an hypothesis is formulated, then a test of that hypothesis is constructed to observe the variable in question, data is collected, and it is proven or disproven.
Evolutionary biology works in the opposite direction. In evolutionary biology, data is collected and compiled, and an hypothesis is formulated afterwards. If subsequent data disprove this explanation, the explanation is revised, but there's no way to devise a controlled test, because you can't hold any of the environmental variables constant. For this reason, evolutionary biology would probably better be described as a "logic system" than a "science". This doesn't mean it's not true. It just means it isn't truly scientific. The same could be said for certain aspects of astrophysics, but enough is actually scientific that we can forgive them that.

You're assuming that controlled experiments are the only 'truly-scientific' method of experimentation, and that's not true. Case studies, controlled experiments and systematic observation etc. are all part of the scientific method and all have their advantages and disadvantages. Granted, the lack of controlled experiments, as you correctly said, is a weakness of evolutionary biology, but the method is still scientific; hypotheses are still created from observational data, more data is collected that falisfies/supports this hypothesis, and the hypothesis is refined until a theory is developed. It's still the same process, just by different means. Also, you do not 'prove' a hypothesis - you support it; it is impossible to prove a hypothesis.

What I think is the reason behind people not believing in evolution is the word 'theory'. The scientist's definition of the word 'theory', and the layperson's definition of the word 'theory' are very different. We use 'theory' in everyday life to mean something we admit we have no evidence for, but that's what we think happens...but in science, it's quite the opposite. A scientific theory will have plenty of evidence to back it up. Ever heard the Creationist argument 'Evolution is only a theory'? That is what I'm getting at.

Apparently, there is so much evidence for Evolution that it outweighs any other scientific theory to date, and it should really be called the 'Law of Evolution'. That would solve this little problem with the word 'theory'.

 

[DalekJaas]

couldn't be bothered reading the posts in this thread, so heres my say: Evolution has pretty much been proven and anyone who argues the fact should go burn a witch.

Did you know gravity is still a "theory". No ones disputing it, and thats pretty much been proven too. Also to the Christians, your religion thought the world was flat so STFU and GTFO. Trolling finished. Cheers.

 

[Kubanator]

You're assuming that controlled experiments are the only 'truly-scientific' method of experimentation, and that's not true. Case studies, controlled experiments and systematic observation etc. are all part of the scientific method and all have their advantages and disadvantages. Granted, the lack of controlled experiments, as you correctly said, is a weakness of evolutionary biology, but the method is still scientific; hypotheses are still created from observational data, more data is collected that falisfies/supports this hypothesis, and the hypothesis is refined until a theory is developed. It's still the same process, just by different means. Also, you do not 'prove' a hypothesis - you support it; it is impossible to prove a hypothesis.

What I think is the reason behind people not believing in evolution is the word 'theory'. The scientist's definition of the word 'theory', and the layperson's definition of the word 'theory' are very different. We use 'theory' in everyday life to mean something we admit we have no evidence for, but that's what we think happens...but in science, it's quite the opposite. A scientific theory will have plenty of evidence to back it up. Ever heard the Creationist argument 'Evolution is only a theory'? That is what I'm getting at.

Apparently, there is so much evidence for Evolution that it outweighs any other scientific theory to date, and it should really be called the 'Law of Evolution'. That would solve this little problem with the word 'theory'.

Evolution has long been proven. Micro evolution has been proven, and macroevolution is proven possible. To refuse to accept it means you are not a rational person. You are a person based of off a fantasy world.

Also law =/= theory. Law is a statement, for example, animals adapt to their environment; theory is a way of explain why, for example animals adapt to their environment because the weaker ones die. See the Laws of evolution:

http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/evolution.html

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

There is almost no area where the Abrahamic tradition makes a falsifiable claim about the nature of the universe, which isn't directly contradicted by modern science. Germ theory, astrophysics, and geology all differ sharply with holy books of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Evolution is no more scientifically controversial than any of these other topics. However, none of these areas of science are under constant attack by the religious community, the way that evolutionary biology is.

Why?

They look at the upper echelons of society and say "That's what I'm going to evolve into? Fuck that!"

 

[Skeleon]

Religion and science can co-exist (at least I think they can), and I don't understand why religious groups feel so threatened by things like evolution. The whole "God created the Earth in 7 days thing" was written thousands of years ago by PEOPLE who had absoloutely no concept of science as we know it today. Seriously, you gotta take that bible with a grain of salt now and then.

Which is why the greatest clash science has is with literalists, like Creationists.

 

[Alexnader]

Well I'm an atheist, but what gets me is why religion and evolution have to be mutual exclusive.
Anyone with any sense would realize that your scriptures are about 2000 years out of date (bear with me on this before you flame me), however that fact doesn't negate your faith. (see I told you to bear with me here) Maybe this "God" or whatever is responsible for evolution? Did anyone ever think of that?

See my earlier post (One up above yours) for one reason why some organised religions would still disapprove of god being responsible for evolution.
Evolution opens up a whole new can of worms. Where does the soul come in with evolution? Could we have evolved a soul? If yes then could other animals evolve souls, or worse have already done so?
Or did god reach down and zap us with one while we had only just stopped mucking about in trees?
All of those questions seem fairly ridiculous, that's because it'd simply be religion "giving in" and saying that their account of events on such an important issue as the origin of humanity,is wrong.

Also sadly a few extreme religious people view anything that runs different to their holy books as threatening. (Same goes for staunch atheists) [even though according to Richard Dawkins they should be governed by reason, they can still easily be governed by passions]

Oh the reason why religions aren't hung up on the germ theory stuff is that it really doesn't matter. The origin of all life on earth however, does.

 

[CuddlyCombine]

There is almost no area where the Abrahamic tradition makes a falsifiable claim about the nature of the universe, which isn't directly contradicted by modern science. Germ theory, astrophysics, and geology all differ sharply with holy books of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Evolution is no more scientifically controversial than any of these other topics. However, none of these areas of science are under constant attack by the religious community, the way that evolutionary biology is.

Why?

Take a look at the fields you mention. They're involved in our every-day life, while evolution has only been suggested from studying man's past. For example, you can get concrete proof to support a geological theory when a volcano erupts. When a bacteria mutates, you can't say, "Ha! Evolution!"

Also, I think people have a natural ego problem with the thought of being related to feces-slinging baboons...

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Well, beacuse we have faith my son, faith.

I need it, faith and hope are the only things keeping me from killing everyone I know because if I didn't believe in Jesus everyone would have to die, automatically, on the spot.

Now i dont really belive in the Evolutionary theory, or the the other creation/how we were made theories (because mine is right, what the fuck do muslims have, some old book? I call bull), and mainly Evolution is attacked because it pretty much destroys whatever faith/ideas the religioous(lol, I refuse to fix he spelling on that) communities have. If Evolution is ever 100% solved, then it would be a giant blowjob to the religooses of the world. It wouldnt disprove God, but would make it highley unlikley. Good thing it's only 90% proven. Otherwise god would become an improbability, and I don't think I could handle that! Also, I eat my poo own sometimes and I breathe butts, hence the name my parents gave me, buttimer J breathelton the great. (My friends just call me butt breather)

Alos(wut), this could turn bad.

How so good chum?

Sorry, couldn't resist, kinda drunk and felt like acting like a dick for the sake of comedy.

OT: Some people just can't help it. Religion has been hammered in so early on that it becomes pretty much second nature to them. They refuse to question it, no matter how absurd it may be or how much evidence contradicts it. Also, a lot of creationists don't even understand how evolution works.

ON WITH THE FLAME WAR! *Lights fire, swigs beer, pisses everywhere in a very indiscriminate manner*

 

[Alexnader]

There is almost no area where the Abrahamic tradition makes a falsifiable claim about the nature of the universe, which isn't directly contradicted by modern science. Germ theory, astrophysics, and geology all differ sharply with holy books of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Evolution is no more scientifically controversial than any of these other topics. However, none of these areas of science are under constant attack by the religious community, the way that evolutionary biology is.

Why?

Take a look at the fields you mention. They're involved in our every-day life, while evolution has only been suggested from studying man's past. For example, you can get concrete proof to support a geological theory when a volcano erupts. When a bacteria mutates, you can't say, "Ha! Evolution!"

Also, I think people have a natural ego problem with the thought of being related to feces-slinging baboons...

I don't see why you can't... viruses and bacteria are prime examples of evolution or at least adaption. Bloody drug resistant little buggers...
Anyway it gets much worse than Baboons... thanks to the whole common ancestor thing you'd be surprised what we're closely related too.

 

[Dragon_of_red]

Well, beacuse we have faith my son, faith.

I need it, faith and hope are the only things keeping me from killing everyone I know because if I didn't believe in Jesus everyone would have to die, automatically, on the spot.

Now i dont really belive in the Evolutionary theory, or the the other creation/how we were made theories (because mine is right, what the fuck do muslims have, some old book? I call bull), and mainly Evolution is attacked because it pretty much destroys whatever faith/ideas the religioous(lol, I refuse to fix he spelling on that) communities have. If Evolution is ever 100% solved, then it would be a giant blowjob to the religooses of the world. It wouldnt disprove God, but would make it highley unlikley. Good thing it's only 90% proven. Otherwise god would become an improbability, and I don't think I could handle that! Also, I eat my poo own sometimes and I breathe butts, hence the name my parents gave me, buttimer J breathelton the great. (My friends just call me butt breather)

Alos(wut), this could turn bad.

How so good chum?

Sorry, couldn't resist, kinda drunk and felt like acting like a dick for the sake of comedy.

OT: Some people just can't help it. Religion has been hammered in so early on that it becomes pretty much second nature to them. They refuse to question it, no matter how absurd it may be or how much evidence contradicts it. Also, a lot of creationists don't even understand how evolution works.

ON WITH THE FLAME WAR! *Lights fire, swigs beer, pisses everywhere in a very indiscriminate manner*

Yeah, you are quite the wanker.

But pretty much, i think that may be reportable.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

you know i thought about being an atheist once but i just couldn't manage to be enough of a smug prick.

You're doing a great job so far! Your mother an I are very proud of you.

Well, beacuse we have faith my son, faith.

I need it, faith and hope are the only things keeping me from killing everyone I know because if I didn't believe in Jesus everyone would have to die, automatically, on the spot.

Now i dont really belive in the Evolutionary theory, or the the other creation/how we were made theories (because mine is right, what the fuck do muslims have, some old book? I call bull), and mainly Evolution is attacked because it pretty much destroys whatever faith/ideas the religioous(lol, I refuse to fix he spelling on that) communities have. If Evolution is ever 100% solved, then it would be a giant blowjob to the religooses of the world. It wouldnt disprove God, but would make it highley unlikley. Good thing it's only 90% proven. Otherwise god would become an improbability, and I don't think I could handle that! Also, I eat my poo own sometimes and I breathe butts, hence the name my parents gave me, buttimer J breathelton the great. (My friends just call me butt breather)

Alos(wut), this could turn bad.

How so good chum?

Sorry, couldn't resist, kinda drunk and felt like acting like a dick for the sake of comedy.

OT: Some people just can't help it. Religion has been hammered in so early on that it becomes pretty much second nature to them. They refuse to question it, no matter how absurd it may be or how much evidence contradicts it. Also, a lot of creationists don't even understand how evolution works.

ON WITH THE FLAME WAR! *Lights fire, swigs beer, pisses everywhere in a very indiscriminate manner*

Yeah, you are quite the wanker.

But pretty much, i think that may be reportable.

I assure you fine sir/madam that I am not a wankist and that I will fill your shoes with my urine for such slander! Eh, I figure this thread is just going to turn into shit slinging insults I might as well feed it, for you see, I find this very amusing.

 

[Whitefeather]

Why does an atheist have less faith than a creationist? The truth is, they don't.

I'm sorry, what?

It takes the same amount of faith to believe there is or isn't a god.

I can see where you're going with this, but there is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god. Though the difference is suttle, it can be very important as people who fall under either category both call themselves atheists. Not believing there is a god takes, nay, demands, a lack of faith.

 

[FightThePower]

You're assuming that controlled experiments are the only 'truly-scientific' method of experimentation, and that's not true. Case studies, controlled experiments and systematic observation etc. are all part of the scientific method and all have their advantages and disadvantages. Granted, the lack of controlled experiments, as you correctly said, is a weakness of evolutionary biology, but the method is still scientific; hypotheses are still created from observational data, more data is collected that falisfies/supports this hypothesis, and the hypothesis is refined until a theory is developed. It's still the same process, just by different means. Also, you do not 'prove' a hypothesis - you support it; it is impossible to prove a hypothesis.

What I think is the reason behind people not believing in evolution is the word 'theory'. The scientist's definition of the word 'theory', and the layperson's definition of the word 'theory' are very different. We use 'theory' in everyday life to mean something we admit we have no evidence for, but that's what we think happens...but in science, it's quite the opposite. A scientific theory will have plenty of evidence to back it up. Ever heard the Creationist argument 'Evolution is only a theory'? That is what I'm getting at.

Apparently, there is so much evidence for Evolution that it outweighs any other scientific theory to date, and it should really be called the 'Law of Evolution'. That would solve this little problem with the word 'theory'.

Evolution has long been proven. Micro evolution has been proven, and macroevolution is proven possible. To refuse to accept it means you are not a rational person. You are a person based of off a fantasy world.

Also law =/= theory. Law is a statement, for example, animals adapt to their environment; theory is a way of explain why, for example animals adapt to their environment because the weaker ones die. See the Laws of evolution:

http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/evolution.html

No, a hypothesis cannot ever be proven. Reason why is because the scientific method is based on Inductive Reasoning, where you collect data from specific examples to make a general statement. You could only prove something if you have data for every single possible outcome, which is just not possible. Take the fact 'Water boils at 100 degress Celsius'. The only way to prove this fact would be to take samples of water at every conceviable point in the entire planet and see if it boils at that temperature. There may be an instance that water in some obscure place in Antartica boils at 78 degrees Celsius; of course that is extremely unlikely to happen because water boiling at 100 degrees Celsius has been replicated countless times, so it can be accepted as fact. Same with Evolution - there is so much evidence for it, you might as well accept it as fact (especially since if you don't, it leaves huge unexplanable gaps in other areas of science), but it is not proven.

Law =/= theory, yes. But I'm saying that some suggest evolution should be re-defined as a law, because a law is one step up from a theory. I was under the impression a law is a theory that has been replicated so many times, it might as well be a fact (same with the water boiling thing). Hence why it's Newton's laws of Physics, because it extremely unlikely I will drop something one day and it will magically fly upwards.

 

[Mad World]

Why does an atheist have less faith than a creationist? The truth is, they don't.

I'm sorry, what?

It takes the same amount of faith to believe there is or isn't a god.

I can see where you're going with this, but there is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god. Though the difference is suttle, it can be very important as people who fall under either category both call themselves atheists. Not believing there is a god takes, nay, demands, a lack of faith.

Beliefs held by many atheists require much faith.

For example, some some atheists believe that the universe could theoretically have always existed. Others have provided me with some very strange theories, such as the universe having utilized time travel in order to come into existence.

Now, in my opinion, only an omnipotent being could be capable of such things.

 

[Abengoshis]

You're assuming that controlled experiments are the only 'truly-scientific' method of experimentation, and that's not true. Case studies, controlled experiments and systematic observation etc. are all part of the scientific method and all have their advantages and disadvantages. Granted, the lack of controlled experiments, as you correctly said, is a weakness of evolutionary biology, but the method is still scientific; hypotheses are still created from observational data, more data is collected that falisfies/supports this hypothesis, and the hypothesis is refined until a theory is developed. It's still the same process, just by different means. Also, you do not 'prove' a hypothesis - you support it; it is impossible to prove a hypothesis.

What I think is the reason behind people not believing in evolution is the word 'theory'. The scientist's definition of the word 'theory', and the layperson's definition of the word 'theory' are very different. We use 'theory' in everyday life to mean something we admit we have no evidence for, but that's what we think happens...but in science, it's quite the opposite. A scientific theory will have plenty of evidence to back it up. Ever heard the Creationist argument 'Evolution is only a theory'? That is what I'm getting at.

Apparently, there is so much evidence for Evolution that it outweighs any other scientific theory to date, and it should really be called the 'Law of Evolution'. That would solve this little problem with the word 'theory'.

Evolution has long been proven. Micro evolution has been proven, and macroevolution is proven possible. To refuse to accept it means you are not a rational person. You are a person based of off a fantasy world.

Also law =/= theory. Law is a statement, for example, animals adapt to their environment; theory is a way of explain why, for example animals adapt to their environment because the weaker ones die. See the Laws of evolution:

http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/evolution.html

No, a hypothesis cannot ever be proven. Reason why is because the scientific method is based on Inductive Reasoning, where you collect data from specific examples to make a general statement. You could only prove something if you have data for every single possible outcome, which is just not possible. Take the fact 'Water boils at 100 degress Celsius'. The only way to prove this fact would be to take samples of water at every conceviable point in the entire planet and see if it boils at that temperature. There may be an instance that water in some obscure place in Antartica boils at 78 degrees Celsius; of course that is extremely unlikely to happen because water boiling at 100 degrees Celsius has been replicated countless times, so it can be accepted as fact. Same with Evolution - there is so much evidence for it, you might as well accept it as fact (especially since if you don't, it leaves huge unexplanable gaps in other areas of science), but it is not proven.

Law =/= theory, yes. But I'm saying that some suggest evolution should be re-defined as a law, because a law is one step up from a theory. I was under the impression a law is a theory that has been replicated so many times, it might as well be a fact (same with the water boiling thing). Hence why it's Newton's laws of Physics, because it extremely unlikely I will drop something one day and it will magically fly upwards.

The reason it is a THEORY is because it explains how a FACT happens. A THEORY in science is a model which makes prediction. The THEORY of Evolution explains the FACT of Evolution, and it just so happens that the THEORY has a whopping great mound of evidence supporting it. No one has ever come close to disproving Evolution, and I doubt they will.
For me, Evolution is just so obviously true that I can't understand how people don't believe it is.

Evolution is the change in genetic material of a certain population of organisms, or "group" if you will, from one generation to the next. These changes are generally very small changes, for example, a Polar Bear that has blacker skin and more surface area (than another in it's certain population) will be more adapted to it's environment and be able to survive and thus reproduce more often. The more these beneficial mutations occur and accumulate, the more complex the descendants of that creature will be.

Each change in a generation is eventually accumulated over generations and, over time, causes a substantial change in the population or animals. Science accepts the theory and fact of evolution, it is very well documented and extremely well evidenced. It is now an irrefutable theory, and by irrefutable I mean it has been proven to such an extent that anyone with a proper education in Biology (will not and) can not disprove it or have any alternative. Those who do challenge it are people who do it for either money, popularity, or through sheer ignorance and stupidity.



I expect the trolls to be attacking me on this one...

 

[JWAN]

Buddy, don't do topics like this. Some people don't believe the same things as you do, and that's fine.

^ This
I don't believe its exactly the way Darwin put it, as far as I'm concerned I don't think humans came from chimps, I think we could, possibly, be related but I don't think its as straight forward as some hard core Darwinian's believe it to be.

Its a matter of beliefs and ideals.

 

[Fingerprint]

Buddy, don't do topics like this. Some people don't believe the same things as you do, and that's fine.

Oh boy. These threads always go well.

- image snip -

Friendly Word of advice. Don't start religious or VS. Threads, they will only spark a flame war and get you precariously close to being banned, or getting someone else banned.

Look, out of all the topics that appear on the escapist these are the sort of questions that can actaully spark an intersting topic, much more so that questions such as what is your favourite in game waepon and so on and so forth. Of course you do need both sides of the arguement, if there is no-one on the escapist who has the view that evolution didn't happen then there would just be speculation etc., but considering the amount of people here I find that very unlikely and as for everyone else who does believe that evolution happens then it's up to us to be civil and act responsibly during a debate; an arguement doesn't have to resort to flames and insults just because views differ.

As for the question, I do believe that evolution happens (and actually I'm against religion in general, though that's an argument for another day) but at the same time I don't berate (sp?) others for having a different opinion to me. Of course there is the science backing the theory of evolution but what we as evolutionists seem to forget all too often is that there is faith behind not believing in evolution. Some people need/want to have faith and with that, as far a strict Christianity & Creationism goes, there is a need/want to believe that evolution didn't/doesn't happen.

 

[JWAN]

you know i thought about being an atheist once but i just couldn't manage to be enough of a smug prick.

^ and this

The people who harass Christians for their beliefs don't have the strength of their convictions to question other faiths like Islam.

I never really understood why. I guess its because they don't have to make race an issue when they harass other white people, or maybe its because they know that the Christians will just take it while some crazies will burn down foreign embassies just because they had 1 guy in their country make a cartoon.

 

[Abengoshis]

Why does an atheist have less faith than a creationist? The truth is, they don't.

I'm sorry, what?

It takes the same amount of faith to believe there is or isn't a god.

I can see where you're going with this, but there is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god. Though the difference is suttle, it can be very important as people who fall under either category both call themselves atheists. Not believing there is a god takes, nay, demands, a lack of faith.

Beliefs held by many atheists require much faith.

For example, some some atheists believe that the universe could have always existed. Others have provided me with some very strange theories, such as the universe utilizing time travel in order to come into existence.

Now, in my opinion, only an omnipotent being could be capable of such things.

Why couldn't the universe have always existed? We haven't ever seen matter or energy begin to exist, only transferred, so why should we believe there is a beginning to matter or energy in the first place?

Plus, those who believe in a deity may believe their particular deity always existed, so why not say the universe always existed?

There is no faith involved if you are an atheist. It is a rejection of the notion of the existence of any deity. Does it take faith to reject the claim that I have an invisible, intangible dragon in my garage? Does it take faith to reject the existence of unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster or other gods that you don't believe in? Does it take faith to reject the existence of a teapot orbiting the sun near the orbit of Jupiter?

No.