Why do people mistrust evolution?

[daniel777]

3) YES entirely, evolution is accepted by 99% of the scientific community, it is even more accepted by scientists than the Holocaust is accepted by historians. To answer the second part about evolution and falsifiability. Everything is evolving constantly, Darwin said this in the final pages of Origin. Everything is always under environmental pressures. Not so much in humans because we have almost mastered our environment. Such pressures like natural selection and mutation are always happening and always causing evolution. To answer the question about irreducible complexity, I agree no scientist would say that, because science is all about discovering answers. I find things like ID dangerous because it gives an excuse for ignorance among the scientific community. Irreducible complexity isn't really a viable option because you have to say that we will never know about that organ or appendage in order to satisfy that requirement. Science isn't like that.

hmm, actually, here is where most of my questioning would lie also.... well, actually, no, here's where most of my questioning would lie about the scientific theory. to go back to the op though, i think most of the reasons why people mistrust evolution have to do with either the philosophical presuppositions that base themselves within the theory or arise from the theory or are added to the theory (either/or depending on who you ask).

but even still, this third question she asks here borders on the philosophical because it takes a second order approach to the question of evolution by asking "what is science"; it makes the definition of "science" the point of controversy.

YES entirely, evolution is accepted by 99% of the scientific community, it is even more accepted by scientists than the Holocaust is accepted by historians.

ok, this is an obvious appeal to authority. it doesn't matter how many scientists accept x as a valid theory or not when asking whether or not it x "actually is" valid.
1. within science, the method of science defines what is a theory, not the scientist.

also, the scientist is only a scientist when he adheres to the method of science, and changing or defining the method of science is second-order to science. . . . . in other words, it's up to the scientist to use science to discover, not to "define" what is and isn't science. the scientist Uses science. he doesn't make it.

2. it would be like saying 99% of all mathematicians believed in a non-limited mathematics. . . . . until gödel came along.

Everything is evolving constantly, Darwin said this in the final pages of Origin. Everything is always under environmental pressures.

obvious use mention error. she's referring to the theory (mainly how she says it's unfalsifiable), not the process.

To answer the question about irreducible complexity, I agree no scientist would say that, because science is all about discovering answers.

so, you agree that this part of the theory she mentions is unfalsifiable? or are you proposing some kind of instrumentalism? beside the point, i always see naturalists (today at least, and, i'm assuming you are a naturalist forgive me if you're not) going on and on about how science is "real" and how it's the only viable explanation for anything, and whenever someone poses the sort of question that marie posted, whenever some sort of self-reference is attributed to the idea of science, they always at that point revert to instrumentalism. . . . . which to me seems extremely counterintuitive when discussing "actuals" in relation to science.

I find things like ID dangerous because it gives an excuse for ignorance among the scientific community.

i think competing ideas are a wonderful idea. asking questions helps to refine both sides. would you deny that id/creationists/whatever have asked good questions? science is about discovery isn't it?

Irreducible complexity isn't really a viable option because you have to say that we will never know about that organ or appendage in order to satisfy that requirement. Science isn't like that.

could you elaborate? science isn't like what?

Don't get me wrong, I think evolution happened. And even if I didn't, the arguments offered by Creationists and ID supporters seem to be based mostly on arguing against evolution, which doesn't really show why their own theories are valid. But I would like these questions (and some others, but I don't want the post to be too long) answered...

i'm agnostic towards it actually, mainly out of apathy more than anything else. but the 3rd question was a good one imo. it's one i've thought about before too.

 

[Jarrodis]

I don't know much about Evolution at all, and I honestly don't care about it, But who is to say that God didn't make supposed Evidence of Evolution to test mans faith. Just like I believe in the Big Bang, God said let there be light "BANG". all the evidence of the Big Bang could be the act God creating Earth and what not.

But like I said I don't know much about it,and I don't intend on learning about it, cause all I need to know is in the Bible, and if u decide to choose science above God, then so be it.

In the end one of us will be wrong, and only one of us will pay the consequence

 

[solarwave]

I don't know much about Evolution at all, and I honestly don't care about it, But who is to say that God didn't make supposed Evidence of Evolution to test mans faith. Just like I believe in the Big Bang, God said let there be light "BANG". all the evidence of the Big Bang could be the act God creating Earth and what not.

But like I said I don't know much about it,and I don't intend on learning about it, cause all I need to know is in the Bible, and if u decide to choose science above God, then so be it.

In the end one of us will be wrong, and only one of us will pay the consequence

Fair enough if you believe the Big Bang happened, but I think it is unlikely that God put the evidence for evolution there just to test our faith. Doesn't seem very God like lol.

But believing in evolution doesn't mean your going to hell nor that they hold science above the Bible. Science can help change how we interpret the Bible just like knowing the history of the culture of the Hebrews can help us interpret the Bible. We are all one in Christ though.

 

[MissElizabeth]

Hi everyone, its been awhile. just popped on quick, so i'll make it short.
First off, i'd like to say that I am a convinced creationalist, not just because i believe in the Bible, but also because i believe logic and reason calls for it. Lately i have watched a doco series and read a book debating evolution or creation and they really show that a designer (God) made everything and that everything had to start out in a complete, fully functioning state to survive and keep the race alive. Two basic points are: An animal can't have a partly functioning organ and survive, and also, information is lost, not added to the gene, so how can we, complex humans, evolve from the humble cell??

 

[solarwave]

Can I ask, does it matter to you if evolution was true? Would it lessen your faith? If so don't listen to what I have to say below and consider me irrational.

I also read a book when I was 17 that convinced me that evolution was wrong, almost so much so as i was about to confront the head of biology at school to find out why they teach is (shes a Christian).

Then I was talking to my atheist friend about it and while I was arguing against Him it must have sunk in later on. Its easy to doubt evolution if you have only heard one side of the story with open ears, but I have seen very little of the evidence for evolution and it looks very convincing. It would seem there are problems such as irreducible complexity and information loss but I also know I am no expert on biology and the people who argue against it are bias.

Evolution doesn't make God less, in fact to me it makes God bigger to see that He made the world in such an incredible and complex way.

 

[driewerf]

This is a serious thread no trolling from me this time (i previously went under the name NO!shua), but a genuine conversation about science and acceptance of evolution. What about evolution is unacceptable? What are arguments against it that have legitimate scientific backing?

What you describe is a typical American (and American evangelical) phenomena.
The problem lies in the roots of protestantism. Catholics accept evolution without any problem. Why this difference? Because catholicism is a much "richer" brand of christianity. Catholics worship Mother mary, saints and angels, they have the pope and the rosary. Many of them have bottles of holy water at home. So if the bible is threatened, it's not a big dela for them, there is enough to worship.
Protestants have thrown all this away, and rely only on the bible. They have gone so far as to claim the very literal truth of the bible. But by claiming that, they expose themselves to a big danger. If the bible is completely literlaly true, then the slightest deviation of it is an real threat to them. It's everything or nothing, and no middle ground between. The posty here below is a very good example of this.

Well... if evolution is proved to be right, then the bible is wrong.
If the Bible would be wrong, then the whole christian belief would be wrong.

People don't mistrust it because they don't believe in it, they mistrust it
merely because they dont want to admit they are living a lie.

Let's say you're in an argument which you really don't want to lose because otherwise, you will look like a fool and everybody would think you are plain stupid. Even though you, deep in your heart, know that the other person is right, you still don't want to admit your mistake.

And yes, that was a metaphor.

That's also why so many creationists stretch the word "evolution" far beyond it's limits. Everything that contradicts their literal reading of the bible is called "evolution". They falsely include things that have nothing to do with evolution, nothing even with biology. A good example comes from Kent hovind (although he's not the only one).

1. Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
2. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
5. Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
6. Microevolution- Variations within kinds

1 ,2 and 3 are related to astronomy, and have absolutely nothing to do with biology.
4 is abiogenesis, and you will find more chemists than biologists in the field

5 and 6 belong both to the area of evolution. The distinction between macro and micro is done by creationists alone, for the purpose to be able to backpedal when confronted with things even they can't deny.

 

[solarwave]

What you describes is a typical American (and American evangelical) phenomena.
The problem lies in the roots of protestantism. Catholics accept evolution without any problem. Why this difference? Because catholicism is a much "richer" brand of christianity. Catholics worship Mother mary, saints and angels, they have the pope and the rosary. Many of them have bottles of holy water at home. So if the bible is threatened, it's not a big dela for them, there is enough to worship.
Protestants have thrown all this away, and rely only on the bible. They have gone so far as to claim the very literal truth of the bible. But by claiming that, they expose themselves to a big danger. If the bible is completely literlaly true, then the slightest deviation of it is an real threat to them. It's everything or nothing, and no middle ground between. The posty here below is a very good example of this.

Well that may be true of conservative protestantism, but you could have a moderate or liberal protestantism which says God inspirers the major points of the Bible (love, forgiveness, salvation) but is interpreted by the humans in that culture. Even then it is possible to think the Bible infallible and evolution true depending the style of writting you think Genesis is.

 

[Daretothink]

Hi everyone, its been awhile. just popped on quick, so i'll make it short.
First off, i'd like to say that I am a convinced creationalist, not just because i believe in the Bible, but also because i believe logic and reason calls for it. Lately i have watched a doco series and read a book debating evolution or creation and they really show that a designer (God) made everything and that everything had to start out in a complete, fully functioning state to survive and keep the race alive. Two basic points are: An animal can't have a partly functioning organ and survive, and also, information is lost, not added to the gene, so how can we, complex humans, evolve from the humble cell??

This is a big topic that will not be covered in a single post. I will address the points you mentioned though.

1) An animal can have a partly functioning organ. Look at the eye. The eye has evolved over forty times in the animal kingdom. We can see different types of eyes too. The Nautilus is a sea animal that has a primitive camera lens eye. An eye that has a slightly better lens function would aid the animal in survival. So really a half of an eye would be better than a quarter of an eye. If an animal is functioning with a half of a feather they couldn't fly but they could glide. An animal with an eye that only detects movement is better than no eye.

2) Information is added all the time. Genetic recombination isn't even a mutation but it adds new features by mixing up the DNA of the parents during sex and creating a new mixture of DNA, that is why you carry traits from both parents. So you can use the 2 DNA codes from your parents and have a feature all your own due to new sections of DNA meeting.

Secondly mutations also add new information in many ways. During the recombination process a section could be duplicated and added to the code. There are many processes in the cell that prevent this but it still happens from time to time. Earlier in cell history when these processes weren't evolved to their present state accidents happened all the time that is why mutations were more frequent. I mean the mutation of Inversion happens when a section of DNA is turned so it doesn't take away from information it just changes already present information.

Just look over Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and you'll find that your second point is just wrong and a fiction created by anti-evolutionists.

 

[driewerf]

Well that may be true of conservative protestantism, but you could have a moderate or liberal protestantism which says God inspirers the major points of the Bible (love, forgiveness, salvation) but is interpreted by the humans in that culture. Even then it is possible to think the Bible infallible and evolution true depending the style of writting you think Genesis is.

Indeed, but they will not cling to the most literal interpretation of the bible.