I don't believe in evolution

[Magicjax]

This will be a short post because although there's a lot to it. My point is a very direct one.

I can't understand how anyone can say things like, "I don't believe in evolution".

First if all. It isn't a belief system. It's gained knowledge. They call it "the theory of evolution" but it's not the kind of theory that suggests it isn't proven. Most people use the wrong definition of the word theory in that statement.

There's nothing to disputed or believe or not believe in. It's simply something we've learned about. It's not something we made up. We observed, asked how and why, researched, tested and learned.

Do we have all the answers? Of course not. But that doesn't mean we don't know it's true. We haven't learned all the how's and whys yet. But it's still a fact supported by evidence. We observe it. It's a fact.

The other day a friend said those words, "I don't believe in that evolution stuff" and all I could think is "what's there to believe in. It's not something you're suppose to "believe in". It's something you can, if you care to do so, to learn about.

So I ask. How can anyone say they don't think it's true when it's reality can't be questioned.

Sorry, I still can't get it out of my head and I'm rambling on about it. My friends an intelligent guy too. So it was surprising.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Magicjax

[Imaginarynumber1]

My response to people like your friend is that you don't have to believe in evolution. It happens independent of your belief.

When you look at it, it's really tantamount to people saying that they don't believe in the sun, or that that sky is blue.

I guess ignorance is bliss.

[Indiogene]

My response to people like your friend is that you don't have to believe in evolution. It happens independent of your belief.

When you look at it, it's really tantamount to people saying that they don't believe in the sun, or that that sky is blue.

I guess ignorance is bliss.

...or the earth is flat, about 6000 years old and the sun revolves around it. These beliefs may be unscientific and well proven to be false. But people are entitled to their beliefs, but it's hard to explain genetic, anatomical and physical similarities of humans with primates. Therefore, evolution of mankind remains hotly debated between science, religion and politics as well the debate whether or not in some states in the USA, the theory of evolution can be taught at its public schools' science curriculum without causing offense to a minority of the student's parents and media culture controversy.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I think the reason people don't believe in Evolution is that they can't see it happening or imagine how it could happen - the Earth moving around the sun makes as much sense as the sun moving around the Earth especially once you've been in a car, where you're moving and the environment isn't but it looks and feels like the environment is moving, while something that looks like a fish turning into something that looks like a monkey that turns into us is something that's 'crazy'.

There's also the fact people have trouble imagining the timescale of the changes, case in point the Tyrannosaurus Rex is closer to us in time then it is some other Dinosaurs but a lot of people just think of them all happening at the same time because of the timescale.

[MedicTJ]

The title of this thread is misleading (as was intended I'm sure) and it's nothing more than arguing semantics.

The debate itself is complicated enough without having to throw this stuff into the mix.

[aquatus1]

Medic, in my experience, a significant part of the Evo vs. Cre discussions center almost directly on top of semantics. Simply put, two people arguing with different definitions of the same word.

[+and-then]

I'm not NEARLY educated enough to argue my belief in this matter but for anyone who has an open mind on this issue I can recommend Googling author/lecturer Dr Frank Turek. At worst you'll learn the most cogent arguments for creationism. For myself I do not believe life occurred from nothing. Intraspecies transitions that helped in survival I understand. But no real fossil record proof of changes from one species to another has ever been shown. Darwin himself said his THEORY would have to wait on proof provided by the fossil record.

[Lion6969]

This will be a short post because although there's a lot to it. My point is a very direct one.

I can't understand how anyone can say things like, "I don't believe in evolution".

First if all. It isn't a belief system. It's gained knowledge. They call it "the theory of evolution" but it's not the kind of theory that suggests it isn't proven. Most people use the wrong definition of the word theory in that statement.

There's nothing to disputed or believe or not believe in. It's simply something we've learned about. It's not something we made up. We observed, asked how and why, researched, tested and learned.

Do we have all the answers? Of course not. But that doesn't mean we don't know it's true. We haven't learned all the how's and whys yet. But it's still a fact supported by evidence. We observe it. It's a fact.

The other day a friend said those words, "I don't believe in that evolution stuff" and all I could think is "what's there to believe in. It's not something you're suppose to "believe in". It's something you can, if you care to do so, to learn about.

So I ask. How can anyone say they don't think it's true when it's reality can't be questioned.

Sorry, I still can't get it out of my head and I'm rambling on about it. My friends an intelligent guy too. So it was surprising.

The evolution theory in the scientific context still remains a theory. The theory consists of several theories, some which have been observed and some which have not and remain purely theoretical.

When someone says they dont believe in evolution they don't equate it to a religious a dogmatic sense. They simply dont accept the theory as a whole or like me they don't accept some aspects of the theory. It's wide range of different principles involved and not all are scientifically, philosophically or logically correct or not they have no proof for some elements of theory.

Another aspect is it's ideological and philosophical premise, it's the tool by which certain philosphies and ideologies are propagated. Add to this the historic reasons it was pushed and propagated was because it was the alternative to the church and religion which had a grasp on people at the time and oppressed and did not allow scientific freedom.

As for me personally, I accept evolution in some aspects but not in other aspects. I don't swallow it wholly as fact nor do I disregard it as non fact in it's entirety. The big bang is theory and the standard model of the universe is based on it, not everyone accepts the theory, does that make them nutters or stupid etc, ofcourse not, they oppose a theory by producing counter theories. Only those theories are propagated and pushed which have solid philosophical sense, or to propagate a certain ideology or philosophy. Whether you like it or not philosophy plays a major part in science and which thirties are accepted and which are not. Hence why evolution is theory based on a certain philosophy and it's a tool to propagate those ideas. For example, the empirical scientific data we have of the universe can be interpreted to create a model of the universe which is geocentric, or other types of models, they using the same data that the big bang theory uses, but the reason they are not accepted is because they philosophical and logical flaws, even though they make purely scientific sense, in reality they have no export no logical sense or philosophical sound.

So to accept evolution is fine to deny is also fine, because it may some facts but as whole it's not factual but theoretical. If evolution happened as they suggest then it must have been a miracle against all odds and we have no cosmological evolution nor geological evolution, we find no evolution or signs of it in the cosmos, the galaxies, planets, stars etc. It's seems as though evolution and it's mechanisms (which are natural phenomena observed and tested, like we observe laws of physics), are only relevant to earth and have no Equivlant elsewhere, it's only relevant to biology, yet it's supposed to be natural phenomena, but no other science is so isolated. There is no Equivlant of evolution in physics for example, evolution like other natural laws and mechanisms has no Equivlant cosmologically and it ought to be observed universally.

You don't have to accept my judgment on evolution abd nor do we have to accept evolution as fact per se!

[Mr Walker]

Creation is a faith based belief. Evolution is a evidence based knowedge. Mostly, when knowledge conflicts with belief, knowledge triumphs. But this is not inevitable. Many people see the evidence of evolution but chose belief for other reasons/needs. Then there are many like my wife, who never got an educaiton in the sciences, and to whom the evidences of evolution are untrue. She just does not believe them because her belief in creation is too engrained and complete..

I am an evolutionist who knows a real powerful and physicla god. I figure tha tgod is an element of evolution like me. But it doesnt matter, because god IS real and powerful in my life .

On th othe rhand my wife gains acees to the same god and powr through belief in him.

[spud the mackem]

Anyone can ramble on about this subject like some which I have just read,but my opinion is that humans did not evolve from primates,although we have similarities,the same as lions are similar to tigers,Perhaps one day we shall find out the truth.

[danydandan]

People have the right to believe anything they want to .

Also the right not to be made to , or forced to believe something , especially evolution .

Its still a theory.

There is right now , much more proof to suggest that we have evolved and are still evolving .

The only thing I can say is read both sides of the argument and make you own decision , . People who support the theory of evolution with out reading up on current finds and old .

Are idiots , but people should be open minded and , like i just said , read both sides

[Lion6969]

Ps, evolution is not an atheist monopoly. It's a theory which emerged originally many centuries before darwin rooted in theism.

[Ashotep]

I'm not sure we got where we are by purely evolution. It seems to me we evolved faster than anything else on this planet. Which leads me to wonder was there alien intervention in our past and they are the ones we have been referring to as god or gods. I do believe in life after death or I wouldn't of seen a ghost. That event really changed my mind about the afterlife.

Also I know people that think the world is only 3000 years old and all these dinosaur bones aren't any older than that. That I do not believe.

[Englishgent]

This will be a short post because although there's a lot to it. My point is a very direct one.

I can't understand how anyone can say things like, "I don't believe in evolution".

First if all. It isn't a belief system. It's gained knowledge. They call it "the theory of evolution" but it's not the kind of theory that suggests it isn't proven. Most people use the wrong definition of the word theory in that statement.

There's nothing to disputed or believe or not believe in. It's simply something we've learned about. It's not something we made up. We observed, asked how and why, researched, tested and learned.

Do we have all the answers? Of course not. But that doesn't mean we don't know it's true. We haven't learned all the how's and whys yet. But it's still a fact supported by evidence. We observe it. It's a fact.

The other day a friend said those words, "I don't believe in that evolution stuff" and all I could think is "what's there to believe in. It's not something you're suppose to "believe in". It's something you can, if you care to do so, to learn about.

So I ask. How can anyone say they don't think it's true when it's reality can't be questioned.

Sorry, I still can't get it out of my head and I'm rambling on about it. My friends an intelligent guy too. So it was surprising.

Did you ask your friend why he did not believe?

[Rlyeh]

For myself I do not believe life occurred from nothing. Intraspecies transitions that helped in survival I understand. But no real fossil record proof of changes from one species to another has ever been shown. Darwin himself said his THEORY would have to wait on proof provided by the fossil record.

^

See this is why people say they don't believe in evolution, they get fed straw men about life coming from nothing or there has never been any evidence of speciation.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Personally, I've never seen how people get this idea that evolution refutes or denies faith. It's a mechanism of the universe, while God's the creator of the universe, it's like saying the cogs in a watch deny the existence of a watchmaker - it makes no sense.

[Chinese Angel]

This will be a short post because although there's a lot to it. My point is a very direct one.

I can't understand how anyone can say things like, "I don't believe in evolution".

First if all. It isn't a belief system. It's gained knowledge. They call it "the theory of evolution" but it's not the kind of theory that suggests it isn't proven. Most people use the wrong definition of the word theory in that statement.

There's nothing to disputed or believe or not believe in. It's simply something we've learned about. It's not something we made up. We observed, asked how and why, researched, tested and learned.

Do we have all the answers? Of course not. But that doesn't mean we don't know it's true. We haven't learned all the how's and whys yet. But it's still a fact supported by evidence. We observe it. It's a fact.

The other day a friend said those words, "I don't believe in that evolution stuff" and all I could think is "what's there to believe in. It's not something you're suppose to "believe in". It's something you can, if you care to do so, to learn about.

So I ask. How can anyone say they don't think it's true when it's reality can't be questioned.

Sorry, I still can't get it out of my head and I'm rambling on about it. My friends an intelligent guy too. So it was surprising.

its the same as people dont believe in God.

[Leonardo]

Add to this the historic reasons it was pushed and propagated was because it was the alternative to the church and religion which had a grasp on people at the time and oppressed and did not allow scientific freedom.

I would like to remark that this particular point in your post has no basis in fact. Scientific discoveries are reported because they are knowledge that has been found, and the discoveries which led to Darwin publishing the knowledge he had uncovered had no agenda behind it except that. There is no hint of it being 'an alternative to the church', it was simply knowledge that had been discovered.

That it has come to be viewed as 'an alternative to the church' is entirely down to said institution attempting to hold on to it's legitimacy/authority by re-asserting scripture as knowledge and making the case for 'Evolution' to be alternative to that.

[FurthurBB]

The title of this thread is misleading (as was intended I'm sure) and it's nothing more than arguing semantics.

The debate itself is complicated enough without having to throw this stuff into the mix.

Its actually not complicated. It is all semantics and misunderstanding.

Medic, in my experience, a significant part of the Evo vs. Cre discussions center almost directly on top of semantics. Simply put, two people arguing with different definitions of the same word.

Sometimes, but that is not even semantics, that is redefining a word to make it fit into your view.

[FurthurBB]

I'm not NEARLY educated enough to argue my belief in this matter but for anyone who has an open mind on this issue I can recommend Googling author/lecturer Dr Frank Turek. At worst you'll learn the most cogent arguments for creationism. For myself I do not believe life occurred from nothing. Intraspecies transitions that helped in survival I understand. But no real fossil record proof of changes from one species to another has ever been shown. Darwin himself said his THEORY would have to wait on proof provided by the fossil record.

Darwin did not have 1/8 of the knowledge we have today. He didn't know what genes were or about DNA. Do you really believe our knowledge has been stagnant for that long, contrary to known facts?

[FurthurBB]

I'm not sure we got where we are by purely evolution. It seems to me we evolved faster than anything else on this planet. Which leads me to wonder was there alien intervention in our past and they are the ones we have been referring to as god or gods. I do believe in life after death or I wouldn't of seen a ghost. That event really changed my mind about the afterlife.

Also I know people that think the world is only 3000 years old and all these dinosaur bones aren't any older than that. That I do not believe.

We did not evolve faster. Our brain evolved in a totally different way. Other animals have features that were necessary for their success in their ecological niche that evolved just as rapidly.

its the same as people dont believe in God.

No, it is actually not the same at all.

[Leonardo]

its the same as people dont believe in God.

It is an entirely different quality of 'belief'.

It is not incorrect for someone to state "I don't believe in evolution", considering that it requires substantial education to properly appreciate what paleontology, geology, genetics, etc, tells us about that phenomenon. For the vast majority of people at least some of that knowledge has to be accepted 'on belief' because we can't "know it all". However, the material evidence is there for those who wish to research it.

That is palpably not the case with the subject of divinity. Except for the psychological manifestations of religious worship, there is no material evidence to be found anywhere for the existence of divinity.

Thus the lack of belief expressed by someone who 'does not believe evolution' is completely different in sense than the lack of belief expressed by someone regarding the existence of divinity.

[Mr Walker]

It is an entirely different quality of 'belief'.

It is not incorrect for someone to state "I don't believe in evolution", considering that it requires substantial education to properly appreciate what paleontology, geology, genetics, etc, tells us about that phenomenon. For the vast majority of people at least some of that knowledge has to be accepted 'on belief' because we can't "know it all". However, the material evidence is there for those who wish to research it.

That is palpably not the case with the subject of divinity. Except for the psychological manifestations of religious worship, there is no material evidence to be found anywhere for the existence of divinity.Thus the lack of belief expressed by someone who 'does not believe evolution' is completely different in sense than the lack of belief expressed by someone regarding the existence of divinity.

I really agree with this post, as to the differnce in, and degree of, "belief required to accept creationiism and the existence of god, but personally i have to disagree with the bit i bolded. I accept evolution as a proven fact, on the clear scientific evidences available to me. That takes a little faith in the science and scientists, but i can comprehend and understand what they are saying, and it works for me . I have no emotional or intellectual objection to being an accidental product of the evolutionary process. It doesnt diminish who or what I am in any way.

As a being in an ongoing process of evolution the evidences are that I am ;strong, powerful, capable of great creation and destruction. I interact well/productively with my environment and other life on earth. I Am a little alone as a species, because my sapience sets me apart from other living creatures, but eventually, perhaps with some help from us in their evolution, we will find other other sapient beings for companionship and mutual asistance In the meantime we have each other And need to realise that each of us is both unique from and identical to, all other humans, depending on the variable you study.

But for me there is more personal evidence of gods existence as a real and physical being, than for evolution.

I cant see, touch, hear, or interact with, evolution, except intellectually, and through its products. God on the other hand is a real and present entity in the here and now and is much more viscerally and physically real to me than evolution.

God CAN be a psychological construct and often is. No doubt. But psychological constructs can't be physical or react physically with other physicala elemnats of the universe (as far as I am aware) it is understandable tha tanyon e who has not encounrtered god would think of him as only a construc tor some creation based on human need.

However knowing god as real and physical actually confirms my acceptance of evolution. God is/was a product of evolution, rather than the other way round; just as all real and physical things must be. For many this might disqualify "my" god as THE god, 9or in your terms "divinity", but to me a real, powerful, concerned, and compassionate god who interacts with me, protects me, guides me and empowers me, is more a god than a constructed one designed to meet my psychological /emotional needs, but of no real physical ability.

"My god" is of the same quality as the biblical god would be if accepted as written about, performing physical "miracles",(manipulations of matter and energy) and interacting physically one on one with me. Thats more than enough for me.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Mr Walker

[aquatus1]

Its actually not complicated. It is all semantics and misunderstanding.

Sometimes, but that is not even semantics, that is redefining a word to make it fit into your view.

I disagree, and submit that this very attitude or belief above is exactly what leads to the previously mentioned misunderstandings.

It is not a stretch to say that creationists honestly believe what they are saying, and truly trust the arguments they are making. To assume that Creationists who make such obviously false or misleading arguments are either stupid or deceitful is to fall into the ancient fallacy of assuming that because you are right, everyone who does not believe as you do is wrong.

So, instead, let us not assume that creationists are intentionally spreading a lie. Let us assume, for the purposes of this thought exercise, that they truly believe they are correct, that their arguments are sound, and that they are frustrated with our inability to see it. In other words, let us assume they are exactly like us.

Let us take the word "theory", for example. The moment an evolutionist hears the argument "It's just a theory!", their hackles raise. Normally, we view this as deceit right from the start. Indeed, we will often accuse the Cre of redefining the word, in the same vein as the mindset in the above quote. However, are they truly redefining it? No, not at all. In terms of definition, the word is being used correctly. In the mind of the Cre, the word is being used for a specific purpose, that being to send the message that anything which is not a fact cannot be considered to have the power of a fact. And this is both a logical and correct assumption, which is why the Cre are boggled that the Evo do not agree.

The Evo, however, are trying to send an entirely different message. They are trying to use the definition of theory that defines the word as a conclusion which is so completely supported by facts that it simply cannot be shown to be wrong. Are the Evo redefining the word? Of course not. They too, are using the word in a perfectly correct, perfectly logical, manner. And, again, they simply cannot understand why the Cre refuse to understand.

This is what happens when one forgets about semantics. Semantics is far more than the mere definition of a word. Semantics is everything, the use, the context, the connotation, the cultural impact, and yes, even the definition, but the definition is such a minor part of semantics that it rarely rates more than a single glossary page at the end of a scientific article, simply to clarify. There isn't a single Cre or Evo out there who does not recognize that both meanings of the word "theory" exist. The misunderstanding here has nothing to do with definition. The misunderstanding is based solely on the context. We do not have multiple dictionary definitions of a word simply for the sake of variety. We have them because the context and environment shapes the meaning of a word. The dictionary does not dictate the definitions; it simply reports them. The misunderstanding between both camps (and I will expand this to 9 out of every 10 arguments on any topic) do not arise from incorrect definitions; they arise from a refusal from one side to consider the context of the word that is being used by the other side.

In other words, most misunderstandings are caused by semantics. One side subconsciously believes the other side is "redefining" a word (assuming deceit or ignorance right off the bat) instead of attempting to understand the context in which the opposing side is using the word.

[FurthurBB]

I disagree, and submit that this very attitude or belief above is exactly what leads to the previously mentioned misunderstandings.

It is not a stretch to say that creationists honestly believe what they are saying, and truly trust the arguments they are making. To assume that Creationists who make such obviously false or misleading arguments are either stupid or deceitful is to fall into the ancient fallacy of assuming that because you are right, everyone who does not believe as you do is wrong.

So, instead, let us not assume that creationists are intentionally spreading a lie. Let us assume, for the purposes of this thought exercise, that they truly believe they are correct, that their arguments are sound, and that they are frustrated with our inability to see it. In other words, let us assume they are exactly like us.

Let us take the word "theory", for example. The moment an evolutionist hears the argument "It's just a theory!", their hackles raise. Normally, we view this as deceit right from the start. Indeed, we will often accuse the Cre of redefining the word, in the same vein as the mindset in the above quote. However, are they truly redefining it? No, not at all. In terms of definition, the word is being used correctly. In the mind of the Cre, the word is being used for a specific purpose, that being to send the message that anything which is not a fact cannot be considered to have the power of a fact. And this is both a logical and correct assumption, which is why the Cre are boggled that the Evo do not agree.

The Evo, however, are trying to send an entirely different message. They are trying to use the definition of theory that defines the word as a conclusion which is so completely supported by facts that it simply cannot be shown to be wrong. Are the Evo redefining the word? Of course not. They too, are using the word in a perfectly correct, perfectly logical, manner. And, again, they simply cannot understand why the Cre refuse to understand.

This is what happens when one forgets about semantics. Semantics is far more than the mere definition of a word. Semantics is everything, the use, the context, the connotation, the cultural impact, and yes, even the definition, but the definition is such a minor part of semantics that it rarely rates more than a single glossary page at the end of a scientific article, simply to clarify. There isn't a single Cre or Evo out there who does not recognize that both meanings of the word "theory" exist. The misunderstanding here has nothing to do with definition. The misunderstanding is based solely on the context. We do not have multiple dictionary definitions of a word simply for the sake of variety. We have them because the context and environment shapes the meaning of a word. The dictionary does not dictate the definitions; it simply reports them. The misunderstanding between both camps (and I will expand this to 9 out of every 10 arguments on any topic) do not arise from incorrect definitions; they arise from a refusal from one side to consider the context of the word that is being used by the other side.

In other words, most misunderstandings are caused by semantics. One side subconsciously believes the other side is "redefining" a word (assuming deceit or ignorance right off the bat) instead of attempting to understand the context in which the opposing side is using the word.

I really did not need this big long message because I do not think the creationists on this board are stupid or being deceitful, but assumption often leads to this very problem. Though, I do believe the people they are copying these arguments from are being deceitful. People who work in certain fields define terms and people are not using them in a different context, like in the case of macroevolution, they are redefining them.