Science Doubter Question

Mookie Baylock wrote:

Hi all, I'm just wondering if anyone can answer this.

It seems like the science of evolution is always on the hot seat even though its a relitively simple concept. Why do people not doubt other hard to imagine sciences like plate tectonics or relativity. Why do people have such a hard time with evolution, other than that they are often spiritualy biased against it. Or is that just it?

But if you can accept the science behind one theory, why not another. The scientific method is the scientific method, is it not?

You're right.
I think people doubt because of godn religion, etc.
People don't want to believe we are almost monkeys !

Mookie Baylock wrote:

Hi all, I'm just wondering if anyone can answer this.

It seems like the science of evolution is always on the hot seat even though its a relitively simple concept. Why do people not doubt other hard to imagine sciences like plate tectonics or relativity. Why do people have such a hard time with evolution, other than that they are often spiritualy biased against it. Or is that just it?

But if you can accept the science behind one theory, why not another. The scientific method is the scientific method, is it not?

you have peoples preconceptions at play. The sticking point for most people is the origins question which inevitably comes up. No one will really debate small changes/mutations that occur and that the fittest to the environment survive and the weak traits are weeded out. The problem arises when using only retrospective data and analysis (which is all we really have for the huge jumps) and then making causal claims. You need prospective data to up the level of evidence.

This quote here also says a lot about the origins issue. Again, when dealing with evolution, undoubtedly comes up.

If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving”. Richard Leakey, world’s foremost paleo-anthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990.



also evolution is not a simple concept. It's presented as one, but as with any scientific research there are nuances and assumptions that people base their work on. You have people on both sides of the issues that say they are right.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17873752/

baraka wrote:

The problem as I see it with 'Creation science' is the creation scientists do not submit their papers to peer-reviewed journals or participate in scientific conferences. In my mind, if you are not willing to put your theories out there for peer-review, etc, you can't claim that you are practicing science.

i agree. There have been a hand full of papers that have been submitted to secular, high impact journals. But for the most part they haven't had an opportunity (or take the opportunity) to cross over (don't know if it's b/c the work is shoddy or they choose to present their work in a friendlier environment) into the mainstream science programs. I do think they are practicing science, but they aren't going about defending it in the most rigorous, traditionally accepted ways.

baraka wrote:

The problem as I see it with 'Creation science' is the creation scientists do not submit their papers to peer-reviewed journals or participate in scientific conferences. In my mind, if you are not willing to put your theories out there for peer-review, etc, you can't claim that you are practicing science.

please stop calling them "scientists". It only gives them credibility. The problem with "creation" as "science" is that there are no testable predictions to be made or observed. None. It boils down to "because the bible said so, that's why." And that's not science.

Mookie Baylock wrote:

Hi all, I'm just wondering if anyone can answer this.

It seems like the science of evolution is always on the hot seat even though its a relitively simple concept. Why do people not doubt other hard to imagine sciences like plate tectonics or relativity. Why do people have such a hard time with evolution, other than that they are often spiritualy biased against it. Or is that just it?

But if you can accept the science behind one theory, why not another. The scientific method is the scientific method, is it not?

There is an undercurrent of folks who doubt plate tectonics and continental drift based on reasons of logic, not religion. Because they use logic, not faith, their doubt is not considered newsworthy. In other words, their argument won't upset Joe TVnewswatcher.

know1 wrote:

I don't doubt that evolution is occurring and I find it hard to believe that anyone would.

I do find it hard to believe that the concept of evolution is what created the planet and its inhabitants in the beginning. Come to think of it, scientists aren't real sure on evolution as creation either.

our periodic table of elements menu combined with unknown billions and billions of years and the natural tendency of material to combine and interact under gravity and infinite combinations thereof....toss in in water (and heat..the sun)as a catalyst to speed everything up here on earth...and here we all are..

Calcium is produced from a sun going supernova... our bones are from exploded stars.

godpt3 wrote:

please stop calling them "scientists". It only gives them credibility. The problem with "creation" as "science" is that there are no testable predictions to be made or observed. None. It boils down to "because the bible said so, that's why." And that's not science.

uh, that is what I just stated. Noted the quotes. Also, there are many out there that have the credentials to be called scientists. Whether they practice good science is another matter.

For anyone who is interested. Here are all of Charles Darwins books online in HTML and PDF format.

http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/d#a485

ForestBrain wrote:

I don't believe in evolution for a few reasons:
Number one, according to evolution and the age of the earth, the Atlantic ocean should have completely consumed the entire earth by now.
Two: I cannot fathom a single cell can evolve in to the extremely complex brain we humans possess.
Three: If evolution were real (and having the history of the way people looked over 2,000 years ago) humans would have physically evolved by now.
Four: The earth cannot sustain itself for billions of years.
.
.
And more personal reasons:
1. It's a good excuse to avoid the truth.
2. If I come from a monkey, then life has lost all art and I don't want anything to do with it.
3. It makes no sense.
4. It's just people who don't want to believe that there is a God and are trying desperately to prove it. And they can't.
Evolution is a theory. Not a fact.
The teachings in the Bible coincide more with science than does evolution.
Now, I know a lot of you don't believe that there is a God. But please, instead of name-calling and stuff like that, just write a list of reasons why not to believe there is a God and how he couldn't have possibly created the earth.

okay first. what has evolution go to do with the atlantic ocean? that would be more a geological problem.

second. can you fathom how a human embryo evolves into a 100 year old man?

third. man is physically perfect for this space and time. he requires no evolution as of now. but who is to say what will occur in the far future. ever wondered why some people have webbed toes?

as for your personal reasons.
i dont understand what you mean by your first one.
i think that man and the apes evolved from a common ancestor. not necessarily that Mankind evolved from monkeys.
you say evolution makes no sense and yet you think that religion does? is that it? you are aware of why its called faith, right?

the reason i dont believe in God is because it makes no sense to me. i see no evidence of his existence. and thirdly it makes no sense to me. i started to seriously doubt Gods existence when i was 10/11. when i asked my priest to explain some things to my curious mind, i was thrown out of the class. i am aware that someone else may have taken the time too explain things to me but truth be told i was looking for excuses to believe not disbelieve. and i figured that cant be right. so from agnostic to atheist i went. i am not a fence sitter and i have never doubted my path.

ForestBrain wrote:

Evolution is a theory. Not a fact.

Like the theory of gravity, or the cell theory, or the atomic theory, or the theory of relativity.....


People who use the argument "evolution is only a theory" don't understand what a scientific theory is. It's not just a hypothesis.