Why do people believe in evolution?

[OldWiseGuy]

...But how can you know that without opening the box of dominos to see what's inside?

I have, thus my conclusion. Evolution is explained by macro changes. However the many micro changes needed for each macro change is absent, thus my domino theory.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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.

OK. Anti-theists. Not exclusively anti-Christian. We went through a period ten to twenty years ago of evangelical atheism, with Dawkins and PZ Myers and many other preachy atheists. They had everything one could dislike about street-corner evangelists and with the bonus that they were also atheists.

And there is a Christian humanism. It's not that atheists own humanism, but that is how it sometimes seems to all sorts of people now.

Anyhow, it seems to many that you either are a creationist or an atheist. But there is, as you notice, a vast middle ground from those polar positions.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But if you don't understand it, how can you make that judgement?

If a bucket is full of holes it doesn't take a genius to conclude that it won't hold water.

 

[pitabread]

If a bucket is full of holes it doesn't take a genius to conclude that it won't hold water.

But if you haven't examined the bucket, how can you conclude it is full of holes?

Forming a conclusion on the basis of ignorance doesn't seem a healthy way to go about that.

 

[honey badger]

I never saw a conflict between deep time and evolution and my faith as I was growing up. In fact, I only learned that creationists even existed when I was a teenager. I actually found the debate quite interesting, but after seeing many arguments from both sides, I came to the conclusion that creationist arguments always fell into one of 3 categories:

1. Blatantly dishonest arguments that could easily be shown to be false. They keep making these arguments no matter how many times they are refuted.

2. Scientific arguments that sound plausible at first glance, but when you do the research it turns out that they don't hold water.

3. Arguments that can't be refuted scientifically, but that I find to be dubious on theological grounds (i.e. God created the earth 6000 years ago but made it look much older).

to quote one who has entered in

"evolution is the a/effect Life has on matter"

 

[chevyontheriver]

I have not seem any "atheist humanists" make this claim. You only generally see these claims from creationists.

I have seen them. And been taught by them. They are out there. One well known one would be PZ Myers. Mostly, though, are scientists who work with the data and don't let their religious or anti-religious opinions cloud the data. Those are the ones who don't try to shove their opinions down the throats of anyone, the ones you might never know if they are atheist humanists or not.

 

[pitabread]

I have seen them. And been taught by them. They are out there. One well known one would be PZ Myers. Mostly, though, are scientists who work with the data and don't let their religious or anti-religious opinions cloud the data. Those are the ones who don't try to shove their opinions down the throats of anyone, the ones you might never know if they are atheist humanists or not.

Can you cite an example of PZ Myers (or any other atheist) claiming that evolution proves Christianity is false?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But if you haven't examined the bucket, how can you conclude it is full of holes?

Forming a conclusion on the basis of ignorance doesn't seem a healthy way to go about that.

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.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Evolution is a "bridge too far" for my pea-size brain.

You have yet to evolve.

 

[pitabread]

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.

What you mean by "the details take you down a rabbit hole very quickly"?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Can you cite an example of PZ Myers (or any other atheist) claiming that evolution proves Christianity is false?

Not willing to waste the time on it today to provide it for you. So you can either dig it up yourself or not.

 

[SigurdReginson]

I have, thus my conclusion. Evolution is explained by macro changes. However the many micro changes needed for each macro change is absent, thus my domino theory.

Hmmm...

Let's say you had that box of dominos, and on the box it said there were 144 pieces. In the box you count 100 pieces. Now, you know that your dog got into the pieces, because while doing some gardening you've found a lot of the dominos you currently have burried there.

Do we conclude from the senerio that that box of dominos was incomplete, and didn't have all 144 of it's pieces, or is it likely that the rest of those dominos are lost elsewhere, just waiting to be discovered? So far, the discovery of these dominos has been very consistent.

 

[pitabread]

Not willing to waste the time on it today to provide it for you. So you can either dig it up yourself or not.

You made the claim though. It's not my job to do someone else's homework for them.

At any rate, I can't recall ever seeing an atheist claim that evolution proves Christianity is false. Certainly not a well-informed one anyways.

Now I have seen multiple creationists on that forum make that claim or at least strongly allude to it. I suspect that may where this idea is actually coming from.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hmmm...

Let's say you had that box of dominos, and on the box it said there were 144 pieces. In the box you count 100 pieces. Now, you know that your dog got into the pieces, because while doing some gardening you've found a lot of the dominos you currently have burried there.

Do we conclude from the senerio that that box of dominos was incomplete, and didn't have all 144 of it's pieces, or is it likely that the rest of those dominos are lost elsewhere, just waiting to be discovered? So far, the discovery of these dominos has been very consistent.

Are you speaking from firsthand knowledge?

It has been my experience that each 'fall' of the dominos depends on there being no large gaps in the row. In the ToE there are gaps everywhere along the line, and yet all of the dominos fall, to complete the theory. It seems to me that the process must stop until a gap is corrected, by validating that piece of the theory, else it cannot proceed.

What actually happens is that a new theory is injected into the row to cover the gaps, resulting in a hodge-podge of disparate theories strung together and passed off as one; a "FrankenTheory" if you will.

 

[Strathos]

to quote one who has entered in

"evolution is the a/effect Life has on matter"

Okay...?

 

[pitabread]

It seems to me that the process must stop until a gap is corrected, by validating that piece of the theory, else it cannot proceed.

Scientific knowledge isn't an all or nothing thing. Even though there are things we don't know, it doesn't invalidate what we do know.

More than anything, this speaks to a difference in mindset and a need for absolutist beliefs. Which I suspect partially why creationists will have trouble accepting a lot of scientific findings, since science is not absolutist.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

So what's wrong with just saying, "Well, I don't get it, but it doesn't really effect my life so I'll go along with it until something better comes around?"

 

[Maria Billingsley]

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 don't believe in evolution and I do not hold the young earth model either. Is there an alternative view? I know old earth is the other view however, it often gets wrapped up with evolution. Blessings.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Are you speaking from firsthand knowledge?

Nope! I'm just a layperson, not a biologist. All I can do is examine the evidence, check it, and either be convinced of it or not. I personally find it convincing.

It has been my experience that each 'fall' of the dominos depends on there being no large gaps in the row. In the ToE there are gaps everywhere along the line, and yet all of the dominos fall, to complete the theory. It seems to me that the process must stop until a gap is corrected, by validating that piece of the theory, else it cannot proceed.

What actually happens is that a new theory is injected into the row to cover the gaps, resulting in a hodge-podge of disparate theories strung together and passed off as one; a "frankentheory" if you will.

Really, now? Do you hold every field of science to that same scrutiny?

There are many terminal Illnesses out there. Should we give up trying to crack open a cure for them just because we don't understand 100% how they work yet? What about gravity? We are still discovering things about that theory even to this day.

Science doesn't fall in the absence of complete information. All theories have gaps, no matter how sound they are. That includes theories like gravity.

The point of science isn't to describe objective reality, but to try and problem solve the mysteries of why objective reality is the way it is. The nature of reality isn't some book you can open to find what you need. The pages are scattered, and you can only work with the pages you have until you find more.

Curious to know what you mean by the hodge podge of disparate theories, though. Could you give some examples?