Why do people believe in evolution?

[OldWiseGuy]

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

I rummaged around and found this, which is a good outline of the topic without specifics.

1.2 The Basic Assumptions of Evolution | Answers in Genesis

Of course what I meant was the peppering of small (sneaky) assumptions throughout articles written about specific evolutionary pathways.

 

[driewerf]

It doesn't help that atheist humanists have glommed onto evolution as a 'proof' that Christianity is false, nor that creationists have glommed onto creationism as an essential dogma of their religion in an anti-scientific frenzy. Both polar extremes exclude the rational middle.

I have yet to see the first atheist to make such a claim. On the contrary, most atheists posting on discussion board insist that acceptance of the ToE and god/christianity are NOT mutually exclusive (and cite people like Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, different popes etc as example).
What a lot of (Youtube)-atheists attest of is the discovery how much their priest/minister lied to them and swinged completely to the other extreme.

 

[driewerf]

Do you see evolution and Christianity as mutually exclusive?

No. only certain interpretations thereof.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

I disagree that they are anti-theist if they are trying to reconcile theists and atheists.

It's one thing to not share religious beliefs, it's another to be intentionally opposed to such beliefs, and yet another to be opposed to the people that hold such beliefs.

 

[driewerf]

It doesn't compute (in my mind).

And you are the measure of all things? What you don't understand is false by default?
I have read this answer very often from creationists, and it strikes me always as incredibly arrogant. The notion that the ToE is wrong because they don't understand it (after how little an effort?). Shall we reject calculus too? Quantum theory? General Relativity? Or do you apply that principle selectively to the ToE?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And you

?

 

[driewerf]

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

And for good reason.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And for good reason.

As long as it's just an accusation it's not too meaningful.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And you are the measure of all things? What you don't understand is false by default?
I have read this answer very often from creationists, and it strikes me always as incredibly arrogant. The notion that the ToE is wrong because they don't understand it (after how little an effort?). Shall we reject calculus too? Quantum theory? General Relativity? Or do you apply that principle selectively to the ToE?

Selectively to the ToE.

 

[Speedwell]

I rummaged around and found this, which is a good outline of the topic without specifics.

1.2 The Basic Assumptions of Evolution | Answers in Genesis

Of course what I meant was the peppering of small (sneaky) assumptions throughout articles written about specific evolutionary pathways.

The "assumptions" listed in that article are fabricated by the author and are not actual assumptions of the theory of evolution.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The "assumptions" listed in that article are fabricated by the author and are not actual assumptions of the theory of evolution.

If so then we are, re Kipling, as far apart as east and west.

 

[Speedwell]

If so then we are, re Kipling, as far apart as east and west.

But at least you have a good example of why we sneer at creationist websites. They concoct a false, easy to defeat version of the theory of evolution instead of arguing against the real thing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But at least you have a good example of why we sneer at creationist websites. They concoct a false, easy to defeat version of the theory of evolution instead of arguing against the real thing.

Sounded good to me.

 

[Speedwell]

Sounded good to me.

That was what they were hoping for, and that you would never look too hard at the real thing before rejecting it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That was what they were hoping for, and that you would never look too hard at the real thing before rejecting it.

It didn't change my mind one way or the other.

 

[Speedwell]

It didn't change my mind one way or the other.

Probably because it coincided with ideas about evolution you had already.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Probably because it coincided with ideas about evolution you had already.

Not really. It was pretty new to me. I reject evolution 'prima facie'.

 

[Speedwell]

Not really. It was pretty new to me. I reject evolution 'prima facie'.

Why? That's what I don't get. It doesn't seem that big a deal to me. "So that's how life developed and diversified since it began? Cool. Say, what's for supper?" The theory of evolution is just scientific theory, accepted provisionally as all scientific theories are--and if it turns out to be wrong, it's wrong and we'll come up with another theory to replace it. I don't see why you would want to select that one particular theory to reject a priori.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why? That's what I don't get. It doesn't seem that big a deal to me. "So that's how life developed and diversified since it began? Cool. Say, what's for supper?"

I can't fathom the concept. My brain is too small.

 

[Speedwell]

I can't fathom the concept. My brain is too small.

So you would rather have no idea how life developed and diversified since it began.