Options
Science Doubter Question
Mookie Baylock
Posts: 90
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?
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?
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
-Ashley Montagu
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
You're right.
I think people doubt because of godn religion, etc.
People don't want to believe we are almost monkeys !
2007: Copenhagen, Werchter
2009: Rotterdam, London
2010: MSG, Arras, Werchter
2012: Amsterdam, Prague, Berlin
2014: Amsterdam, Stockholm
I think people doubt scientific theories when they fail to see direct profit or applications behind them. Plate tectonics offers the hope that we will be able to predict more and more accurately earthquakes or tsunamis. Relativity and following works on the atom give us energy. On the other hand big bang and/or string theory are also contested because they don't have immediate applications. Just like evolution, it really is a great theory, but it's only used to educate not to produce (yet) so people feel their entitled to doubt it (for religious reasons, or not. I have an atheist friend who doesn't buy "that crap that would have us believe we're talking monkeys which is no doubt a brainwashing scheme by world elites"). When evolution will produce benefits (the prediction of virus evolving for example) people will have to stop doubting it.
It's just my theory of course, but once people start to aknowledge benefits from scientific works these 'stop' being theories in collective minds and almost become force of law.
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/
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.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
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.
ahhhh....bigmacs on me...wooo
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
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.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
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.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
i think its the same people who cant grasp the concept that pro choice doesnt mean pro death. its choice ignorance, i would rather be at peace with my fable and not know whats heppening around me...rather than be correctly in formed.
when in fact...if you are religious...and you dig in depth with evolution...you will find your religion could mean so much more than it did before...
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.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Also, people who think that evolutionary theory states that we 'came from monkeys' do not understand evolution.
Kann, I think it could be the reverse. There are benefits and applications of evolutionary theory, but I think people make themselves less aware of these applications because they don't want to accept evolutionary theory.
Here are some good places to start.....
http://www.bscs.org/library/EvolutionaryScience_Part4.pdf
http://www.bscs.org/library/EvolutionaryScience_Part5.pdf
These are both sections from a publication of a symposium titled Evolutionary Science and Society: Educating a New Generation, which was held by the American Institute of Biological Science together with the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study for the National Association of Biology Teachers annual meeting in 2004. You can read more about the symposium and access the whole publication here: http://www.aibs.org/special-symposia/2004.html
This one looks excellent too, but it's not available free: http://www.aibs.org/bookstore/evolution_why_bother.html
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.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/d#a485
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.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Your entire answer can probably be summed up as bolded...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
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.
this is true...but it's not infallible either...it very well could be the best theory we have now but that doesn't mean that it is correct in every way.
Agreed. The fact that it is testable and falsifiable is what makes it good science. However, there is more evidence to support evolution than you might think. While we can't (because of the time scale) observe macroevolution taking place, we see microevolution taking place all the time. Our understanding of it may not be completely correct in every way, but most real debate in the actual scientific community at this point is related to how it occurs rather than whether it occurs.
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
- Theodosius Dobzhansky
I realize there is plenty of evidence to support some portions of evolution, no doubt. I agree the how it occurs is important to study and should be studied. Who knows, science may find continue to find that microevolution takes place but in reality macroevolution is nearly impossible, thus modifying the whether it occurs assumption that science operates upon.
I think it's pretty unlikely that we'll ever conclude that macroevolution is nearly impossible. It's not just an extension of the idea of microevolution. There is lots of evidence to support it as well.
Did you ever notice that there are no scientists debating the existence of evolution, except those who have a religious agenda?
I'll give you one reason. What I see with my own eyes. What everyone sees with their visual striate cortex actually, then it's recoded and sent elsewhere in the brain, probably the frontal lobe (Crick and Koch).
What everyone sees is cause and effect. They see people throwing balls and they can predict when a pitcher winds up that he is going to throw the ball. The ball is going to travel towards the batter and he will either pass on it if he predicts it will be a ball, or swing at it if he predicts he will hit it. We constantly predict what will happen in the future and we accurately do so. Cause and effect is the nature of the universe. All of science is causal. The human body and mind are causal. There is no possible way we have free-will or any authorship over our fate at all. Split-brain patients may have half of their brain that believes in God and the other half doesn't (V.S. Ramachandran).
What is God? God is not caused, God is the first cause. How can we fathom that? How can we comprehend something that does not have a cause, cannot be measured and depends on speculation? Speculation that has no consistency. It's badly formulated and offers no prophetic quality. I'm agnostic to Spinoza's God, but I am an atheist to Abraham's God.
Wow. I'm not sure if I even know how to begin to respond to this.
One: The atlantic ocean should have covered the earth? What? Can you please provide your reference? I'd like to read it.
Two: Just because something is difficult to understand does not not make it unlikely to be true.
Three: Evolutionary theory does not predict that humans would change significantly over a 2,000 year period. 2,000 years is a very small timeframe for evolutionary change in a organism with a relatively long lifespan like humans. Its only 100 or so generations.
Four: Why not?
And your personal reasons:
1. What 'truth' are we avoiding?
2. A monkey is a wonderfully complex piece of biological machinery, just like a human, an insect, a plant, a mushroom or a bacterium. Learn some biology and you will see that all forms of life are worthy of wonder, and we humans are really not so different from everything else.
3. What specific aspect of evolutionary theory makes no sense to you? Have you made any attempt to remedy your lack of understanding? Ask questions if you don't understand something. There are several people on this very forum (myself included) who have spent considerable amounts of time working in this area. They can explain the concepts to you if you ask.
4. Darwin himself struggled for many years to reconcile his belief in a creator with his ideas about evolution. It was the evidence that he saw before him that made him rethink his religious teachings. He did not develop the theory as a way to justify his refusal to believe in a creator. In any case, there is nothing about evolutionary theory that explicity suggests that a creator can not exist. The only problem with it from a christian theological perspective is that it does not agree with a strictly literal interpretaion of the bible. So what? Many aspects of our modern day lives don't agree with a stricly literal interpretation of religious texts that were written thousands of years ago by people from another time and a another culture, who spoke different languages. This is hardly surprising.
-C Addison
This is an excellent point!!
If you all don't mind a minor hijack, I'm curious what your research interest is Scubascott.
I'm working on the bacterial ecology of corals, particularly diseased corals. Its extremely frustrating. . .
-C Addison
Once you demonstrate microevolution you have got very good evidence for macroevolution. Throw in some basic concepts of geology, as shown below, and microevolution turns into macroevolution.
Step 1) Take 1 species undergoing microevolutionary processes.
Step 2) Geological events cause a barrier that divides the species into 2 groups, and restricts interbredding between the two different groups of the still same species.
Step 3) Over time, the selection pressures acting on the microevolutionary processes change a little between the two groups. So now you have 2 groups of a species undergoing microevolution in different directions, with each group unable to effectively share their genes with the other group.
Step 4) Add a short period of geological time (in other words, a large amount of time from our perspective) and your two groups become so distinct from one another that they are no capable of interbreeding. Thus macroevolution has taken place.
naděje umírá poslední
I have to admit I did not read the whole text of the files above, but from the look of it, it seems evolution does not offer a daily common benefit, at least benefits know from the large public. A majority of people (this is an opinion I didn't do a survey on that) have misconceptions on evolution such as "only the strong survive" and "we descend from monkeys".
Wether these misconceptions are due to a long history of refusing and negating that theory (the monkey part is the thing for which evolutionnary adepts have always been criticized) or a lack of correctly teaching evolution in school I don't know.
Until there is correct and strong communication on viable applications due to evolution people will still view it as the strange idea that would give us monkeys for grandfathers.