The misinterpretation of evolution

[weker]

Don't follow you, isn't Abiogenesis just the idea that when a combination of matter started rubbing together it created life's constant chemical cycle.

Yes. Although, I think the 'seeding from meteors' theory is more popular.

But this theory still doesn't exclude Abiogenesis as the reaction could have occurred elsewhere as I personally think Abiogenesis didn't happen on earth as I think a hotter location would have made the reaction more likely to occur.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Also, I have no issue with Creationists believing as they do, as long as they do not attempt to pass Creationism off as science. Once they accept that, I go back to not caring (though still finding their belief's rather absurd, but that is an entirely different discussion). Fortunately, the majority of them seem to realize that. The loud minority of them that attempt to place Creationism into science labs and public classrooms not religious studies, are the one's that I pick my battles with.

I can support this stance. I'm as against creationists shoving their viewpoints in our faces as much as you. I would like to point out, however, that while you said you weren't insulting creationists, you repeatedly inferred that they were dumb or inferior throughout your post. Just saying.

No, not them. Creationism as a "scientific" ideology is what I consider to be inferior in every way to Evolution. And being consistent in my logic of such, Creationists that repeatedly ignore the mountain of evidence of Evolutionary theory before them on a daily basis are willfully ignoring the potential intellect they have to understand the evidence before them. What good is faith or belief if those two never mature into more informed belief's and stances of faith based upon the evidence reality itself around us has presented us, and become stagnant due to fear of new information that may challenge previously held information (opposite the situation in which science itself openly accepts on a daily basis)?

Nothing. And, good, I thought you might. It's a reasonable stance.

 

[Halceon]

First of all, your run on sentences make an extremely incoherent argument. Second of all, you seem to have some of your facts bass-ackwards. You seem to believe that evolution was the lead idea the whole time, and that these filthy newcomers of Intelligetn Design are invading. It is actually quite the opposite. Evolution is an idea that is barely even a hundred years old, while Creationism has had free reign for thousands of years.

I think that it is fair to say that you seem to need to brush up on some things first before you go crying wolf on other people. Also, it is fair that if one idea is taught in the classroom, then another idea must be taught as well. People need to see all of the choices, and then decide for themselves what they want to believe is true. There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.

You know, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, the question of selective adaptation is not a matter of opinion. It either is testably true or testably false. Would you ask for the beliefs of flat-earth fanatics to be included in a geography book?

 

[AngloDoom]

"with no guiding hand" well you can class their environment, and organisms being a "guiding hand"

ID just says an Intelligent being created everything the way it is, in other words we were pre-programmed to evolve. "A monkey has too short arms to climb, so he grows longer arms and becomes dominant as a species." this statement suggest the monkey suddenly becomes Stretch Armstrong

ID again doesn't conflict with evolution itself, it is just theist or agnostic views on what cannot be explained, which is again the place where Im fine with these views being located.

The environment is not considered in evolution, though. A monkey in one environment will not mutate differently than a monkey in another: it's just that those mutations will thrive in different areas. You can say the environment 'guides' the evolution, but that's not really 'guiding', that's being shaped. It's like saying that if I cram my foot into a too small shoe it's being 'guided' into growing crippled bones.

I just see adding 'God' to the equation is unnecessary. It's like saying "when you cook a pastry at 200 degrees Celsius, the sugars will crystallise inside as the pastry hardens and it becomes sweeter" and then stepping in and saying "because God said it does". We've already figured out what's going on, adding another unprovable, unnecessary element to it is strange. Why stop there? Why not say Buddha tells God to evolve the creatures in certain ways, so he sends Hades off to splice some genes in the lab with Thor?

Yeah, but who is to say God isn't behind the genetic mutations? Personally, I don't believe that, but it can be said, albeit it's a pointless idea to push.

Abiogenesis is what Creationists should be going after, but even it has more evidence than Creationism.

I suppose what I wrote above applies to you too, although you already appear to be on the same wavelength as me.

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

Well, in my time (as in right fucking now and the past 10 years), evolution was such an obvious truth to me and everyone around me (including even the religious people) that it's credibility was never brought up. Not that I remember, anyway.
The basics of the theory (by now, it's probably safe to say that it is not a mere "theory", as it has been proven so thoroughly that it'd require something truly earth-shattering to change it's status) were taught in school, noone ever questioned them. Those who are interested in such things look into it further.

In short, the whole business of questioning how evolution works (or if it is an incorrect theory) is something... alien to me. Cultures are different, I guess.

Evolution will probably always be a theory, as it can not be 100% proven through hard evidence. It is hard to doubt the evidence that exists but the problems lie with the fact that although slow evolution is constant, which mean there are only a few living species today that can be actively used to study it. Additionally the core problem that stops evolution from becoming a theorum is the problem of missing links, there are thousands of them, and finding them all is almost impossible.

Which is a shame because it is (in my opinion) the best explanatory theory we have.

 

[Jake Martinez]

I am a Catholic, but I still know that evolution exists, and I agree that it is appalling that most people don't don't know about it. However, I do not think everyone should be forced to believe in evolution, if people don't want to, why make them? Intelligent design is still a possible theory, as is the theory of evolution, I think God guided evolution but, I'm not going to go around and try and make people teach this in schools everywhere.

As a Catholic you should know that the Church support Evolution. Unlike Fundementalist baptist and protestant sects in America, the Church support evolution as a scientifically sound theory about how life originated. In fact, the Church does not seek to explain how life was created. Science can do that. The Church instead exists to give guidance on why life exists.

Whenver I hear a Catholic questioning evolution I want to smack 'em upside the head. I had 12 years of Catholic Jesuit education and evolution was never presented to me as anything other than a valid scientific theory for the creation of life, with an enormous amount of scientific evidence backing it up.

 

[y1fella]

I will start off by saying I am no scientist. However, I have noticed that almost everywhere (including here on the Escapist) many people do not understand evolution. This not just simple missteps like accidentally involving use and disuse into your arguments, but major misinterpretations. But this is not the problem, simple misunderstanding and misinterpretations are not somehow horrible offenses. However this has lead to a problem.
These misinterpretations have now lead to a whole culture of people who not only refuse to believe in evolution, but also use their misinterpretations to fuel their arguments. An example of this run amok by ignorants is "Social Darwinism" (which is an extremely annoying name as Darwin had nothing to do with "social darwinism"), which was really just and excuse to "prove" racism. A modern example is half the population of the United States (or less since I have not checked recent polls). That's right, around 50% of the population of the United States does not believe in evolution, and that is sad. Especially since the scientific theory has undergone so much criticism and a constant wave of evidence, that it has become almost completely infallible. And yet people still live ignorant of it as they have been misinformed about evolution.
This all comes down to a single point. Why and how is this happening? Is it because our media seems to commonly ignore facts? Is it because people jump onto bandwagons just to get away from the "norm" of evolution? Is it because our public schools have failed to teach adequate science in the classroom? Is it because of the rise of Creationism and Intelligent design (which are the same exact thing) has been corrupting our science classes and media? I would just like to hear other people's opinions on this.

Edit: Someone has kindly pointed out to me that it is instead "social darwinism" instead of just "darwinism". Also, to add a tad more context. Darwin specifically stated that evolution should not be applied to humans in that sense.

I'd just like to say that your basic assumption, that anyone who knows the evidence has no option but to believe in evolution, is incorrect. I'm a 6 day creationist christian and I know just about as much about evolution as anyone who isn't themselves a palaeontologist or biologist.
I'd also like to ask why is it sad that people don't believe in evolution? as far as I'm aware by atheistic principles there's no real reason for you to... (I don't know any other word for it so I'm just going to say it) evangelize atheism.
Also I find your assumption that I'm a christian cause I'm an idiot more than just a little offensive. While you didn't say that explicitly I'm pretty certain I'm not the only one who got that impression.

 

[UnknownGunslinger]

A modern example is half the population of the United States (or less since I have not checked recent polls). That's right, around 50% of the population of the United States does not believe in evolution, and that is sad. Especially since the scientific theory has undergone so much criticism and a constant wave of evidence, that it has become almost completely infallible. And yet people still live ignorant of it as they have been misinformed about evolution.

It is sad, and the numbers are far worst:

According to this years Gallup Poll only 39% of Americans accept the theory of Evolution.
That means 6 out of 10 people reject the Evolution theory despite a century and a half of overwhelming evidences
Yet somehow even those 39% are extraordinary for America!
Back in the 50's Creationism was overwhelmingly winning against Evolution theory in Schools.
It took the launch of Sputnik in 1957 to scare the Eisenhower administration that the Soviets were more advanced than them.
It was thanks to the Sputnik crisis and the National Defense Education Act that poured billions of dollars into the U.S. education system, that Creationism was rejected from school curriculum and Evolution was even taught!

To paraphrase MovieBob: History. Is. WEIRD
It took the freaking Cold war for the U.S. government to intervene in schools and say:
"Hey, maybe we should try to teach those kids some science?"

I think the current problem in America, can accurately be depicted by the very terms used.
Like "Believing in Evolution". What the hell is that?
The poll I cited asked the question "do you believe in Evolution" to its participants!?

It's as if you have to choose to "believe" either in Creationism or Evolution.
The very phrase warrants you to choose between the two!
And that phrasing I think is what ticks off religious people.

Because if you believe in a religion that religion tells you to not believe in anything else, and if Evolution needs to be believed, then it must be against your religion, and there for untrue!

But it doesn't have to be, because Evolution is a fact based theory that doesn't necessitate believe in order to work!
I dont see why Evolution has to clash with your religios beliefs at all!
It's all rather silly. You cant change the world you live in just because you dont like the way it is, or it's not the way you thought it was!

 

[weker]

The environment is not considered in evolution, though. A monkey in one environment will not mutate differently than a monkey in another: it's just that those mutations will thrive in different areas. You can say the environment 'guides' the evolution, but that's not really 'guiding', that's being shaped. It's like saying that if I cram my foot into a too small shoe it's being 'guided' into growing crippled bones.

"A monkey in one environment will NOT mutate differently than a monkey in another"
Well firstly being in an area with more radiation would possibly make a monkey to mutate more, and thus increases the chance of genetic difference.

The guiding hand analysis is debatable mostly due to perspective, as with the shoe comment "if I cram my foot into a too small shoe it's being 'guided' into growing crippled bones" this is taking a negative stance (not the best example).

um I will try a more neutral example.
If I poured a gel like substance on a "perfectly flat" (near impossible to find one) It would pool out in a blob, however if I poured it into a shoe, it would be "guided" by the shoes shape.

While your analogy was fine it's just it was designed from a negative point of view.

 

[PSYCHOxDRAGON]

I have never seen an evolution thread on The Escapist.

I have seen 3 since Deus Ex: Human Revolution's release.

Coincidence..........?

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I think they should just show the theories and the evidence in the classroom then let people decide for themselves. Just as far as I know their is not much evidence for creationism...

 

[TheArtfulNudger]

The reason this is not done ever is because science does not have two sides, it has one side: the information. It does not give information and misinformation equal time. We don't give equal time in mathematics to Two plus Two equals Five. We don't give equal time in history class to Holocaust Denial. We don't give equal time in geography class to Flat Earth believers. And we don't give equal time in science to people who believe the Earth and it's inhabitants were created in a week by an invisible flying magician. In all these cases the misinformation completely fails all three tenents for being a scientific theory and as such are taught as science in the same way Ancient Greek mythology is (ie not at all. Ever). That's why,sir.

 

[Treblaine]

I will start off by saying I am no scientist. However, I have noticed that almost everywhere (including here on the Escapist) many people do not understand evolution. This not just simple missteps like accidentally involving use and disuse into your arguments,

What do you mean by that?

I thought it was quite well accepted that species which don't use a genetically determined feature tend to lose that feature over time. As with Vitamin C synthesis is the great apes and broad sense of smell in humans.

 

[weker]

I'd also like to ask why is it sad that people don't believe in evolution? as far as I'm aware by atheistic principles there's no real reason for you to... (I don't know any other word for it so I'm just going to say it) evangelize atheism.

"I'd also like to ask why is it sad that people don't believe in evolution?"
The reason why is because it is proven time after time that it is true, and the only reason why it is not is because a book says so, and as such can be interpreted as a denial of reality.

"evangelize atheism" Unsure what you mean care to elaborate?

 

[Cowabungaa]

Most annoying misinterpretation to me is that people keep forgetting the important distinction between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution.

It's not that hard people! Evolution has happened, that's a fact, the theory evolution tries to explain how it happened.

So, you can't really put Creationism at odds with Evolution. I think the problem is that people do put it as Evolution vs. Creationism.

Yes, you can. This isn't about faith or opinions, but cold hard facts. One answer, whatever it may be.

The Church instead exists to give guidance on why life exists.

I so love the silliness of that question.

 

[Salad Is Murder]

I think they should just show the theories and the evidence in the classroom then let people decide for themselves. Just as far as I know their is not much evidence for creationism...

Not "not much" NONE. There is NO evidence for creationism that can be held up for even the most basic scientific analysis. It doesn't even past muster as a hypothesis let alone graduate to theory, and it has no place being presented in a classroom as such.

 

[trollnystan]

SNIP

...or maybe we'll evolve out of it? =P Maybe God is sitting somewhere trawling through lines of code going 'I'm *sure* I debugged this bit...why is there *always* a semicolon still missing when you try and hit compile?!?!?'

=D

That made me laugh, thank you. +2 internets for you! =D

OP: I'm an evolutionist. Truth be told, the only time I met someone who didn't think evolution is true was when I was nine. It was at Catholic summer camp and there where two kids there that did not believe in dinosaurs or that the world is billions of years old. The rest of us kids tried to reason with them but they just wouldn't budge.

I have a friend who is a American and a Christian and she believes in evolution. Or as some have put it in this thread, Theist Evolution. She believes that God was what started the whole thing going. She also believes that the 6 days in the Bible are not to be taken literal - who knows how long a day is for God? She also believes that creationism and ID have NO place in a Science classroom.

I myself am Agnostic. Or maybe Jedi - I think that every living thing is connected by something we can't really explain. I am of course aware that I could be spectacularly wrong, which is why I term myself as Agnostic.

I don't claim to be any kind of expert on the Theory of Evolution. I don't even dabble in it; the closest I get is reading scientific articles now and again.[footnote]For example, I read a few months ago that the humans that left Africa successfully bred with Neanderthals, which means that Africans are the "pure" humans. I wish I could find a racist and throw that in their face.[/footnote] But it's what makes most sense to me personally, and it is backed up with scientific fact. So far I've never heard ID being used to claim that aliens guided our design, only God. Which means it belongs in Religion class.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

I am a Catholic, but I still know that evolution exists, and I agree that it is appalling that most people don't don't know about it. However, I do not think everyone should be forced to believe in evolution, if people don't want to, why make them? Intelligent design is still a possible theory, as is the theory of evolution, I think God guided evolution but, I'm not going to go around and try and make people teach this in schools everywhere.

As a Catholic you should know that the Church support Evolution. Unlike Fundementalist baptist and protestant sects in America, the Church support evolution as a scientifically sound theory about how life originated. In fact, the Church does not seek to explain how life was created. Science can do that. The Church instead exists to give guidance on why life exists.

Whenver I hear a Catholic questioning evolution I want to smack 'em upside the head. I had 12 years of Catholic Jesuit education and evolution was never presented to me as anything other than a valid scientific theory for the creation of life, with an enormous amount of scientific evidence backing it up.

You may want to rephrase that explanation, sir, lest you fall into the same trap. Evolution does nothing to explain how life was created, it only describes the process through which organisms and species adapt and mutate with their environments over a period of time. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is the theory that deals specifically with a non-deity driven method of how life was "created" on this planet, and potentially on other habitable planets not unlike our own.

Otherwise, I'm glad to hear the second paragraph. At least, as long as you realize that the "why" for life from the Catholic Church only really sounds any bit valid to those already of the faith. And, of course, assuming there is an objective "why" to life anywhere in the universe.. Personally, I find most of the value of my life simply in the beautiful fact that I am alive in this chaotic, yet "orderly" universe, against all odds of possibly not existing due to any number of biological or technological reasons. I get to witness the universe and the natural world until my biological materials return to both, and nourish the next life-form to benefit from that. Henceforth, my answer to "why".