Why do people reject evolution?

[Dags90]

Damn! This is some nasty thread right here. Theory of evolution works for now, with the evidence we have and under the conditions of living beings already kicking around. They're still trying to wrap their head around organic matter coming to the world via random fuck-ups of inorganic matter.

CAPTCHA: "zero tolerance" - Ahahahaha... if only you knew, captcha, if only you knew.

Eh, abiogenesis has several competing hypothesis about the order things came into being. It's not like evolution doesn't sit with current theories of abiogenesis (like RNA world and ribozymes). It obviously doesn't answer the question of how it started, because it's not intended to.

"Organic matter" is a pretty poorly defined term, but if we're to take the organic chemistry definition (CHON(PS)), it actually makes sense when it comes to orbitals and such. I think there are non-terrestrial moons with clouds made from simple organic compounds, and some organic compounds can be created as combustion products. Self replication is the real tricky part, I think lipid bilayer self assembly has already been shown experimentally.

 

[DolorousEdd]

Probably because they're markedly stupid conservative Americans...

 

[Quaxar]

Why can't people believe evolution is a scientific observation made into a theory and also believe what they find in their religious pursuits? If evolution says to you that the strong survive and that anything else is meaningless, then ask yourself "can I prove myself worthy? Can I go beyond what nature tells me to believe and make myself better?" Social Darwinism is kind of dumb and gives Evolution as a whole a bad name, and that's not what evolutionary theory is about.

Social Darwinism is condensed nonsense wrapped in a pseudo-evolutionary package. Unfortunately, because it has "Darwin" in the name it gets jumped by far too many anti-evolutionists.

The only problem really is people taking religious texts as infallible factual evidence, then using that bias to judge everything wrong that doesn't fit those believes. Which in turn leads to the actually dangerous stuff like young-earth creationists sitting in US science committees and state education boards trying to force their religion into science.

I am sorry, but your video does nothing to disprove my point. I am talking about a book about macro molecule chemistry; unfortunately it is written in german, therefore not easy to find digital quotes ("Das Molekül und das Leben" if you want to look it up). Its about several properties of amino acids and large hydrocarbons, which make it near impossible for most of the processes required in the process of the elongation of DNA (which has, afaik, still to be proven today, but please give me the information you have (!= YouTube videos), if I am wrong).

Yes it does you either didn't understand it or never watched it to the end. Kinda hard for me to debunk something I can't read, but I suspect it's just more creationist garbage I've seen debunked before, as if it wasn't it would probably be readily available in almost any language. It's not my responsibility to find your sources in a readable language. If I told you I had a source that proved God was actually an alien, but it was written in some Native American language so you'd just have to take my word for it would you?

I had a look at what I could find of that book and the few passages available trough Google books etc. weren't really showing any kind of biological understanding. I've translated a direct citation from the mentioned book quoted in another one <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.394799-Why-do-people-reject-evolution?page=13#16026509>on the last page if you're interested to read it yourself but it's a classic argument from irreducable complexity. And not even a good one at that, that exact "issue" was explained like 10 minutes in the very first genetics lecture I ever went to.

 

[DolorousEdd]

Just so you know in case you really don't, there is no alternative to evolution, no matter how more refined it may get, it is observable in small scale and there are more complete proofs, evolution is apparent in the whole history of species, and essential part of practical genetics...

 

[Asita]

Now, the Theory of Evolution. Let me say something thats been said before, but you dont get. ITS ONLY A THEORY. ITS NOT 100% TRUE. ITS NOT A LAW... Now that I got that out of the way, lets focus on why its a theory. A theory is a POSSIBLE explanation to a hypothesis, with evidence behind it, but it is not INFALLIBLE. Seriously, the theory of evolution could be 100% wrong, but you dont want to accept that. Yes, it has evidence, thats why personally, I keep my eye on it, and dont reject it. Now, you say we have observed Macro, but we havent observed HUMAN macro. That means its a theory, that means it can be rejected, that means it can be 100% wrong.

It is true that Evolution is just a theory, but so are many things we have come to accept in our daily lives. The theory of Gravity is still a theory after all. While most people's understanding of gravity revolves around Issac Newton's theory, we have proposed theories by Einstein, Galileo and others (Granted, the former two have theories that still use Issac Newton's suggestion that mass is the key factor). The problem is, its near impossible to prove either the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution. We do, however, have a huge amount of evidence that supports these theories. In fact, its gotten to the point where most people within the fields of Biology all accept evolution as a fact. Its a theory still, but its a theory that is all, but a law, but because it requires a gradual change that we as Humans will never experience again. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory, just read this man

...Let's not propogate the old misconception that a Theory somehow progresses into a Law, shall we? In Science, the term "Theory" does not hold the uncertainty of its colloquial useage. Indeed, in science there is no higher level of explanation, and the use of the term actually indicates that it reliably produces accurate predictions about the world around it. A "Law" is a separate category entirely, usually taking the form of a point observation about the occurance of a given phenomena. A Theory provides a working explanation for a given phenomena, often connecting multiple Laws together. To this end, we have both the Law of Gravity (To massively oversimply it: stuff falls) and the Theory of Gravity (which explains the Law of Gravity), existing in tandem with one another. Despite public perception to the contrary, a Theory never graduates to a Law, much like how an apple will never 'graduate' into an orange.

 

[Vinven]

Wow, there is a lot of use of caps in here. The main reason I would disagree with evolution being the cause of humans is because it might mean that god does not exist. If god does not exist, then the afterlife might not exist. If the afterlife does not exist, then pretty much everything is pointless and we might as well nuke ourselves off the planet.

 

[TheIronRuler]

Damn! This is some nasty thread right here. Theory of evolution works for now, with the evidence we have and under the conditions of living beings already kicking around. They're still trying to wrap their head around organic matter coming to the world via random fuck-ups of inorganic matter.

CAPTCHA: "zero tolerance" - Ahahahaha... if only you knew, captcha, if only you knew.

Eh, abiogenesis has several competing hypothesis about the order things came into being. It's not like evolution doesn't sit with current theories of abiogenesis (like RNA world and ribozymes). It obviously doesn't answer the question of how it started, because it's not intended to.

"Organic matter" is a pretty poorly defined term, but if we're to take the organic chemistry definition (CHON(PS)), it actually makes sense when it comes to orbitals and such. I think there are non-terrestrial moons with clouds made from simple organic compounds, and some organic compounds can be created as combustion products. Self replication is the real tricky part, I think lipid bilayer self assembly has already been shown experimentally.

.
I understand that Evolution doesn't deal with the creation of such basis it rests on, but the science behind that is still murky and under research.

 

[Kopikatsu]

If humanity was made in God's image, why would their be subgroups.

To quote an old Latino friend of mine...

When God was creating the humans to inhabit Earth, he took the first batch of humans and stuck them in his oven, but left them in too long and they got burnt. So he put the second batch of humans for less time, but they weren't cooked enough. Then with the third batch, they came out golden brown because they were cooked just right.

Something like that. On the other hand, his idea of a pickup line was "My Watch can see what panties a woman is wearing. Want me to try it on you?" Woman would always awkwardly say yes if only to humor him, "It says you're not wearing any." Woman would always protest and say that she is wearing panties, which prompted him to say..."Oh, my bad. It's fifteen minutes fast."; so he might not be the most reliable source of information.

 

[Roroshi14]

I am someone who accepts both evolution and creation. I dont see why God didnt start the wheels of life in motion then watched intervening when he saw fit. There are few things I believe and one of them is in God. So no matter what what that willo never change (no matter what argument is brought to me). I wouldnt be mean about it, but it would be like talkin to a wall. However everything else to me are many great ideas. Like how we came to be, since its not a belief of mine it can change. The evidence is to mounting to ignore evolution, as is the possibility that we all have been made purely by chance. Personally there is nothing wrong in my mind that God created everything and then let his creation go and live. If we have a saying "If it isnt broke, dont fix it." Im sure God thought of that longer than we have.

 

[AngloDoom]

Wow, there is a lot of use of caps in here. The main reason I would disagree with evolution being the cause of humans is because it might mean that god does not exist. If god does not exist, then the afterlife might not exist. If the afterlife does not exist, then pretty much everything is pointless and we might as well nuke ourselves off the planet.

Assuming you're not being satirical, why do you have to have a 'meaning'?

If you were exactly where you wanted to be, doing a job you loved, financially secure in your own home with someone you loved and who loved you, why would you want to nuke yourself off of the planet if you thought God didn't exist?

Hell, even if you got to the afterlife - what's your purpose then?

 

[Marcus McLean]

Essentially because of this

 

[MalkavianLunatic]

Just my own opinion here, but I've always thought of it this way: evolution has made things what they are today, but the fact that life even sprang up on this big, blue marble has me thinking that there has to be something nudging evolution along.

 

[wolfyrik]

There seems to be some confusion here. Evolution is a not a theory, it is a fact. There is no question of it's accuracy, there is no debate, there is no possibility of it being wrong. Evolutions is true, it is a fact of the physical world. It happened. Get over it.

Evolution by means of natural selection is the the theory.

Evolution exists, no matter how hard the godsquad wish upon their magical, blood-sacrifice demanding, baby killing, genocidal, slavery supporting, rape-encouraging, misogenist, wrathful, prideful, vicious, evil sky-man.

Evolution by means of natural selection is the theory and it may be some day be proven not to be accurate, but guess what? Even if that was the case tomorrow, it would still not be any kind of proof for the existence of a god.

Creationism would still have exactly zero supporting evidence.

 

[Roroshi14]

Just my own opinion here, but I've always thought of it this way: evolution has made things what they are today, but the fact that life even sprang up on this big, blue marble has me thinking that there has to be something nudging evolution along.

Thats a very good opinion, I like how its not mean to both religious peoples or non religious peoples. More should be like this.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Similarly, I believe your faith in evolution is merely an attempt to rationalise creation and therefore to excuse your lifestyle without judgement from a creator. However, I argue this case with shared logic and i would appreciate if you didn't pass me off as some uneducated stubborn fundamentalist nut. You have offended me sir.

First off before you accuse me of "Faith" or "not having done the research" im a biologist who is going to uni to study biomedical science. I spent a few weeks working in a genetics lab.

So youre assuming i believe in what i do because im a bad person and dont want to feel bad about being a bad person... erm no? You cant just think EVERYONE who is an atheist is totally immoral. Especially when proportionally fewer atheists go to jail than christians in America in proportion to their size as a group. For your information im very moral. And require no vengeful hand hanging over me to be so. Im surprised i saw "Atheists just fear judgement!" from someone as honest sounding as you. Im offended sir much like you were at such an obviously offensive fallacy.

Creationism is bad science. It has a major single source which is "infallible" which is a MAJOR no in science. You NEVER use only one source. You NEVER declare the source infallible as a given. No good theory is built using such crude assumptions.

It also works in the reverse order compared to how the scientific method should work. You have a conclusion from the infallible source. And then you seek to prove it with evidence. This is nonsense since whats the point of gathering evidence if the conclusion is already "infallible". Why research anything at all? Its right and confirming it is silly. The scientific method demands you draw NO conclusions until after you gather evidence. You then dont prove anything with evidence. You use the evidence to draw a conclusion. If that conclusion is then well evidenced and used in science (which it most certainly is) others may use more evidence to show that the conclusion MUST be false.

The argument of creationism IS an argument. However it has as much validity as ANY religions creation story and times. Its evidence is poor and a pathetic challenge to the theory of evolution. You incorrectly stated that people assume a creator didnt create anything as a starting point. This is nonsense. There is no starting point other than observation. There are no "givens". There is only gathering what is seen. If the scientists assumed god had no part is irrelevant. They gathered what they saw and drew a conclusion from said evidence. At now part did the "assumption" you accused them of come into play. The evidence showed X and they drew X as the conclusion.

Creationism isnt a valid or useful theory. It explains little and offers no understanding of the world around us. Its not worth the time to challenge since it brings nothing interesting to the table other than chipping away furiously at a much larger well established idea with small nit picks. If the formation of life is a 1000 piece puzzle evolution has filled about 800 pieces in establishing its most certainly the way life formed. By pointing out there are holes it doesnt change the fact the other 800 pieces all fit into place so far. This is why the "missing link" bull is totally absurd. You dont need to show every organism evolving every stage. Just quite a few. At a few stages. Even ONE fossil showing adaption totally throws creationism out of the window so we are basically done here. Unless the creation theory thinks that every single minor adaption is actually a separate species created by god, except 99.9999999% of them were killed in the flood leaving only the ones we have today?

Dont project or assume anything from someone youve never met. Thats arrogant to the extreme. Dont assume im immoral. Dont assume i defend and get angry at these pointless challenges because im insecure about my world view. Dont assume you know me that intimately sir because you definitely do not. It offends me because biology is my passion and my lifes work and i love it with every ounce of my being. If biology is a wonderfully stocked feast the the creation theory is a stumbling drunk who stumbles over to tell you his vomit is as valid as your lovingly cooked turkey as a creation. It offends me. Its poor science and i will grant respect to those who accept they are rejecting logic and understanding for faith and assumptions. Dont try and prop up irrational faith with science. Just accept its a totally faith based position thats against all evidence and be happy that you made that choice. I could flip it around and say youre insecure if you feel the need to justify creationism with science. It says in the bible after all, what more proof do we need? Why would any creation scientist want any proof at all since the one true source says so? Why do you want creationism to seem "logical" and "reasonable" when it doesnt need to be. All it needs is biblical verification.

 

[wolfyrik]

@biscuitTrouser Didn't want to quote, I'm sure it's obvious why. Nicely said, very thorough.

I'd add though, we don't even need the millions of fossils which have been found, to show that Evolution by natural selection holds true.

In Humans, the eyes, the appendix, the tailbone all point to the fact that Humans have evolved. If we were the result of a creator then that creator was an incompetent imbecile.

Vestigial organs and bone structures that are easily damaged and cause severe pain, can even cause death, and eyes which see the world upside down, with retinas that are on backwards.

If we were made in gods image, then god must have been a Jerry Lewis character.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

but the fact that life even sprang up on this big, blue marble has me thinking that there has to be something nudging evolution along.

There is it's called environmental pressure, it's how we make new antibiotics and create super bugs to test in labs.

I had a look at what I could find of that book and the few passages available trough Google books etc. weren't really showing any kind of biological understanding. I've translated a direct citation from the mentioned book quoted in another one <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.394799-Why-do-people-reject-evolution?page=13#16026509>on the last page if you're interested to read it yourself but it's a classic argument from irreducable complexity. And not even a good one at that, that exact "issue" was explained like 10 minutes in the very first genetics lecture I ever went to.

I figured as much. When your argument fails give them the same argument in a different language, and hope they don't bother to translate it. I'll take your word for it, I've seen enough of these crappy irreducible complexity arguments to get the jest.

Personally there is nothing wrong in my mind that God created everything and then let his creation go and live. If we have a saying "If it isnt broke, dont fix it." Im sure God thought of that longer than we have.

Because saying "God did it can't explain it" Isn't how science works, and if we all accepted this thinking we'd still be in the dark ages.

 

[Asita]

Wow, there is a lot of use of caps in here. The main reason I would disagree with evolution being the cause of humans is because it might mean that god does not exist. If god does not exist, then the afterlife might not exist. If the afterlife does not exist, then pretty much everything is pointless and we might as well nuke ourselves off the planet.

That's horrible logic, just so you know. One does not imply the other in any sense[footnote]Let's put it plainly: HOW does a model explaining how populations change over the course of generations have anything to do with the idea of the ultimate fate of consciousness after death? That's not even apples to oranges, that's apples to hummingbirds[/footnote], and indeed the position itself is fairly uncommon in theistic circles. Heck, most of creationism's press comes from Christian circles, and it's a minority position across that faith's denominations. Most faiths have little trouble reconciling their beliefs with scientific study, which - as Augustine of Hippo's writings show us - is hardly a new concept. To give you an idea of the folly of such a connection: four centuries ago, a heliocentric model of the solar system was considered incompatible with christianity, as it - apparently - directly contradicted passages of the Bible. Today, you'd be hard pressed to find a christian who insists on the geocentric model that the church of the time had insisted upon. Heck, most creationists I've pointed this out to have been outright offended at the implicit comparison, because as they saw it, heliocentrism is utterly irrelevant to matters of faith. Ironically, that's exactly my point. Religion doesn't deal with the physical universe, so the idea that a model describing that physical universe somehow cotrandicts a religion's spiritual model simply doesn't follow.

And ultimately, let's be honest - even ignoring all that - the logic you described ulitmately holds no weight unless we also espouse the idea that reality is determined by what we WANT to be true, which isn't the way things work. Reality exists independently of our desires and we do ourselves a disservice when we refuse to seek/accept answers because we don't like the implications we see as following from them.

 

[Vinven]

The simplest way I can think of it is having a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. If you are told that this is the last peanut butter and jelly sandwich you can ever have, you may try to enjoy it more. You may eat it slowly, savoring every bite. However no matter how much you try to make of it, knowing you can never have another one takes most of the enjoyment out of it.

Anyways, I guess as others mentioned evolution and soul don't have to be cancel each other out.

 

[minispike47]

Its a matter of faith. If a person believes that God made humans with a click of his fingers then thats what they believe. I don't think its everyone elses business what other people believe, ragardless of how implausable it may be. That being said, if I went round and said I believe my invisable cat created the universe with no scienctific backing everyone would think i'm a nutter. But if I said an invisiable force created the world and he was called God, no one would bat an eye-lid. Its stupid but people who believe in a higher power just have to say "I'm Christian" or "I'm a Muslim" and the whacky shit they come up with is forgotten and put down to faith.
This being said, each to their own. As long as the "believers" don't bother me then I won't bother them. Its kinda like that well known saying "I don't hate God....its just his fan-club I can't stand!"