Why do people reject evolution?

[Naeras]

1: Or the only thing that they want to disprove is the same thing that science cant prove unless you build earth 2,0 and have a few billion years.

2/3:Should have made myself clearer. First of all... you had a teacher letting you do that in high school? dammit I should beat up mine for holding me back from doing awesome shit.

Back to the point. The way you use that argument is like saying I have an effect and I like this cause so that's what is true. You might be right you might be wrong but not by facts. Hence the Santa-Clause analogy. I get presents. I like the stories of Santa giving presents ergo Santa gives me presents.
Bacteria becomes resistant it evolves. We have a theory called evolution. Ergo bacteria evolving equals evolution. It is not the science of the bacteria I was trying to disprove it was your use of basically guilty-by-association logic.

The bacteria argument is not an argument for the theory of evolution but for that particular type or types of bacteria's ability to adapt through (with a lack of a better word) generations. You can use that as a proof that species through generations can adapt. But you would never, not even among the most die hard fanatics, hear anyone argue against that. Hell, religious people have been doing selective breeding for thousands of years (yeah that was a joke on inbreeding)

Most religious people aren't against that they are against the "jumps" (I know they are not jumps just had a hard time describing the evolution from one species to the next over millions and billions of years) of evolution. And those are what science just cant prove.

The thing is that "adapting through generations" is evolution. Those "jumps" you describe are nothing but differences in genetical and epigenetical expression through mutation. On a genetical level, there's not necessarily any discernible difference between resistance to antibiotics and developing a new organ/limb*. If an organism is evolutionary advantageous, it will be more likely to pass on its genes, no matter if that means changing the chemical composition of your cell, accidentally expressing a light-sensitive protein that allows you to detect differences in light intensity(to see predators, for example), or chaning your fins so that they let you crawl a bit further up on land so that you can eat land plants instead of competing with other fishes for sea weed.

And let's be honest here; nobody is capable of even imagining how long a time a 1000 years is, let alone a couple of billions. You have plenty of chances of getting weird mutations that are beneficial to the survival of the organism, even though the vast majority of mutations either are silent or involve genetic defects and/or cancer. I honestly think arguing against it on that basis is kind of silly. It's not a completely invalid argument (for the sole reason that it's not outright wrong, unlike most of the arguments around), but it's still not a solid one, especially since pretty much all evidence and research favors evolution.

*this, incidentally, is also easy to prove in a laboratory. Messing with fruit fly genes to make them grow new organs is fairly easy. And you can laugh your mad scientist laugh when a fly grows a new eye structure on its legs(nonfunctional due to lack of nerves, but still an eye structure).

4: Glad you try. I hope more would do that. I am not an adversary of evolution but I cant stand it when intelligent people on both sides shoots down the other without actually try to understand their position. Not all who do not believe in evolution are an Amish-like fanatic. Sometimes they just do not have their facts straight and sometimes they do have a point but cant get their points across because they are dismissed as nut jobs.
Sorry I cant bring a scientist from the top of my head but I will send you a link when I find it.

Aight, give me a poke if you find something. I'll check it if I have the time (although I honestly don't really even have the time for writing this post right now, I have a physiology exam in two days, as well as genetics and biochemistry in two weeks x_x).

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Far as I'm concerned, beliefs don't need evidence. That's kind of what makes them beliefs.

which is fine..

but you can;t honestly expect anyone to accept "belifes" as just a vaild thing as science

This is a rather nonsensical statement because it depends on the grounds for validity. If you are judging the validity of a theory upon empirical observation then the scientific one will be valid. If divine revelation is considered the only ground for validity, then religious texts will be deemed valid. Validity and truth aren't pre-existing standards just given to us out of the void.

 

[Joccaren]

Back to the point. The way you use that argument is like saying I have an effect and I like this cause so that's what is true. You might be right you might be wrong but not by facts. Hence the Santa-Clause analogy. I get presents. I like the stories of Santa giving presents ergo Santa gives me presents.
Bacteria becomes resistant it evolves. We have a theory called evolution. Ergo bacteria evolving equals evolution. It is not the science of the bacteria I was trying to disprove it was your use of basically guilty-by-association logic.

This I'll disagree with. Whilst yes the theory of evolution existed beforehand, its due to things like this that we have the theory.
Rather than 'Bacteria change, evolution is a theory that says things change, therefore bacteria changing is evolution', its more along the lines of 'Bacteria change. Lets write some rules based on our observations of why they change, and call it the theory of evolution'. Of course not a perfect way of describing it, as it only refers to bacteria, but hey.
Actually, it would almost be more accurate to follow say 'Bacteria change in a way that is observed to match the predictions made by the theory of evolution, thus it is likely that bacteria changing is evolution'.

Using the Santa Clause analogy, its more akin to seeing presents under your tree, watching the tree the next year and seeing your parents deliver the presents. In this case you know that Santa hasn't delivered the presents because you saw your parents do it. Some people will tell you that just because your parents delivered them this year doesn't mean it wasn't Santa in the years past, but there is little to support this claim, and the simpler explanation is just that your parents have been doing it the whole time.
Or for the second description, seeing presents appear under your tree, and recognising it as the same thing that happened on Easter where you pretended to be asleep and saw your parents place a basket of eggs on your table and tell you it was the Easter Bunny. In this case its not directly related to Christmas, and sure Christmas could be different, though you'd have to wait until next year to test it. Thanks to what you've observed, however, it is more likely that your parents are pretending to be Santa as well.

 

[Spinozaad]

Because a lot of people don't give a rat's arse as to how the world was created. At the end of a hard day's work, when you're chilling with friends at the local pub, with your family at home, or alone with a good book or videogame, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether some invisible, unfalsifiable entity created the world; or a process of biological hit and miss.

 

[SinisterGehe]

1.Lack of education.
2.Ignorance
3.Lack of education
4.Fundamentalism
5.Lack of proper education
6.Teachers bias
7.Lack of understanding
8.People don't want to change their static views in order to relate them to reality (Aka, fundamentalism)

If we have Evolution is called a theory? Why isn't there a theory of creationism? Or theory of intelligent design? Why are these treated as facts instead of theories?

Also... If there is supernatural being, a god (any god), who's existence can not be proven via direct factual traces or effects and for the existence of the idea requires faith instead of a realistic fact - then it is religion. Faith doesn't belong to science and religion is not science.

But I think the fact is that if teacher doesn't believe in what he teaches then the pupils wont take it seriously. Science teachers should be people who have learned the facts and understand them. Not people who just read from a book to students. If the teacher doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand - how can the students?

Also - science is science. keep god out of it. Unless you can for a fact prove that a god is part of the universe - then it is no longer thing of faith or religion - it becomes fact and science...
... .... .... .......... Hmh...

Umm... Ok,let me try rephrase that-

If the existence of a god (supernatural being of any kind) requires faith - in order for the idea to exist and object to be realistic. It is religion and requires faith.
If it is a realistic FACT that a god (supernatural being of any kind) exists and requires no faith or religion to exist as an object. Then it is not religion, but a fact.
Religion is not fact, it is faith. If there is no faith in religion, it doesn't exist.

I think most people are afraid of loosing a god being from their lives. because if for example Christianity looses God from it's equation the whole thing falls apart - all the promises and ideals that is based on God loose their meaning.
I think this is what the common anti-evolutionist fears. That science can proof that god doesn't exist.

But that is my view of the subject. tbh. I do not care what you believe in, long as you do not use it as weapon to attack innocent minds or the facts/science. Study all the arguments draw a conclusion - and keep it as your own. But do not try mixing your faith to the general pool of facts/science.

 

[Quaxar]

The theory of evolution is actually one of the weaker theories out there, even if it's the most popular/probable explanation, it lacks a particular crucial element that makes most science far more solid- testability. Evolution is eventually testable, but not on our timescale. At best, we can observe some adaptation and extrapolate evolution from what evidence we have, but until we run proper tests with control groups and fixing various variables over millions of years, it's very difficult to actually test evolution properly.

Until it's tested and strongly demonstrated to be true not as a 'best fit' for the past, but as a predictor for the outcome of controlled tests, then you can say it's a stronger theory (but still not quite as strong as gravity or a lot of other physics that gives us very precise mathematical predictions for how the laws of physics work, and are far more extensively tested... biology on that scale is far more fuzzy a science).

I find the whole creationism/evolution debacle a bit hilarious and terrifying. As science goes, it's not the gold standard to which we hold up all science. It seems to be far more about atheists and theists having their particular point of view reinforced by the school system, which, obviously, most people are going to use. So, really, it is about indoctrinating other kids. Which, honestly, probably won't work, because at the end of the day, parents may be selective about which schools their kids go to, or simply offer their own spin on what their kids learned at school that day, and kids are far more likely to listen to that (and even then, they may just grow up and change their own damn mind, regardless of who taught them what).

We can <url=http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/psa.tchr.pdf>compare seperate genes and find that even old inactive ones are perfect matches. That is basically the equivalent of looking at ice cores and vulcanic rocks and concluding that there is such a thing as global warming or that the earth's magnetic field has reversed several times in the past and will most likely do so again.
We can take a whale, <url=http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/comparing_avian_human.html>a human and a bird and we find that they all possess more or less the same bones and organs but developed for different uses and we can conclude that either there is a common point from which those variations came or that a designer thought the blueprints were so good that it'd give whales <url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Whale_skeleton.png>carpal bones and radius-ulna in the fins as well.
And thirdly, what is a physicist's mathematic is in biology bacteria and fruitfly. Yes, we can't "show" the human evolution in a controlled environment but that's because we are about the worst species for that. Bacteria have reproduction rates that double population in hours of days, a single human generation lasts decades. We can demonstrate a heap of variations in proper species, we can inactive dinosaur genes in a chicken and give it a reptile tail.

We know perfectly well how and why evolution works, can make predictions based on the model and test them in lab conditions as demonstrated in billions of biochemical labs daily. Nobody stumbled upon a bacteria able to perfectly recreate human insulin, <url=http://www.littletree.com.au/dna.htm>we produced those ourselves.
Physicists can make predictions based on gravity and account for it in equations but <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem>not in all cases and certainly <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity>not on a quantum level. Hell, we don't even know <url=http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/graviton.html>how the gravitational force is transmitted.

 

[NoeL]

They reject it because they've been taught lies and that they'll burn in Hell forever if they question it. They're no dumber than anyone else (well, maybe a little), just abused with nonsense.

 

[Therarchos]

-stuff-

-stuff-

I know the scientific theory but more often than not scientists will try to force the conclusion to suit their theory. This happens because of A money and B pride. I am not saying that there are no good scientists out there but there is an inherent flaw in our motives for science that forces us to consider the results. That being said my original point wasn't to discredit science but to try and show people the other view because right now all parts of the discussion are not even trying to see the view from the other side.

i didn't get the impression you tried to discredit science, i just thought it would be good idea to point out the difference between the behaviour you described and the desired behaviour.

i did try to see the other side of the argument, while i am an atheist myself one of my best friends is a christian who studies theology and we had many discussions about the subject, we came to the agreement that if there is a god then evolution is the tool "it" used to bring about the varied forms of life we can observe today.
we also came to the agreement that imposing human understanding of time on an omnipotent, omniescent being is just pure arrogance. ^^

personally, i think religion played a major role in our evolution as a society, while we can find simple ancestor-worship in other primates, dolphins and elephants, none of them developed such complex religions or societies.
in fact, the oldest stone buildings we could find as of today were, as far as we know, religios buildings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobleki_Tepe).
religion is kind of the mother milk to our society, it was the first try at politics, astronomy, architecture and so forth, but in the same way you don't give a 4 year old human milk, but instead you gradually accustom your child to more complex foodsources like vegetables and sometimes meat, we as a culture have to grow up and get accustomed to the more complex modern ways of describing and understanding the world around us.
this sometimes can be a painfull process, but, as any loving mother would tell you, you don't do this by forcing down something your childs throat but by peeking its curiosity.

Sounds like I agree with your christian friend, my plan with this is not to discredit science but to bring a larger perspective to both religion and science because I find that mostly both are lacking in understanding of the other

 

[Therarchos]

Snip

As I started by saying I actually don't give a crap if one or the other is right.I just dislike when what I assume is otherwise intelligent people makes themselves stupider by not even try to see the other point of view.

I understand the difference in the understanding of evolution but that is not the same as accepting it to be fact. There IS a huge gap between "evolution" in the frame of a species and the evolution between species in most peoples understanding. And it shouldn't be dismissed or ridiculed. Rather explain why you see it your way but as important listen to what they say (unless they try to argue the science by quoting someone who lived in an age that didn't have the science) hyou can't explain anything unless you now where the other part comes from.

(edit By the way not what I was searching for but way closer to my own understanding.

http://www.oocities.org/promo777/quotesof.htm

 

[Autumnflame]

because it is a theory and not a scientific fact or law.

i would make any stupid theory.

say all serial killers have midiclorins from star wars caused them to kill.
hasnt been proven to be true or false.

but lets pretend that its true.

argument in a nut shell

 

[Therarchos]

Back to the point. The way you use that argument is like saying I have an effect and I like this cause so that's what is true. You might be right you might be wrong but not by facts. Hence the Santa-Clause analogy. I get presents. I like the stories of Santa giving presents ergo Santa gives me presents.
Bacteria becomes resistant it evolves. We have a theory called evolution. Ergo bacteria evolving equals evolution. It is not the science of the bacteria I was trying to disprove it was your use of basically guilty-by-association logic.

This I'll disagree with. Whilst yes the theory of evolution existed beforehand, its due to things like this that we have the theory.
Rather than 'Bacteria change, evolution is a theory that says things change, therefore bacteria changing is evolution', its more along the lines of 'Bacteria change. Lets write some rules based on our observations of why they change, and call it the theory of evolution'. Of course not a perfect way of describing it, as it only refers to bacteria, but hey.
Actually, it would almost be more accurate to follow say 'Bacteria change in a way that is observed to match the predictions made by the theory of evolution, thus it is likely that bacteria changing is evolution'.

Using the Santa Clause analogy, its more akin to seeing presents under your tree, watching the tree the next year and seeing your parents deliver the presents. In this case you know that Santa hasn't delivered the presents because you saw your parents do it. Some people will tell you that just because your parents delivered them this year doesn't mean it wasn't Santa in the years past, but there is little to support this claim, and the simpler explanation is just that your parents have been doing it the whole time.
Or for the second description, seeing presents appear under your tree, and recognising it as the same thing that happened on Easter where you pretended to be asleep and saw your parents place a basket of eggs on your table and tell you it was the Easter Bunny. In this case its not directly related to Christmas, and sure Christmas could be different, though you'd have to wait until next year to test it. Thanks to what you've observed, however, it is more likely that your parents are pretending to be Santa as well.

But your view is affected by the result you expect.
It is easier to find arguments for a result you want than find them against.
I do not think evolution is necessarily wrong but I'll be damned if I just accept it and ignore that for an instance the theory of evolution didn't get accepted when it did because a bunch of scientist wanted to get God out of the equation! the same bunch who apparently has convinced most of western society that the catholic church believed that the world was flat. When their argument why Columbus shouldn't have money for his trip was that the world was to wide to come across.

My point is be critical. Most of all to your own beliefs.

 

[Barciad]

For exactly the same reason that they thought the sun went around the earth, that the king was God's representative on earth, that Jews ran a secret cabal that ruled the world, and black people were inferior to white people. You tell someone some nonsense constantly and a young enough age and they will believe it. No matter how ridiculous it might seem to an educated outsider.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

Snip

I'm actually pretty sure they found the missing link years and years ago.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

because it is a theory and not a scientific fact or law.

i would make any stupid theory.

say all serial killers have midiclorins from star wars caused them to kill.
hasnt been proven to be true or false.

but lets pretend that its true.

argument in a nut shell

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

So, no, it's nothing like that.

 

[Starik20X6]

Fear. Some people just can't handle the idea that they're not a special little flower being watched over by an omnipotent daddy figure. To quote the great Carl Sagan:

"Man, in his arrogance, thinks himself a great work. Worthy of the interposition of a deity... If it takes a little myth or ritual to get us through a night that seems endless, who among us cannot sympathise, and understand? We long to be here for a purpose, although despite much self deception, none is evident... But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far, to embrace the hard truth, than a reassuring fable."​

I can of course only speak for myself, but I have to agree with Mr. Sagan. The idea that I'm not special, that my very existence and everything it is but a fleeting, barely noticed blip on the cosmic scale, does not worry me. Though, I can sympathise that the knowledge may be too much for some, I must ask that those who do find it distressing not hold us back. We must overcome fear, and embrace the truth, for the betterment of all mankind.

 

[Sunrider]

because it is a theory and not a scientific fact or law.

i would make any stupid theory.

say all serial killers have midiclorins from star wars caused them to kill.
hasnt been proven to be true or false.

but lets pretend that its true.

argument in a nut shell

May I recommend something that should be required reading for anyone and everyone discussing topics like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

My ancestors weren't monkeys ok, is that what you want to teach your kids? Bring your child to the zoo and bring them to the chimps and points to them then say' Look its your gradparents wave hello and give them a kiss."? No! That is not right we come from the bible like God says Adam and Eve not Davey and Steve and there was a snake.
So I say to you look in your heart and see that God made you and he made you very special and you are not made from monkeys.

I guess there's a good reason you're suspended. And after pausing to check that reason out, I confirmed that this is true.

And on that note:

 

[Vault101]

Snip

As I started by saying I actually don't give a crap if one or the other is right.I just dislike when what I assume is otherwise intelligent people makes themselves stupider by not even try to see the other point of view.

WHAT other veiw? god created the earth? Zeus? Pluto? Orion? the earth is on the back of a great sea turtle heald up by elephants?

the other point of veiw does NT actually clash with evolution because it is subject to interpretation...god could be behined it all you can't disporve/prove that

because it is a theory and not a scientific fact or law.

i would make any stupid theory.

say all serial killers have midiclorins from star wars caused them to kill.
hasnt been proven to be true or false.

but lets pretend that its true.

argument in a nut shell

see this^ this right here...this is what pisses me off, you obviously don't know the term "theory" in scientific context

why do people act like gods/spirits are somhow a [b/]perfectly reasonable[/b] explanation for anything in place of actual science? it does my head in

 

[Heronblade]

because it is a theory and not a scientific fact or law.

i would make any stupid theory.

say all serial killers have midiclorins from star wars caused them to kill.
hasnt been proven to be true or false.

but lets pretend that its true.

argument in a nut shell

Look up the definition of a scientific theory please, that is NOT what it means. Your midichlorian example would be an unsupported hypothesis, and is not nearly factual enough to be considered in the same league as a proper theory.

 

[Quaxar]

because it is a theory and not a scientific fact or law.

i would make any stupid theory.

say all serial killers have midiclorins from star wars caused them to kill.
hasnt been proven to be true or false.

but lets pretend that its true.

argument in a nut shell

Not sure if serious or sarcasm. To be safe, I laughed and facepalmed.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

As far as I can tell, it's just being told that "all-powerful entity did it" while you were growing up. The people who rail against evolution don't really understand the theory beyond "all-powerful entity didn't do it, therefore it must be wrong because all-powerful entity did it because my holy book says so". I want to talk to these people, get them to understand, but they'd probably just try to excorsise the demon of science from me.