Why Dont YOU Believe in the Theory of Evolution?

[Ace]

Hi guys/gals,

Just perusing Amazon today to stumble upon this discussion (a free thread, not a book you need to purchase):

Why Don't YOU Believe the Theory of Evolution?

A very in-depth discussion (though I am only on page 1 of 81 pages!!) asking the probing question of why dont people think that a proven scientific theory sums up our existence? It also deals with consciousness, near death experiences, reproduction, evolutionary biology and all sorts of interesting topics written by people who appear very clued up on the subject. I dont think the thread will convince people one way or another, but it illustrates both sides of the coin.

So what do you think about evolution and religion? Do you think that they can co-exist, or one or the other has to be definitive? If so, what and why? I know I bring this subject up from time to time, but it always fascinates me when people say that they dont believe in evolution because they have blind 'faith' in 'God'. I dont see how people can sit there and disagree with factual scientific evidence because of something written in a 2000+year old book which says otherwise. I dont understand how people can say that evolution doesnt exist or happen, when it has been observed and proven. Then I hear people saying they can co-exist, and that evolution doesnt cancel out all chances of a 'god', but I still cant quite understand this point of view. I mean, how can you believe in something that you cannot see, moreso than something that can be visibly seen, demonstrated, explained and proved, all in front of your eyes?? People say its because they have experienced the devine via a mystical experience, but like it is mentioned in the linked thread, mystical experience can be replicated in a lab using drugs, or by several other methods, so I cant see this being 'contact' from anything 'devine'.

Anyway, enough of my point of view - I wanna hear yours

[occidentalis]

I haven't read the thread because I'm bored of this discussion.

But I'll make a few comments

Firstly I'll state that I'm a biologist with a reasonable understanding of evolutionary science. I've found that most people who argue for creationism are usually fairly ignorant of what neodarwinian evolutionary theory actually is and what it says about life. I really can't be bothered arguing about this with anyone who hasn't done their homework, so if anyone is reading this and thinking they'll try and convince otherwise me please don't bother unless you know what you're talking about.

the strictly scientific bit:

I see evolutionary theory as a very good explanation of how life developed from basic forms to what we see now.

What it doesn't explain is:

how life started originally (it can't explain this completely although it does contribute to most theories)

whether life has purpose or direction (in fact neodarwinian theory assumes that life is entirely random and purposeless)

Now for the non-strictly-scientific bit.

I think the mutually exclusive "there is no god"/"there is no evolution" are both ignorant arguments and only add fuel to each others fires.

The purpose of science is to know and understand the universe objectively and externally. Science is there to describe and examine what we can see. It is not within the bounds of science to make judgements about matters such as the existence of god, because there is no evidence either way, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For this reason evolutionary theory does not disprove or otherwise disagree with the existence of god.

I might add here that it is generally only the most primitively literal and moralistic interpreters of religious texts that believe in strict 'creationism'. These are also the people who think that women should not be allowed control of their own reproductive systems, that god hates people with non-straight sexual orientations, and in some cases that we should continue destroying the environment because it will bring Jesus back quicker. I think we can fairly safely ignore any of their ideas about evolutionary biology.

Then I hear people saying they can co-exist, and that evolution doesnt cancel out all chances of a 'god', but I still cant quite understand this point of view. I mean, how can you believe in something that you cannot see, moreso than something that can be visibly seen, demonstrated, explained and proved, all in front of your eyes?? People say its because they have experienced the devine via a mystical experience, but like it is mentioned in the linked thread, mystical experience can be replicated in a lab using drugs, or by several other methods, so I cant see this being 'contact' from anything 'devine'.

The philosophical position you are coming from is called positivism: "if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist"

Many spiritual and religious philosophies have no conflict at all with the scientific description of the universe. According to these philosophies, the scientific description is mostly correct as far as it goes, but it only goes so far. To use either or both science and religion to draw conclusions outside of their accepted limits is where problems such as the evolution/creation debate come up. Personally my hunch is that given enough time, science will be able to explain nearly everything in the universe, but not everything. And the true objectivity of science is indeed questionable. The real revolution that quantum mechanics brought was not the trippy stuff they showed in What the Bleep do we know, but the fact that at the most fundamental levels of reality, there is no true separation between subject and object. The experimenter is part of the experiment.

As for your comments on drugs, the fact that a mystical experience can be 'created' in a lab using drugs doesn't have any bearing on its authenticity as a mystical experience. The well publicised study last year on psilocybin found that the drug was capable of causing mystical experiences, and that there were measurable beneficial outcomes in the lives of volunteers who had these experiences for months afterwards. What other measures could one use to determine if a mystical experience is 'real' or not? If it feels like a mystical experience, and it produces benefits that last for months, why would anyone question the validity and authenticity of that as contact with the divine?

perhaps because they have an ideological disagreement with drug use.

My own personal suspicion about the state of the universe is a fairly generic eastern perennial/mystical philosophy which is that all that exists is an expression of an underlying spiritual form. Life is one of the ways that form expresses itself and evolution is how life is seen to develop as it bootstraps itself to higher levels of consciousness. From this perspective biological evolution is part of an overall universal process from which subatomic particles construct themselves into mental and post-mental consciousnesses. The main difference between this and strict evolutionary theory is that this is somewhat teleological. The universe is heading somewhere. I acknowledge that this is not in line with neodarwinian theory, and that's how it should be, because it is outside of what neodarwinian theory can make statements about.

Edited November 19, 2007 by creach

[apothecary]

I don't believe in evolution because it is against my religion!

http://www.venganza.org/

[Auxin]

Theres no conflict between my religion and evolution, it regards such matters as the subject of the sciences and not religious theory.

I didnt read the link because it always comes down to christians ranting to the end of time about the origin of life ignorantly thinking that thats what evolution refers to, it gets kind of pointless.

[Micromegas]

Nice post creach.

[MORG]

I agree generally with Creach and more specifically with "I'm bored of this debate".

I too am a biologist and have the same problems in engaging in this debate. Darwinism is a simple, logical thing however anti-evolutionists that learn their background from TV, pop culture, politically correct high schools (it's just a theory) and already-biased Christians are generally the ones you end up arguing with and they always get the subtleties wrong and totally misunderstand the mechanics behind selection and evolution.

The problem I see when I argue with people on this topic is more generally an argument of rationality versus the irrational. It's like speaking completely different languages.

On a related note, I would be interested to see what people think of the effort some groups are going to to denounce creationism. I am a member of an evolutionary biology mailing list and there are frequent e-mails regarding anti-creationism lectures/papers/fundraisers/letters. I begin to wonder if it is seemly for the scientific community to engage so forcefully in these efforts.

I'm undecided. On one hand I believe that engaging in this debate makes scientists look defensive and threatened when in reality the attempts to bring Darwinism down in a "Christian-scientific" framework are a joke which is clearly visible to any intelligent, educated person (think of the biblical museum in Colorado with dioramas of men and dinosaurs co-existing). On the other hand, the rampant spreading of this misinformation (especially to the young) is potentially damaging to science's ultimate pillars of objectivity, rationality and empiricism if people are growing up thinking that's what science is about. Therefore the scientific framework should be defended.

[FungalFractoids]

Theres no conflict between my religion and evolution, it regards such matters as the subject of the sciences and not religious theory.

I didnt read the link because it always comes down to christians ranting to the end of time about the origin of life ignorantly thinking that thats what evolution refers to, it gets kind of pointless.

What he said

[Amulte]

reality is only 10%reality and 90% the minds perception of it. im not talking in reguards to downward spirals into the depths of loosing ones mind. but moreso the generaly intangability to most scienticif theories. for one example, Pain.

pain can be scienticifally explained through various nerve responses to sitmui, depending weather physical or psycho-sematic, but doesnt exist it the whole tangable reality. yet when one experiences pain it can be very real, yet it cannot be di-sected nor does it exist in the reality outside of the mind perception of said reality. tho we assume pain to be real as a majority of humans experience it in particular curcumstances, and because we have the receptors and ability through our nerves.

but when does ones experience become a reality? esspecially if the experience is on mass. what is it that makes us different from other sentient beings? simply because we can aynalise our existance to a further degree than what this world has experienced in reguards to sentient beings?

imagine if you existed in a 2 dimensional reality instead of 3d. the 3rd dimension would be totally unfalomable to the 2 dimensional being as it has not ever experienced it nor does it exist in that dimension, so how could it percieve or comprehend its existance?

answer me this in reguards to the other worldly experiences or spiritual encounters. we dont exist in that dimension so theres no chance we could possible percieve it. do humans have a soul? what about other sentient beings?

Edited November 19, 2007 by Amulte

[Amulte]

we assume pain to be real as a majority of humans experience it in particular curcumstances, and because we have the receptors and ability through our nerves.

my point being we also have the receptors for the spiritual experience, does that make it any less real that pain? id imagine it would somhow justify the humans ability to experience spiritual experiences in certain curcumstances.

[chilli]

Okay, I answered Still deciding and that I think they can co-exist, but I am also still deciding about evolution! There was no option, so I chose no, because in its most popular forms I find evolutionary theory unconvincing in some regards, and I think I understand it rudimentarily... please note that I find YEC even less convincing, and that this is only one kind of creationist approach, and a very recent and relatively small phenomenon as well.

As with so many things, there is such a broad spectrum of things people can and do believe, and I'm disturbed by how simplistically some people seem to see such a complex issue (eg. Christians Vs. Evolutionists). It is already an ugly topic, let's not make it even more so by adding to the misconceptions, misrepresentations, misunderstandings and other things that start with the prefix mis-

[Hagakure]

i too am a biologist and i too am sick of this discussion as it is pretty damn clear that evolution is responsible for the variety of life we have on earth. if that amazon discussion wont convince anyone either way then it must be pretty shit.

if anyone is interested in abiogenesis and how complex things like life evolve i am currently reading a very good book which i thoroughly recommend.

its called "Complexity" and its by M. Mitchell Waldrop. most enjoyable book i have read in a long time. talks about the possibilities of the origin of life, artificial intelligence, models of economies. lots of fun stuff.

Edited November 19, 2007 by Hagakure

[chilli]

i too am a biologist and i too am sick of this discussion as it is pretty damn clear that evolution is responsible for the variety of life we have on earth. if that amazon discussion wont convince anyone either way then it must be pretty shit.

if anyone is interested in abiogenesis and how complex things like life evolve i am currently reading a very good book which i thoroughly recommend.

its called "Complexity" and its by M. Mitchell Waldrop. most enjoyable book i have read in a long time. talks about the possibilities of the origin of life, artificial intelligence, models of economies. lots of fun stuff.

What amazon discussion?

[Hagakure]

first post

not the first line, not the second line but the one after that.

i havent actually read it as i have been in some large debates on evolution before and its as close as you can get to virtually banging your head against a wall.

[chilli]

first post

not the first line, not the second line but the one after that.

i havent actually read it as i have been in some large debates on evolution before and its as close as you can get to virtually banging your head against a wall.

lol at the comic and LOL at me.

[The Dude]

I would say that evolution is an obvious aspect of reality, however to say it is a random process seems wrong as there seems a beautiful design present in all nature. It is as though the rules are written and the game is played however we (it/reality/god) choose, with infinite possibilities. Order/Chaos co-existing. the theory of evolution works but it fails to bridge the gap - that may be considered of a spiritual nature, that is necessary for a theory of everything. What I guess I'm trying to get at is that you offer these two options where maybe the truth lies in a synthesis of both models of thinking: that being there is a process of evolution at work that can be expressed with infinite (chaotic) possibilities that is somehow defined by a design that permeats all facets of reality, that is a design that is only witnessed by creating a temporary projection of order onto chaos. to see the patterns of chaos. think smoke trails, there is a mechanics, it seems a design to reality. We may discuss how life started within our physical reality but how was this physicality created in the first place? Why is there something instead of nothing? This void of understanding everpresent is like the everpresence of god, the fact there is anything is proof enough of... something trippy that makes no sense without labelling it as the creator of all, ie:god, or any translation of that. Tetragrammatonah.

[edit] removed a nonsensical symbolic interpretation of the above. Point is that the landscape of consciousness cartographed by the language of symbols may well determine through a process of reverse causality, the 'random' direction of evolution.

Edited November 20, 2007 by El Duderino

[nabraxas]

Do you believe in the theory of evolution?

err...i'm no biologist, but isn't that question slightly wrong? i think evolution seems to be a no-brainer, in naturalist circles the idea was established by the end ov the 18th century.

Darwin's theory was the theory of natural selection which was an attempt to explain how & why evolution occured.

So, it may be possible to believe in evolution but disagree w/the theory ov natural selection.

[devance]

'I would say that evolution is an obvious aspect of reality, however to say it is a random process seems wrong as there seems a beautiful design present in all nature. It is as though the rules are written and the game is played however we (it/reality/god) choose, with infinite possibilities. Order/Chaos co-existing. the theory of evolution works but it fails to bridge the gap - that may be considered of a spiritual nature, that is necessary for a theory of everything. What I guess I'm trying to get at is that you offer these two options where maybe the truth lies in a synthesis of both models of thinking: that being there is a process of evolution at work that can be expressed with infinite '

Very true.

http://joybringer.zaadz.com/blog/2007/11/e...fication_theory

'Surfer Dude Stuns Physicists With Theory Of Everthing.

Perhaps some hippy dudes can do some visual modeling thats more useful.

[devance]

My visual model is unlike math but more useful for mental visual.

A equal-lateral triangle,

Each of the arms are equal and are time, space, and energy.

Mathematics is the science of ratios so a minute change in any of the lengths very minute would have a sort of sailing to the wind if one had a sailboat.

A more 4model

Would simply pulling one of the 3D triangle sides one at a side up at a sleight angle.

[occidentalis]

err...i'm no biologist, but isn't that question slightly wrong? i think evolution seems to be a no-brainer, in naturalist circles the idea was established by the end ov the 18th century.

Darwin's theory was the theory of natural selection which was an attempt to explain how & why evolution occured.

So, it may be possible to believe in evolution but disagree w/the theory ov natural selection.

yes

and there is still discussion of this in the evobio literature. Another mechanism that is proposed to account for evolution is genetic drift, and there is a school of biologists called 'neutralists' who believe that drift is just as or more important than selection.

So the theory of evolution is not contested, but the mechanisms behind it are.

[chilli]

So the theory of evolution is not contested, but the mechanisms behind it are.

Isn't there something slightly weird about that?

[Mycot]

There's not much I believe in without proof but the sad fact of the matter is that darwins evolutionary theory is a theory and not a proven fact. As such, to ask for belief is to make a religion of it.

That members of a species well adapted to their environment would have a higher chance of passing these traits on to succeeding generations would not be contested by any sane person.

But to talk of one species becoming another (eg, monkey to man) is another matter entirely, as is the spontaneous generation of new organs.

We have a fossil record that tells us what lived when. Unfortunately not only does it not properly fill in the gaps between man and ape, it doesn't even properly fill in gaps between any one species and another.

[occidentalis]

Damn, I said I wouldn't argue with anyone who hadn't bothered to educate themselves, but here I go....

There's not much I believe in without proof but the sad fact of the matter is that darwins evolutionary theory is a theory and not a proven fact. As such, to ask for belief is to make a religion of it.

This is a common argument brought up by creationists but it belies a misunderstanding of the terminology

In science the term theory is used differently to in everyday language

in science, 'theory' is as close to fact as you get. Another well known theory is Newton's theory of gravity. If you feel that gravity is something you need to have faith in because it's 'just a theory' then I want what you're on.

We have a fossil record that tells us what lived when. Unfortunately not only does it not properly fill in the gaps between man and ape, it doesn't even properly fill in gaps between any one species and another.

Another common creationist argument

Punctuated equilibrium is the term used to describe the sudden speciation events observed throughout the fossil record. There are two reasons why there are no 'missing links'.

1, most speciation events occur in small isolate populations (allopatry). This form of speciation by its nature is unlikely to leave a fossil record, as the 'missing link' stage may only consist of a population of a few hundred individuals.

2, the theory of chaotic attractors can be applied to speciation (see Stuart Kauffman, The Origins of Order). This theory proposes a mechanism of speciation whereby populations at the genetic level are chaotic systems hovering about a particular attractor. Levels of heterozygosity and population breeding characteristics determine how plastic the system is. Environmental (selection) and internal (drift) pressures can 'push' the attractor anywhere within that range of plasticity, and when it happens it happens very quickly (as is generally the case in chaotic systems). Thus mutant alleles leading to speciation can spread through a population in 10 or so generations.

There is a VERY low statistical probability of any one individual organism becoming a fossil, then there is a further low probability that we will ever find it. So it is not surprising we have never found a 'missing link'. Speciation occurs quickly.

Brain

Isn't there something slightly weird about that?

No

The neutralists (Kimura et al.) claim that drift is just as or more important than selection

The selectionists (everyone else) claim that drift is rare and relatively unimportant.

So both agree that selection is important, however they disagree on the relative importance of drift

[Mycot]

Creationist theory I find just as unconvincing as Evolutionary theory.

Then there are scientific theory's in physics and cosmology often competing and mutually exclusive.

All the same they are theory's as they cant all be factual. Being close to fact still shows that the matter is unproven.

Now I have to swallow "punctuated equilibrium" and "speciation events" in addition to evolution(it gets deeper and deeper). So how many of these events occured between horse and giraffe.It seems that speciation not only quickly but in rather large jumps.(I dont really accept this)I still lack enough evidence to show that your not merely explaining the problem with the fossil record away rather than proving your case.

[apothecary]

Mycot, please explain your definition of proof?

[Mycot]

Proof doesn't require faith. Something that is shown to be factual and incontestable is something proved.

This may not be philosophically deep but I take the word in the everyday sense of the term.