Why do people believe in evolution?

[dlamberth]

Beware of using evolution as the litmus test for all of science belief.

Restoration as renewal from a previous condition.

Psalm 104:30
Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.

Outline of Biblical Usage [?] (From Strong's Hebrew dictionary)

1. to be new, renew, repair
   1. (Piel)
      1. to renew, make anew
         
         
      2. to repair
   2. (Hithpael) to renew oneself

Thanks. As I look around the earth, what does that look like? What would I see?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Thanks. As I look around the earth, what does that look like? What would I see?

You would see what the scripture suggests. A shattered earth's crust covered with a thin layer of life sustaining 'renewal'.

 

[dlamberth]

You would see what the scripture suggests. A shattered earth's crust covered with a thin layer of 'renewal'.

I apologize, that’s not telling me anything. What does a thin layer of renewal of the earths crust look like? Is it something a geologist might see?

 

[Speedwell]

You would see what the scripture suggests. A shattered earth's crust covered with a thin layer of life sustaining 'renewal'.

How would that differ from an Earth that had not been flooded and renewed?

 

[Astrophile]

I remember college biology of the 70's:ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

Your college biology appears to have been out of date. The biology books that I read when I first started taking an interest in science, in the late 1950s, already treated Haeckel's principle as rather doubtful.

Also, I own a book that was published in 1937, more than 30 years before your college biology, that says that 'in any rigid sense recapitulation of ancestral history is a sheer impossibility'. The author's view was that 'The structural stages through which an animal passes in its ontogeny ... are a valuable indication of the ancestral history', which is not the same thing as saying that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.'

 

[QvQ]

I have read a lot on the subject and while introductory material is crafted to sound plausible the details take you down a rabbit hole very quickly.

Flat earth was not religion, it was science. Mercury cures for social diseases was not religion, it was science.
Science has been wrong and wrong again. The most modern and scientific genius's of the 1350's believed miasma caused fevers, bleeding cured disease and the general cause of disease was bad air and smells.
What is always the same with the current learned men of every age is that people believe whatever the "science" of the day preaches. Everyone, EVERYONE believed the world was flat, scientific fact and that is why Evolutionist are not scientific. If we have learned anything of "science" it is that the world is a mystery we will never fully understand. Evolutionist have the fervor of ardent true believers in the absolute irrefutable truth of the their ontology, without question, without arguments. Not science at all because science is always skeptical and alternative, not absolutely convinced and certain of the having the Ultimate Truth.

 

[Speedwell]

Flat earth was not religion, it was science. Mercury cures for social diseases was not religion, it was science.
Science has been wrong and wrong again. The most modern and scientific genius's of the 1350's believed miasma caused fevers, bleeding cured disease and the general cause of disease was bad air and smells.
What is always the same with the current learned men of every age is that people believe whatever the "science" of the day preaches. Everyone, EVERYONE believed the world was flat, scientific fact and that is why Evolutionist are not scientific.

Scientists--if such early enquirers into nature can be called by such a name--have known the Earth is not flat since the 5th century BC.

Evolutionist have the fervor of ardent true believers in the absolute irrefutable truth of the their ontology, without question, without arguments. Not science at all because science is always skeptical and alternative, not absolutely convinced and certain of the having the Ultimate Truth.

Who re these "evolutionists" you are going on about? No scientists --and that includes evolutionary biologists--are "ardent true believers in the absolute irrefutable truth of the their ontology, without question, without arguments."

 

[SigurdReginson]

Flat earth was not religion, it was science

What?... No it wasn't! The flat earth movement is a modern anti-science movement originating with Samuel Rowbotham in the 1800s! It's a modern invention. It most certainly is not science, and has been rejected my scientists since it's inception. People have known the earth was round since 500 B.C. with Pythagoras.

Mercury cures for social diseases was not religion, it was science.

No it wasn't! What was scientific was that it's use STOPPED after testing showed that it had no effect, and was in fact harmful. That's the thing about science. It's about testing things and seeing if they work. If they don't, they are abandoned. That's the scientific process.

Science has been wrong and wrong again.

Very true. That's how we get closer to the truth. We try something, we find out we were wrong, and then we adjust. That's that nature of science, and that's why it's more accurate now than it was in the past.

The most modern and scientific genius's of the 1350's believed miasma caused fevers, bleeding cured disease and the general cause of disease was bad air and smells.

The father of modern science is Galileo. He lived in the 1550s. What you are talking about are humors, and that's pre-science superstition.

What is always the same with the current learned men of every age is that people believe whatever the "science" of the day preaches.

Preaches?...

People use the best knowledge they have at the time. That knowledge is partial, but it is better than the knowledge of the past. Knowledge is accumulative. We know more now about the nature of reality than we did 100 years ago, and much more than we did 1000 years ago.

Everyone, EVERYONE believed the world was flat, scientific fact and that is why Evolutionist are not scientific.

Not for 2500 years have they, unless you count anti-science flat earthers. Not sure what that has to do with evolution, though.

If we have learned anything of "science" it is that the world is a mystery we will never fully understand. Evolutionist have the fervor of ardent true believers in the absolute irrefutable truth of the their ontology, without question, without arguments. Not science at all because science is always skeptical and alternative, not absolutely convinced and certain of the having the Ultimate Truth.

I really, really suggest cracking open a history book covering the origins of science... There are a lot of things you posted that just don't match up with events that actually happened.

 

[QvQ]

What?... No it wasn't! The flat earth movement is a modern anti-science movement originating with Samuel Rowbotham in the 1800s! It's a modern invention. It most certainly is not science, and has been rejected my scientists since it's inception. People have known the earth was round since 500 B.C. with Pythagoras.



No it wasn't! What was scientific was that it's use STOPPED after testing showed that it had no effect, and was in fact harmful. That's the thing about science. It's about testing things and seeing if they work. If they don't, they are abandoned. That's the scientific process.



Very true. That's how we get closer to the truth. We try something, we find out we were wrong, and then we adjust. That's that nature of science, and that's why it's more accurate now than it was in the past.



The father of modern science is Galileo. He lived in the 1550s. What you are talking about are humors, and that's pre-science superstition.



Preaches?...

People use the best knowledge they have at the time. That knowledge is partial, but it is better than the knowledge of the past. Knowledge is accumulative. We know more now about the nature of reality than we did 100 years ago, and much more than we did 1000 years ago.



Not for 2500 years have they, unless you count anti-science flat earthers. Not sure what that has to do with evolution, though.



I really, really suggest cracking open a history book covering the origins of science... There are a lot of things you posted that just don't match up with events that actually happened.

From the 16th to the 19th century, mercury was used to "cure" syphilis. It caused the patient to salivate which expelled the disease.
Bleeding, purging, all of the "cures" were science. Not Religion.
Yes, some men did know the world was round however, it was common knowledge the world was flat.
Christianity has not changed in 2000 years.
Science has a new theory every 100 years
My point is.. the evolutionists, the common folks who believe "science" as gospel are as superstitious and ignorant as the flat earthers...and that is nothing to do with religion, with Christianity.
It is Science and Science.
Science has to be corrected constantly for errors.
I was taught that real science does not Know anything as absolute and irrefutable truth. Real science is an exploration, questioning skeptical and curious, a ongoing investigation without any final answers.
Gospel is Gospel, Science is an imprecise and usually incorrect understanding of nature.
Science, historically is usually wrong, almost always...

 

[Speedwell]

.
I was taught that real science does not Know anything as absolute and irrefutable truth. Real science is an exploration, questioning skeptical and curious, a ongoing investigation without any final answers.
.

That's the only correct thing you've said about science since you got here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From the 16th to the 19th century, mercury was used to "cure" syphilis. It caused the patient to salivate which expelled the disease.
Bleeding, purging, all of the "cures" were science. Not Religion.
Yes, some men did know the world was round however, it was common knowledge the world was flat.
Christianity has not changed in 2000 years.
Science has a new theory every 100 years
My point is.. the evolutionists, the common folks who believe "science" as gospel are as superstitious and ignorant as the flat earthers...and that is nothing to do with religion, with Christianity.
It is Science and Science.
Science has to be corrected constantly for errors.
I was taught that real science does not Know anything as absolute and irrefutable truth. Real science is an exploration, questioning skeptical and curious, a ongoing investigation without any final answers.
Gospel is Gospel, Science is an imprecise and usually incorrect understanding of nature.
Science, historically is usually wrong, almost always...

Science may look that way to the uneducated. I can see how it is hard to understand. But one thing that even amateurs can recognize that it produces results. Religion . . . not so much. Your participation in this forum is dependent upon the science that you do not understand and willingly make false claims about. This is obviously due to ignorance. The one thing nice about ignorance is that it can be cured by education. Sadly I have a feeling that you will not avail yourself of a readily obtained education.

 

[pitabread]

Scientists--if such early enquirers into nature can be called by such a name--have known the Earth is not flat since the 5th century BC. Who re these "evolutionists" you are going on about? No scientists --and that includes evolutionary biologists--are "ardent true believers in the absolute irrefutable truth of the their ontology, without question, without arguments."

Just seems to be another example of a creationist projecting how they adhere to an ardent dogma and therefore must assume everyone does as well.

IMHO, this is precisely where the disconnect lies. The mindset of creationists versus non creationists is fundamentally different.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I agree for the most part, though what does humanism have to do with anti-christians sentiments? I like humanism, but I'm not an anti-theist. I think humanism just has some good ideas on how to treat one's fellow man.

I think it might be more accurate to describe these folks as just anti-theists.

I disagree - my philosophy professor is a leading humanist in the UK and he and his colleagues spend a lot of time on ways to reconcile groups with different beliefs - he's even co-edited a book of essays on religion and atheism and how they can have productive dialogue.

 

[GooFYone]

More people believe in evolution as time goes by. Is it because they have studied it and understand it, or is it because so many others believe it so they might as well too?

I do not find anything wrong with Gods evolution.

 

[GooFYone]

The way I perceive it is, God created it all. So it surely must all be good for all creation.
What some call “science”, I call Gods creation.
Who takes credit for what they have received? The lost.
Truth will remain the truth. Liars will only seek to lie.

 

[SigurdReginson]

I disagree - my philosophy professor is a leading humanist in the UK and he and his colleagues spend a lot of time on ways to reconcile groups with different beliefs - he's even co-edited a book of essays on religion and atheism and how they can have productive dialogue.

I'm struggling to see where the disagreement lies. Maybe you could clarify that for me?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

[

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Scientific study done on a professional level is picked apart until the barest, most probable elements are left.

Those of us who reject evolution are accused of being "anti-science".

My own personal studies are done for the sake of my own curiosity, and I check with sources I've found to be most reliable (such as peer reviewed journals).

Same here, but I mostly rely on google.

My beliefs are subject to change when better evidence comes along. This includes evolution, or any other scientific subject.

Same here.

Can it not do both? I actually plan on studying nutrition to become a dietician, and that's the ultimate preventative medicine.
That certainly doesn't make reactive medicine, like surgery, any less important, though.

Absolutely. I am the beneficiary of those surgeries.

One of my favorite studies. I experiment on myself when I learn something new. Of course what we need to know is often hidden, so we have to read widely, and recognize valuable information when we see it. Sadly the healthcare profession is more interested in money than health.

Even then, our knowledge on nutrition changes. Remember the food pyramid? Turns out that was wrong; so we adapted to a better system when the old one turned out to be incorrect. That's science in action!

Wasn't the 'food pyramid' crafted by the USDA to promote agriculture rather than health?

Is that so? Would you like to present an example of that?

The truth of the matter is that for a theory to even become a theory, it needs sufficient evidence. It needs to pass peer review. Keep in mind, there is a lot of incentive for someone to disprove an established theory. Can you imagine what kind of rewards would be in store for a scientist who could find sufficient evidence to take down evolution?

The fact it hasn't happened yet goes to show just how strong of a foundation evolution has to work with. If someone took it down, it wouldn't be the first time someone disproved an established theory. Google aether theory, or phlogiston

I'm saying that all of the papers I have ever read are shot through (held together) with unproven assumptions that bridge gaps in actual knowledge.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm saying that all of the papers I have ever read are shot through (held together) by unproven assumptions that bridge gaps in actual knowledge.

I'm not familiar with scientific papers which do that. Do you have an example?

 

[driewerf]

More people believe in evolution as time goes by. Is it because they have studied it and understand it?

Yes