Why do people believe in evolution?

[Speedwell]

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

I don't think one has to go out on limb very far to say that no one of any celebrity has ever asserted that evolution proves Christianity to be false. That's too much of a blanket statement to be credible. Many people think that Dawkins has done so, but Dawkins really does not know very much about the Christian religion and it is clear when you look at his remarks in detail that he is entirely preoccupied with biblical creationism and ignores or may not even be aware of Christians who do not subscribe to it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

I wouldn't use evolution as a litmus test for belief in general science.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

I'm a believer in so-called "Gap Theory".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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

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

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.

Everyone would be better served if science focused on human health rather than human sickness. "An ounce of prevention..."

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.

Most of science has easily understandable foundations.

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.

Sound like a 'get out of jail' card for science.

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

The Theory of Evolution is held together by a patchwork of theories that bridge the unknown. They start out as placeholders, then become part of the theory itself when a more suitable theory isn't found.

 

[dlamberth]

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?

For myself it's way more than "belief" in evolution. Evolution, as I know it is "truth" in how Creation works. That view is that this Universe is creative, not created. This comes from a study of evolution as well as where my main interest lies which is in geology.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Evolution, as I know it is "truth" in how Creation works.

In other words, according to natural laws that do not require supernatural intervention?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I'm a believer in so-called "Gap Theory".

Ah yes, that's right. Not a literal 6 day creation.

One thing God said is that He made man from the dust of the earth.
This is a scientific fact. Step one in proving intelligent design through science.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ah yes, that's right. Not a literal 6 day creation.

Genesis One is the story of one in a series of ruin/restoration events of the surface of the earth. A similar restoration event many have occurred after the flood.

 

[dlamberth]

In other words, according to natural laws that do not require supernatural intervention?

That's a weird question for me because I'm unable to separate natural laws from the Life force of God. And rather than experiencing God directing the course of Creation like a conductor directing the performance of an orchestra, I know God AS the orchestra creating the ongoing beautiful sounds of Creation.

I like what Hildegard wrote, "The Earth sweats germinating power from it's very core".

 

[dlamberth]

A similar restoration event many have occurred after the flood.

I'm not understanding. The earth itself isn't showing anything like that.

 

[Shemjaza]

Personally I accept evolution because it's consistent with the evidence.

Not many people have studied it as much as I have, so i assume they accept it because it's accepted by people and organisations they deem reliable. They have probably seen summaries of evidence that makes sense to them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm not understanding. The earth itself isn't showing anything like that.

What are you looking for?

 

[pitabread]

I wouldn't use evolution as a litmus test for belief in general science.

It does demonstrate a difference in the mindset at work here, though.

And if you're criticizing evolution on the basis of incomplete knowledge, the same applies equally to every other branch of science.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It does demonstrate a difference in the mindset at work here, though.

And if you're criticizing evolution on the basis of incomplete knowledge, the same applies equally to every other branch of science.

The other branches of science have physics, chemistry, etc. as a foundation. The foundation of evolution is 'natural selection'.

 

[Shemjaza]

The other branches of science have physics, chemistry, etc. as a foundation. The foundation of evolution is 'natural selection'.

Nah, the foundation of evolution is genetic inheritance.

Natural selection is just the mechanism.

 

[pitabread]

The other branches of science have physics, chemistry, etc. as a foundation. The foundation of evolution is 'natural selection'.

Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. Evolution itself is part of the biological sciences; in that sense, its foundation is biology.

 

[dlamberth]

What are you looking for?

Signs of some sort of restoration. Maybe I need clarification of what you mean by "restoration" though.

 

[SigurdReginson]

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

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.

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).

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

Everyone would be better served if science focused on human health rather than human sickness. "An ounce of prevention..."

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.

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!

Most of science has easily understandable foundations.

As does evolution: biology.

Sound like a 'get out of jail' card for science.

What?... An ever evolving understanding of how the world works is the very fundamental foundation for what science even IS. With better information comes better understanding. I'm confused why you think that's some kind of excuse... It's the reason for it's existence.

The Theory of Evolution is held together by a patchwork of theories that bridge the unknown. They start out as placeholders, then become part of the theory itself when a more suitable theory isn't found.

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

 

[Shemjaza]

I wouldn't use evolution as a litmus test for belief in general science.

You should though.

An acceptance of science with blatant caveats about one field or another demonstrates that there are other factors aside from research and evidence that define your relationship with science.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Signs of some sort of restoration. Maybe I need clarification of what you mean by "restoration" though.

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