Why do people believe in evolution?

[Guy Threepwood]

The theory is extremely well based

Nobody here is arguing photosynthesis, because that is an extremely well based scientific observation.

Where is the repeatable experiment, observation, by which a single celled bacteria morphs into a human being through random errors in its genetic code? or anything else for that matter?

So far we have got as far as- more bacteria- that leaves quite a bit to the imagination.

 

[Astrid]

That all highlights the point about blind faith

If you do not recognize your belief as such, how would you ever progress past it, how would science ever progress with this rule?

In many cases, scientists themselves do not, Fred Hoyle went to his death bed refusing to acknowledge the evidence for the 'Big Bang' he had spent so long mocking as 'religious pseudoscience'

'science progresses one funeral at a time" Max Planck

This is just ridiculous.

 

[Astrophile]

And if you were born to atheist parents..

I was, and remained a staunch atheist till I became skeptical of it in my 40's.

I'm not comparing atheism to a religion, because ideally religion acknowledges personal faith, belief as such, which can be questioned (and it's not a new observation that teenagers like to question their parent's values!)

But how do you become skeptical of a belief that explicitly avoids acknowledging itself as such? I think that's an extra hurdle for atheists re. changing their world view.

Since you were born in 1972, you must have become sceptical of atheism in about 2012, less than ten years ago. By that time there were plenty of atheist and anti-Christian websites that could have confirmed your belief that there is no god, so it seems strange that you should have rejected the atheism that you had followed all your adult life.

Do you mind if I ask you a few questions about the time when you were an atheist? Presumably at that time you did not regard the Bible as the word of God. Did you think that the Bible, and particularly the Old Testament, was historically accurate? Did you think that the Bible could be a foundation for moral principles and a code of laws, or for the scientific investigation of the natural world? Did you regard Biblical prophecies as supernatural predictions? If the answer to these questions is 'No', have you now changed your mind, and, if so, on what evidence?

I look forward to receiving your reply.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not at all, as I said I was raised atheist, and like many people given a materialist education through school and college.

I'm not sure why your matriculation to business school is relevant.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Since you were born in 1972, you must have become sceptical of atheism in about 2012, less than ten years ago. By that time there were plenty of atheist and anti-Christian websites that could have confirmed your belief that there is no god, so it seems strange that you should have rejected the atheism that you had followed all your adult life.

Do you mind if I ask you a few questions about the time when you were an atheist? Presumably at that time you did not regard the Bible as the word of God. Did you think that the Bible, and particularly the Old Testament, was historically accurate? Did you think that the Bible could be a foundation for moral principles and a code of laws, or for the scientific investigation of the natural world? Did you regard Biblical prophecies as supernatural predictions? If the answer to these questions is 'No', have you now changed your mind, and, if so, on what evidence?

I look forward to receiving your reply.

That's about right, I am still a recovering atheist yes

And so I would not flatter myself as a Biblical scholar or even Christian- I am primarily skeptical of the atheism I was brought up with.

As I've touched on before, part of my skepticism grew out of many years of computer programming, my own understanding of information systems- what can and cannot be achieved through random error and selection processes.

Also I'd say moving from the city to natural surroundings, becoming a fairly avid amateur astronomer- with a little more time to delve deeper into natural sciences

As for the Bible, it is the most influential book of all time, shaping much of modern society as we know it. It seems unlikely to me that this was an unintended coincidence, i.e. I believe it is of divine inspiration yes.

 

[pitabread]

As for the Bible, it is the most influential book of all time, shaping much of modern society as we know it. It seems unlikely to me that this was an unintended coincidence, i.e. I believe it is of divine inspiration yes.

Or as an alternative, this could just be an example of survivorship bias.

Not to mention the spread of the Christian religion is largely a result of European colonialism. In studying the spreads of religions both geographically and historically, they seem little more than the result of cultural propagation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Or as an alternative, this could just be an example of survivorship bias.

Not to mention the spread of the Christian religion is largely a result of European colonialism. In studying the spreads of religions both geographically and historically, they seem little more than the result of cultural propagation.

It could.. and then again you could also credit the Bible and church with helping Europe establish that dominance, the church was the keeper of knowledge during the dark ages and propagated that learning.
Even just being able to read, write and copy the enormous text of the Bible kept those skills sharp!

 

[AV1611VET]

Or as an alternative, this could just be an example of survivorship bias.

Not to mention the spread of the Christian religion is largely a result of European colonialism. In studying the spreads of religions both geographically and historically, they seem little more than the result of cultural propagation.

Some believe, as do I, that the AV 1560 Geneva Bible was God's choice for the Pilgrims.

 

[pitabread]

It could.. and then again you could also credit the Bible and church with helping Europe establish that dominance, the church was the keeper of knowledge during the dark ages and propagated that learning.
Even just being able to read, write and copy the enormous text of the Bible kept those skills sharp!

Well sure, since the church has traditionally been part of the power structure in Western society. This further speaks to the cultural nature of religious beliefs.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well sure, since the church has traditionally been part of the power structure in Western society. This further speaks to the cultural nature of religious beliefs.

We can make a distinction between cultural and political though, the Bible helped foster a certain culture within personal faith that I think was beneficial to the whole.

It's a little ironic, many people of my age had very religious grandparents-, we are only a couple of generations away from what would be considered a devout religious upbringing today. And so it is easy to take some of the values instilled over generations- entirely for granted.- a bit like the grandson son of a billionaire saying 'you don't need to work for money, look at me, I do nothing and I'm rich!'

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well sure, since the church has traditionally been part of the power structure in Western society. This further speaks to the cultural nature of religious beliefs.

Contrary to that also, is America becoming the most wealthy and powerful country in the world, while having a notable separation of church and state

 

[pitabread]

We can make a distinction between cultural and political though, the Bible helped foster a certain culture within personal faith that I think was beneficial to the whole.

I'm lumping in politics with culture, since the former is influenced by latter (and vise-versa).

 

[pitabread]

Contrary to that also, is America becoming the most wealthy and powerful country in the world, while having a notable separation of church and state

You'd have to be ridiculously naive to think that religion doesn't play a role in American politics.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

As I've touched on before, part of my skepticism grew out of many years of computer programming, my own understanding of information systems- what can and cannot be achieved through random error and selection processes.

Well this is interesting. I have questions but I think I'd like you to explain the connection with computer programming the way you understand it first, if you don't mind.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You'd have to be ridiculously naive to think that religion doesn't play a role in American politics.

But explicitly separated from the power structure, as opposed to the status quo for much of history-
One rare area of common ground people on both sides of the argument often agree on

 

[pitabread]

But explicitly separated from the power structure, as opposed to the status quo for much of history-
One rare area of common ground people on both sides of the argument often agree on

It's separated legally, but that hasn't been followed in practice. This especially the case when considering some of the laws that have existed throughout America's history and other cultural manisfestations.

Even things like the Pledge of Allegiance or the fact the official motto of the U.S. is "In God We Trust" are examples of religious entwinement with American politics and cultural identity.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well this is interesting. I have questions but I think I'd like you to explain the connection with computer programming the way you understand it first, if you don't mind.

Well all the good folks here can debate all day long, & I've never seen anyone concede defeat !(except by that most graceless form; insult) But there is something very humbling about arguing with a computer.

I had a friend who was a surgeon & skeptic of Darwinian evolution, I thought I could objectively prove to him the power of the Darwinian algorithm in a program - again I'm not claiming to have single handedly debunked ToE - I just proved to myself that it absolutely did not work the way it did in my thought experiments- which led me to investigate further

I think it is due to a fundamental bias- everything we do is in anticipation of a future consequence, that's how we are wired, and it's almost impossible to remove this 'forethought' in our thinking, but a computer can.

 

[pitabread]

I had a friend who was a surgeon & skeptic of Darwinian evolution, I thought I could objectively prove to him the power of the Darwinian algorithm in a program - again I'm not claiming to have single handedly debunked ToE - I just proved to myself that it absolutely did not work the way it did in my thought experiments- which led me to investigate further

What was the algorithm?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's separated legally, but that hasn't been followed in practice. This especially the case when considering some of the laws that have existed throughout America's history and other cultural manisfestations.

Even things like the Pledge of Allegiance or the fact the official motto of the U.S. is "In God We Trust" are examples of religious entwinement with American politics and cultural identity.

Sure I take your point, but it's clearly a departure from the church and state relationships people left behind in Europe and elsewhere, and both the country and religious faith thrived.

Ironically Europe still has a lot more 'entwinement' and less religiosity- just shows you, if you want to run something into the ground, let politicians run it!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What was the algorithm?

natural selection acting upon random mutation, very heavily biased towards a favorable outcome- it just amazed me how much you have to tilt the playing field for this to be effective, to the point you're essentially providing the outcome.

And this is what I've seen in other attempts- Dawkins' 'Weasel' program is obviously a very crude example- but the same principle applies, you can use random mutation to progress towards new emergent properties yes, if that property is provided among the fitness functions to begin with.