When a friend tells you he "does not agree" with the concept of evolution

[USSR]

snip

snip

Changed my post.
Wrote it in rage.
Poor choice of words.

My point being, I don't care if there is little to no opposing evidence against evolution.
It doesn't have anything to do with his intelligence.
It is not fact.
It is strongly supported theory with a lot of supporting evidence. A lot being an understatement, as you said 2 million documents now?
Yet, if he chooses not to believe in evolution, that doesn't make him any less intelligent.

If you two so think that not believing in evolution makes him "less intelligent," then that is demeaning one's beliefs.

 

[Cowabungaa]

science has completely shut the door on the possibility of anything unverifiable. Since it's unverifiable it would be pointless to actually look into it, so there's no fault there. Science shouldn't be concerning itself with anything that can't be studied, but completely declaring that it is impossible for anything to exist outside of what we can see is a little extreme, possibly a little arrogant.

This is not true. Science just cannot work with something like that and just ignores it. It doesn't declare it impossible, it's just completely useless. To use an age-old argument; you can't also disprove that an invisible pink teapot is orbiting Saturn. Science simply cannot do anything with that. How could it? For that it needs faith, and faith goes completely against the scientific method.

I do know what the actual meaning of the word "theory" means, I wasn't referring to the lack of 100% conclusive evidence proving everything along from point A to point B. And yes evolution does explain a lot, it is a good theory in the truest sense of the term. There are just some issues that need to be cleaned up.

In the "how" part, of course, the modern theory of evolution isn't really all that old. Hell, even the fact of evolution; new side-branches and 'missing links' keeps getting discovered. We've only got a rough picture afterall, but clear enough to show that life evolves. Also, the 'driving force' you're talking about is no trivial matter, it's the crux of explaining how evolution works. You just say "it's magic."

I'm not throwing the "how" out when I have faith. I'm fascinated by new discoveries and progress. I have no desire to slow down progress. I just look at the same findings you do and see a different...driving force I suppose. I look at the diversity and wonder how we could have gotten to where we are purely by chance. How so many beneficial mutations were needed to get us and all the other species on the planet to where we are today. I choose to believe that this happened through design.

Again: it is. not. chance. This is cannot be stressed enough. Natural selection is not chance. Bio-chemistry is not chance. You're also looking at this from the completely wrong angle, as if life was supposed to end up like it is right now. The absolute opposite is true.

Honestly, I've lost count on how many times I had this argument. Usually I just point towards this database [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB] that's full of claims made over and over and over again, from basic scientific method to your argument that blood clotting is irreducibly complex. Fun fact: it isn't. [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_2.html] I could dig up more info if you'd like, I've done a year of Bio-Informatics, and a friend of mine who's still in it knows plenty about the coagulation cascade. Hell, he just told me it's one of the coolest examples of step-by-step evolution. I wonder what he'll come up with.

And that database only contains short summaries, you could find wealths of information on just one of those little summaries all boiling down to one thing; you ain't well-informed at all. No biggy though, not many people are. Sadly lots of them don't seem to realise that.

And once again, you are slowing down progress if you just want to say "Well, magic did it." Because that's not getting anyone anywhere.

Last edit: seems that he linked me the same article I already linked you. It's a good one, that's for sure.

Of course it's important to inform yourself, and I have informed myself. Admittedly this is the first time I've looked into any of this in several years, so there's likely new things I'm not entirely aware of, but I do know what evolution is. I am aware of the theory. I choose to believe that evolution was guided. I choose to have faith in something that I cannot see or prove.

Apparently you haven't done that enough so, or have done so poorly, seeing the lack of knowledge on certain topics and obvious misconceptions about others.

I don't see a problem with contrasting eternal happiness with real life.

Real life isn't happening at that moment, you're out of that. In that situation, your "you" transfers to a different plane of existence where there is only happiness. Without unhappiness, happiness is meaningless. Without the dark there is no light either.

It is not fact.

It is fact. The theory of evolution is not fact, that life evolved is. That's a very very important distinction and I wouldn't be surprised if it would be the most widespread misconception about evolution and evolutionary theory throughout opponents and proponents.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

snip

snip

Changed my post.
Wrote it in rage.
Poor choice of words.

My point being, I don't care if there is little to no opposing evidence against evolution.
It doesn't have anything to do with his intelligence.
It is not fact.
It is strongly supported theory with a lot of supporting evidence. A lot being an understatement, as you said 2 million documents now?
Yet, if he chooses not to believe in evolution, that doesn't make him any less intelligent.

If you two so think that not believing in evolution makes him "less intelligent," then that is demeaning one's beliefs.

I don't, I think it makes him ignorant and I don't hold the two as synonymous but judging from the initial post he seems to be wilfully ignorant of the subject.

That doesn't mean he's unintelligent, there are certainly some highly intelligent creationists out there. None with in depth biological knowledge but that's not a slight on their intelligence, I don't have in depth knowledge of crochet for example, that doesn't make me dumb.

However, if you make a claim to knowledge (so if I said crochet makes you get cancer, channelling the Daily Mail) with no support for it is stupid.
The OP's friend does not appear to have done that, though, most of my comments were aimed at others posting in the thread, particularly those saying evolution was wrong for X reason.

I have no issue with demeaning beliefs, I hold them as relatively unimportant. I actively dislike the veil of protection granted to things under the guise of religion or religious authority.
A belief is no more or less sound because it involves a religion or a deity. I hold their beliefs in no more esteem (from an initial PoV) than the beliefs of a madman claiming he can fly. If they have support or coherent arguments, by all means. But initially saying X without any justification isn't somehow super duper just because it involves the supernatural.

 

[Turing '88]

The problem with these arguments is they usually never get above scoffing each other.

Snip.

This.

Personally, I don't see how or why it matters. All the drama that comes from trying to determine where stuff came from just seems pointless.

What I will say is this: I find it funny that people who decry faith and champion science and evolution never realize that they are engaging in an act of faith themselves. In the big picture sense, Science is a religion too. Its core tenets ultimately being quantization of what can be experienced with the senses and proof or disproof based on empirical evidence and fact. It is held on assumption that what is experienced through the senses is reality. Last time I checked, reality was neither proven nor unproven. We cannot say for certain that we are not networked brains in jars just as we cannot say for certain that we are.

What I also find funny is that when told this, they react in much the same fashion as religious folks who are told that evolution is the only truth.

If religion provides the illusion of love and purpose, then I put forward that science provides the illusion of knowledge and control.

Please remember that next time you get sick and go to a hospital, or use your mobile phone, or your PC, or drive a car, or vaccinate your kids...etc To say science == religion is to say all those things aren't significant accomplishments.

Science has provided the world with a lot. Look at the results cutting edge science is always providing, then ask what has the religious method given the world? A few nice feelings and artistic works inspired by god, I'm sure that comforted people as they died in squalor before the scientific advancements we have today. Even the religious people who did advance science used the scientific method in the area they advanced.

 

[ryai458]

It is the THEORY of evolution not the LAW so until it is proven people have every right to be skeptical.

 

[Ketsuban]

My point being, I don't care if there is little to no opposing evidence against evolution.
It doesn't have anything to do with his intelligence.
It is not fact.

Evolution is a fact; it has been observed. The theory (the bit which is not fact, the bit which has a hundred and fifty years of accumulated evidence in its favour) is natural selection.

 

[Phototoxin]

Evolution - what made the matter to make the molecules to make the acids to make the RNA to make the ribosomes to make the amino acids to make the proteins to make the cells?

/not a creationists, or a theist but just askin...

 

[The Random One]

I would explain to him how the scientific method works and tell him that if he does not agree with the concept with evolution he's free to present an alternative, as long as he spends at least six months researching early data or a few years coming up with a new theory of his own, then submits it to peer review.

If this doesn't convince him I'd shrug and let it go. It doesn't matter what he believes in, as long as he isn't a college dean or a senator.

 

[Turing '88]

It is the THEORY of evolution not the LAW so until it is proven people have every right to be skeptical.

Oh. MY. GOD... Some advice, read a post or two from a thread BEFORE POSTING. This has been covered on every single page so far, go back and read what I and many others have been saying for the last 11 pages.

Theory does not mean what you think it does.

EDIT: don't want to double post.

Evolution - what made the matter to make the molecules to make the acids to make the RNA to make the ribosomes to make the amino acids to make the proteins to make the cells?

/not a creationists, or a theist but just askin...

This isn't anything to do with evolution. Evolution explains diversity of life on this planet, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Dash-X]

The problem with these arguments is they usually never get above scoffing each other.

Snip.

This.

Personally, I don't see how or why it matters. All the drama that comes from trying to determine where stuff came from just seems pointless.

What I will say is this: I find it funny that people who decry faith and champion science and evolution never realize that they are engaging in an act of faith themselves. In the big picture sense, Science is a religion too. Its core tenets ultimately being quantization of what can be experienced with the senses and proof or disproof based on empirical evidence and fact. It is held on assumption that what is experienced through the senses is reality. Last time I checked, reality was neither proven nor unproven. We cannot say for certain that we are not networked brains in jars just as we cannot say for certain that we are.

What I also find funny is that when told this, they react in much the same fashion as religious folks who are told that evolution is the only truth.

If religion provides the illusion of love and purpose, then I put forward that science provides the illusion of knowledge and control.

Please remember that next time you get sick and go to a hospital, or use your mobile phone, or your PC, or drive a car, or vaccinate your kids...etc To say science == religion is to say all those things aren't significant accomplishments.

Science has provided the world with a lot. Look at the results cutting edge science is always providing, then ask what has the religious method given the world? A few nice feelings and artistic works inspired by god, I'm sure that comforted people as they died in squalor before the scientific advancements we have today. Even the religious people who did advance science used the scientific method in the area they advanced.

Well, sorry to break it to you, but they aren't significant accomplishments. So people live a little longer and a little easier -- big deal. The quality of life for the average person is pretty much the same, we just found ways to draw it out over a longer period of time. The life of the average person is the same now that it has been for years. You're born, you're educated in one fashion or another, you do some kind of work (legit or not) to earn your bread, the powers that be screw you over, you birth another and see to its education as best you can before you die. The basic components are all the same. The tools changed, the times changed, but the functions remained the same. What I'd call a significant accomplishment is something that could change the cycle I just mentioned. But, seeing as to how neither science nor religion have accomplished this, they are equal.

Peace.

 

[USSR]

Evolution is a fact; it has been observed. The theory (the bit which is not fact, the bit which has a hundred and fifty years of accumulated evidence in its favour) is natural selection.

Evolution.
-Gene Flow
-Allelic Drift
-Mutation
-Natural Selection

It falls under the category.
If a part of the "fact" is unproven, then it is not fact.

 

[Reishadowen]

Okay, so he doesn't believe in evolution. What's the big deal?
Just because people have opinions different from yours doesn't make them wrong.
If that's what thinks, then that's what he thinks. So let him think it. Trying to force your beliefs onto others just makes you seem like a dick.

Okay, here is where I have the problem. We are not debating truth in an esoteric, touchy-feely, invisible man in the sky kind of way here; we are debating fact. What if someone told you that they didn't believe in gravity? Would you be okay with that, live and let live right? What if someone believed that it wasn't illegal or immoral to have sex with children, that's okay right? I wouldn't want to force my beliefs on anyone, no harm done, two ships passing in the night. What if someone believed that your stuff is not your stuff, it could be anyone's stuff and they're taking your stuff because they believe your stuff is now their stuff. It's cool, ya'll, SonofaJ is alright with that.

Now, what if these people were teaching your kids? Running your state government? Responsible for law enforcement? Are you still alright with that?

Not believing in evolution does not have the same possible consequences as not believing in gravity or what you can get arrested for. Don't believe in evolution? Nothing too substantial happens, maybe stir controversy. Don't believe in pedophilia? Get arrested. Don't believe in gravity? Fall to an injury or your death. I don't quite think this was a fair analogy.

When someone close to me tells me they don't believe in evolution I promptly smack them and say "No, that's wrong" I then point them to Wikipedia so they may be educated on what the public school system failed to do properly

...You're joking, right? You do realize Wikipedia can be edited by just about anyone with a computer and a connection to the internet? Heck, I remember one time the Oakland Raiders page for several days had them labeled as something like "professional butt pirates" or something, and all other kinds of insults all over their page and to the players and coaches. What makes Wikipedia that much more reliable than the school system?

 

[Turing '88]

The problem with these arguments is they usually never get above scoffing each other.

Snip.

This.

Personally, I don't see how or why it matters. All the drama that comes from trying to determine where stuff came from just seems pointless.

What I will say is this: I find it funny that people who decry faith and champion science and evolution never realize that they are engaging in an act of faith themselves. In the big picture sense, Science is a religion too. Its core tenets ultimately being quantization of what can be experienced with the senses and proof or disproof based on empirical evidence and fact. It is held on assumption that what is experienced through the senses is reality. Last time I checked, reality was neither proven nor unproven. We cannot say for certain that we are not networked brains in jars just as we cannot say for certain that we are.

What I also find funny is that when told this, they react in much the same fashion as religious folks who are told that evolution is the only truth.

If religion provides the illusion of love and purpose, then I put forward that science provides the illusion of knowledge and control.

Please remember that next time you get sick and go to a hospital, or use your mobile phone, or your PC, or drive a car, or vaccinate your kids...etc To say science == religion is to say all those things aren't significant accomplishments.

Science has provided the world with a lot. Look at the results cutting edge science is always providing, then ask what has the religious method given the world? A few nice feelings and artistic works inspired by god, I'm sure that comforted people as they died in squalor before the scientific advancements we have today. Even the religious people who did advance science used the scientific method in the area they advanced.

Well, sorry to break it to you, but they aren't significant accomplishments. So people live a little longer and a little easier -- big deal. The quality of life for the average person is pretty much the same, we just found ways to draw it out over a longer period of time. The life of the average person is the same now that it has been for years. You're born, you're educated in one fashion or another, you do some kind of work (legit or not) to earn your bread, the powers that be screw you over, you birth another, and see to its education as best you could before you die. The basic components are all the same. The tools changed, the times changed, but the functions remained the same. What I'd call a significant accomplishment is something that could change the cycle I just mentioned. But seeing as to how neither science nor religion have accomplished this they are equal.

Peace.

I am honestly gobsmacked. How can you call all we have accomplished as a species insignificant? We have dramatically increased the quality of life for people in first world countries, the fact that we can have enough free time to debate things like this is proof of that. If it wasn't for what basically amounts to science we would be born, work work work and then die. Quality of life for the average person in has improved dramatically, if you believe otherwise you are ignorant and wrong.

Back on health for a second, what about the fact that many women died in childbirth? or that many children died before their first birthday? Are you not glad for scientific advancement when it saves the life of a friend of family member?

Just medicine alone has saved hundreds of millions of lives. Hell it may one day save humanity as a species, look at the damage small pox was doing before a vaccine was made. One day a virus might wipe us all out, but if that time comes I'll be hoping science can deliver once again.

Saying science, i.e. humanity, has done nothing significant is pretty much objectively wrong. We, or rather the best amongst us, have made a massive difference, even if it's only to ourselves.

 

[gNetkamiko]

http://www.hulu.com/watch/181079/nova-becoming-human-first-steps

Part 1 of the NOVA special titled "Becoming Human". I'd recommend showing this to your friend. If he's still not convinced, then just leave it at that.

 

[DanDeFool]

Evolution works like that in what we have observed.

Or do you think that everything in evolution only happens because one person mutated blue eyes, and had a bunch of babies? Or do you think it happens gradually? So we'll have a nub within the next 1 million years that'll turn in to an arm?

Doesn't matter. We can't prove any of it.

My academic advisor has a similar problem with evolution. Evolutionary theories about speciation and how we went from basic chemistry to complex life aren't falsifiable, because the underlying mechanisms they represent are supposed to operate over time frames that are too long to conduct experiments over.

Even if we could design a million-year experiment to test evolutionary theories, there's no guarantee that there will be any humans around to see the experiment completed.

 

[Dan Steele]

If my friend didnt believe in evolution, I would quit being his friend. I have no need for stupid friends.

P.S dont reply because I dont want this to spur into a religious derbate

 

[frizzlebyte]

Things like that just baffle me. There is so much evidence out there, and for people to just pretend that it doesn't exist just makes no sense to me. It always reminds me of a bit that Louis Black said that I love:

Spoiler: This makes me so happy.

This...this was awesome. Thanks for making my day!


That's actually all I can manage to say, after having a huge reply at the ready for this thread.

 

[PureChaos]

"Certified genius" that chooses to ignore empirical data with a hand waved "we are not supposed to understand"?

Okay, there's x number of rational explanations:

A) Your friend is messing with you.
B) Your friend is misinformed/ignorant.
C) Your friend is an idiot.

My science gut is really pulling for C here, but the other two shouldn't be ruled out without further data into the system.

i'm leaning towards C, too, especially given that he didn't give his own opinion on how the human race got to where it is. seems as though he doesn't want to know how it happened so will disregard all theories/scientific fact

 

[GraveeKing]

-snip-

My good sir, I only asked for you to counter said arguments which I put up, I don't know a lot about the subject, but heck I wouldn't read into it if I don't believe it - I won't read the bible if I don't believe what is in it will I? I'm just stating my own conclusions of outlining facts around evolution. If you'd care to correct me, I'd much rather appreciate it than you calling me an idiot.
I DID say it was open for discussion. I did say I don't know much about the subject, so please if you're such a genius educate me and explain how my arguments are wrong. I'd love to hear it, I'm always open to new original ideas and theory's.

 

[Nazz3]

You should ask him how he thinks life started and how humans were created.

But when you think about evolution, like how could simple organisms evolve and create complex structures like the eye or the brains, I can understand why he wouldn't believe in it even though we have evidence on that matter.