Topic awaiting preservation: Why so many Christians hate evolution?

you know I am having this moment...in school, those fanatics...you cant reason with them...they keep saying stupid stuff such as:
"if we come from monkeys how come monkeys are still today?"
and "How can DNA change?"...they keep saying its ridiculus to believe in evolution and all that crap...they always fight back in rage and stuff, they just cant calmly talk about it....uh oh....well I am kinda sad.....[hell people are so dumb? I guess we are still monkeys ] kiddin

Well, the simple reason is that their religious faith -- if interpreted in its most strict sense -- does not allow for any aspect of the Holy Bible to be questioned, or interpreted as anything but literal fact. And the Bible is quite clear on how the world was created. Given the fundamentalist stance on faith vs. damnation, it's easy to see how people can be conditioned to defend their beliefs in the face of any opposition.

The underlying question is why people choose to embrace a faith that seems -- in this particular interpretation -- to deny many of the mental disciplines that have resulted in what we call "civilization." My gut answer is "stupidity," whether personal or institutionalized. My gut answer is open to fierce debate, even from me, but for the moment I'm going to leave it at that.

My question is, is it just Christians? Or is it a general feeling, running through most of the major religions?

A fundamentalist by any other name... etc.

I hate it because it makes me dizzy.

Oh, evolution...

hmm... I dunno about other peopls thoughts or hates agains evolution... but what really bothers me is that Evolution is taught as a hard solid FACT...

And as far as I can see... it sure as heck ain't fact. If it was presented as a theory with alternates... that would be groovy....

                                   

quote:

---

A stubborn idiot by any other name still shits me up the wall

-- Adrian Overbury, 2000

---

Evolution is a fact (see below, points 1 - 5)...depending on what you mean, by Evolution...see here for details.

quote:

---

There are, I think, at least eight different notions or
claims or statements that are frequently subsumed under the
heading of "evolution," as follows:


What is Evolution?
Group-A:
1. The earth and living things on it are much older than 6000
years. (This means that the so-called "young earth theory" -
- held by a few religious fundamentalists or Biblical
literalists -- is denied.)


2. Living species did not appear on earth all at once. (This
claim can be further stated or specified as


2A. Changes in biological organisms have occurred over time.


2B. Change in allele frequencies occurs.


3. Mutation (in DNA, or whatever other form may be specified)
occurs in living things.


4. Natural selection occurs. (This is sometimes described in
terms of "evolutionary advantage.")


5. 3 + 4 together (i.e., mutation + natural selection, in
whatever way these may be understood) are the cause of *some*
(but not all) changes in biological organisms.


Group-B:
6. 3 + 4 together (i.e., mutation + natural selection) can
account for *all* changes in biological organisms (i.e., can
account for all speciation and the coming into being of all
biological differences and biological structures, after the
first living cell appears).


7. 3 + 4 together (i.e., mutation + natural selection) are the
only possible (or intellectually credible) account for all
changes in biological organisms.


8. Metaphysical naturalism must be accepted as the only (possible
or intellectually credible) stance. (As opposed to
metaphysical supernaturalism or theism.)

There does exist, I think, overwhelming and conclusive
evidence -- geological, palentological, biological, etc. --
supporting the truth of each of the statements 1 through 5. In
other words, we are warranted in saying that statements 1 through
5 are true. *If evolution is defined as claiming that any or all
of the statements 1 through 5 are true, but only that,* then we
can say that evolution is conclusively shown to be true. Thus, if
the claim "evolution is true" means *only* that one or more of
the statements 1 through 5 is asserted to be true, then that
claim "evolution is true" is warranted or true.


Here, however, is the most important point: The truth of any
of the statements 1 through 5 -- or of all the statements 1
through 5 taken together -- does *not* yield the truth of *any*
of the statements 6 through 8.


The truth of 1 through 5 does offer *some* evidence toward
the truth of 6 through 8, but does not prove them; in fact it
comes nowhere near proving them. In other words, it is perfectly
possible, logically and otherwise, for all of 1 through 5 to be
true and for all of 6 through 8 to be false.


Personally, I think that each of the statements 1 through 5
is, in fact, true and that each of the statements 6 through 8 is,
in fact, false.


The error in much evolutionist thinking and argumentation comes
about, I think, because of this confusion: 1 through 5 are known
to be true. Moreover the truth of 1 through 5 offers some
evidence toward the truth of one or more of the statements 6
through 8. On that basis, many evolutionists go on to assert that
one or more of the statements 6 through 8 is true.


This is, I think, an error that occurs in all -- or nearly all --
allegedly scientific accounts of evolution: a subtle or not so subtle
slide back and forth from group-A claims (statements 1 through 5) to
group-B ones (statements 6 through 8).


Statements 1 through 6 are scientific claims. Statements 7
and 8 are metaphysical -- extra-scientific -- ones. Genuine
science is (or should be, I think) restricted to non-metaphysical
claims. Metaphysical claims go beyond science into an extra-
scientific domain: the realm of philosophy of science.


--Lloyd Eby, Evolution: Facts, Fallacies, and Crisis

---

I hope that helps define the issue better...so, there is room enough for both Evolution (points 1 - 5) and Creation...as long as one does not literally interpret the Bible...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 02-05-2003).]

double post.

[This message has been edited by MW (edited 02-05-2003).]

quote:

---

hmm... I dunno about other peopls thoughts or hates agains evolution... but what really bothers me is that Evolution is taught as a hard solid FACT...

And as far as I can see... it sure as heck ain't fact. If it was presented as a theory with alternates... that would be groovy....

---

Of course a scientific theory has to face the challenge of alternate explanations -
If someone would present me just one alternative theory which does not fall under Occam´s Razor (i.e. does not require assuming something which by definition can´t be proven true or false like the existence and interference of a "god") I´d be very curious.

[edit:] Damn WS, you type fast (actually, you cheater just copy-pasted all this stuff in there )

Your grouping of facts and conclusions seems a really good starting point for further debate.
Question: Do you consider non-genetical transmission ( by biochemical or biophotonical means/ by culture or civilisation) methaphysical?



[This message has been edited by MW (edited 02-05-2003).]

quote:

---

And the Bible is quite clear on how the world was created.

---

to be honest, no its not. i wonder how many people, whether they support or deny evolution, actually realize what the bible actually says when it comes to the earth's creation. its covered in a grand total of 31 verses (24 if we stop before man is introduced), about a page and a half in my translation. and from that we're able to determine exactly what happened when, in what timeframe, under exact circumstances and clearly define how it was done?

mmm k...

chris


KAIROSinteractive

and WS, really nice post, great info there...

chris


KAIROSinteractive

MW, I think that point 5 covers that

quote:

---

5. 3 + 4 together (i.e., mutation + natural selection, in
whatever way these may be understood) are the cause of *some*
(but not all) changes in biological organisms.

---

So...if it is supported by science fact, then yes...

And were we to just consider Evolution under points 1 through 5 (which I do), then I think most people would agree...or just do not want to accept the facts. This in no way, shape, or form, rules out Creation in and of itself. That is an entirely different question. But, for one who is literally interpreting the Bible, then of course, there is a conflict. I think that the facts outwiegh the belief, IMHO.

Also, don't forget that many scientists themselves, confuse Evolution (points 1 through 5) with the points 6 though 8...which is not factual at all.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 02-05-2003).]

Great link there, WS!

To expand on what Fig stated....

It never really said anywhere in the bible how God created the earth. Maybe he was the driving force behind the evolution, and he set all of it up.

Who knows, he may've tossed that asteroid since he got fed up with the dinosaurs.

Fig: you're right to say that it's not "quite clear." Perhaps I would be more accurate to say that the Bible, if interpreted literally and interpolated using the assumptions that arise from a literal reading, directly denies evolution.

There's a limit to how complex I want my statement to be, since I think my basic point is valid without too many qualifiers.

Yes, Mahjqa, that is entirely possible. That's why I don't quite understand why some fundamentalists totally deny Evolution (points 1 - 5).

I still think that Creation and Science (in this case, Evolution) still have room to exist...even though I don't particularly believe in Creation...at this point (even with that other link), it is impossible to rule it completely out. I found this out, in the Formal Debate with Bugs (thanks, Bugs!)...

If you took the emotion out of the equation, what would be left? Cold, hard facts. And from the facts that we know, what conclusion would one draw? At the heart of it, this is the question (IMHO).

Belief, after all, is an emotion. Logic is not.

TO further PT's point - I think the more important aspect of his statement is that many fundamentalist groups *assume* the bible to be very clear on how the world was created because they take it completely at face value and as the final word on the issue.

=)

Read those damn disclaimer stickers that folks have and are trying to stick in Biology books. They reek of scientific ignorance. "Evolution is only a theory" is the anthem of those who didn't learn a damn thing in school ...
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/alabama/1996-04-01alabama.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Cell Number: 494 / Inkstick

Man, BeeKay, those are very nice links...I just love this part

quote:

---

There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.
There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

--Talkorigins

---

This quote just about represents the viewpoints of all of the members here...just simplified, for easy understanding...brilliant.

Thanks for posting those links..

I just dont get it how can people denai something they see around them?
I mean..look at the dogs! they evolved from wolves, right?
so we have both dogs and wolves.....

another exemple: look at the frog, they are born in water and slowly adapt to the ground and change....start living on the ground!

uh oh dont mind my english

WS: I think when izzy said evolution isn't a fact, he was refering to humans coming from apes. That particular idea in general hasn't been fully proven as a fact, but has many many resources to back it up making it a very provable theory. And izzy, WS was refering to the fact that certain species have evolved over time, which is evolution.

First of all, I wasn't 'attacking' Izzay...I merely presented the current knowledge of the facts. Second, one can argue about the current theories of the mechanisms of Evolution...but the idea of Evolution itself (points 1 through 5) are facts.

Now, one could argue the point of 'fact' itself...

And, as one can see, there is still room enough, for both Creation and Evolution. As for the monkey/human thing...where did that come from? Either you know more, about what Izzay was thinking (than I do)...or you are speculating. In any event, I didn't read any Mankind from Apes into his post...

In conclusion, there was never an intent, on my part, to in any way personally put down Izzay. He is entitled to his opinion, and beliefs, just as everyone is.

I never said attacking now did I .

If you want my opinion (yes, I've decided to be serious now), it has less to do with religious beliefs and more to do with an inflated sense of self-worth. The attitude is very similar to that of the Catholic Church that rejected the Copernican view of the solar system (Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for extrapolating on the Copernican theory and suggesting that there might be other worlds out there with intelligent life forms). That attitude basically says that humanity is the center of the universe, and it cannot bear the possibility that man is in fact just a small part of the universe.

Now, I do happen to believe that man holds a special place in the universe, but that doesn't mean I disagree with evolution in its entirety. The problem is that many people see the issue as black and white: either we came from apes, or God created the world in six days and then sat down on the seventh day to play Gin with Jesus and the Holy Ghost. So if it is a choice between man being a slightly developed ape and man being the center of the universe, the choice would seem obvious.

Evolution is not black and white, though; it's grey. Do I think we were once all amoebas swimming around in the primordial ooze? Well, I'm not too sure about that. Do I think evolution is a visible force in nature? Yes. We can even see how mankind has evolved over the course of recorded history, not to mention other examples. In fact (as has been mentioned above), I don't know how the earth was really created. For all I know, God may have used evolution to create the world in a longer process.

The point, for me at least, is whether or not evolution interferes with my faith. I have long since concluded that it does not, and that I should concentrate on the central tenets of my faith (love, forgiveness, etc.) rather than get bogged down in drawn-out arguments over things like this.

Hmm... I had a point when I started this. Not sure if it came though.

There is something extremely comforting in knowing the answer to such a huge question as to how the universe was created. The comfort comes from not having to think about it because it's all in "the book". So I believe many religious people, not just Christians, see Evolution as a direct threat to their comfort zone, and in many cases, their sincere belief that God created the world exactly the way the Bible describes in Genesis.

I also think there is a very human factor involved. It is somewhat humiliating to think we simply evolved from *lesser* species. Believing we were created as the crown of creation has a much better feel to it. In this respect, I believe there are plenty of non-religious people too who have a problem with it.

. . : slicePuzzle

If there was no such thing as evolution, and we were here from the beginning, as the Good Book says, we would have been killed off when the Chixulub (sorry if the spelling's wrong) comet hit earth. And the asteroids and natural disasters that occurred beforehand.

If there was no such thing as evolution, and we were here from the beginning, as the Good Book says, why aren't there any fossils of us buried in the oldest rocks. Surely, if we have always existed, our remains should, too. So, where are they?

If there was no such thing as evolution, and we were here from the beginning, as the Good Book says, why were we so dumb as to go from cave dwelling 10,000 years ago to space walking today. Why weren't we in space thousands of years ago?

Because we hadn't evolved intellectually yet!

Evolution is a vital part of science. We cannot just dismiss it as a "theory". We have been presented evidence of its work. It exists. We were created by it. Gorillas were created by it. Natural selection resulted in millions of species, all constantly fighting a genetic struggal for survival.

Evolution is real. It exists. Deal with it!

A slight side bar.

In scientific circles there is no longer anything considered a "law" little principles that are "theories" do not gradutate to some absolute truth.

All science is based on theories born out by testing but that can be changed or even proved wrong at any time. (Think the theory of relativity) No current scientist would ever call something a law.

There are no scientific absolute "facts" just things that have been tested as well as we currently can.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

a few notes based on ramses' comments...

not all people who believe in creationism believe in it from a purely fundamentalist kind of view. the six days of creation in genesis (seven counting the day of rest) do seem to be separated from the rest of the biblical timeline in some respects. in other words, those days weren't necessarily january 1-7 and then things continued day by day on the 8th. those "days" may've spanned millions of years, accounting for things like the fossil record and other things we know to exist scientifically. the science of god by gerald l. schroeder, a physicist with a doctorate from MIT, is a great read on the subject.

the idea of evolving intellectually is a bit more theologically based, but there are theories about it. one is that God created us, man, as perfect, adam and eve were without defect, intellectually and physically superior. but then came sin, introducing imperfection into man. as man continued away from God sin grew as did the defects and flaws and our imperfection grew. we've slowly progressed as a society to the point we are now. i'm sure bugs can explain this better than i can.

suho, your last point is spot-on, good stuff.

chris



KAIROSinteractive

Bitdamaged, there are things that are facts...let's take Gravity, for example. Irregardless of how we wish to present the mechanism of Gravity (Newton, Einstein, etc), that doesn't change the fact, that the apple falls, when let go...the apple doesn't pause, to let us decide on the correct mechanism.

So, too, is this with Evolution. Irregardless of how we wish to decribe the mechanism explaining it, it continues...it does not 'wait', for us to decide, how it works.

No, the apple appears to fall.

What you have there is an observed phenomenon not a scientific principle (the point of my post)



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

quote:

---

There are no scientific absolute "facts" just things that have been tested as well as we currently can.

--Bitdamaged

---

Gravity is a fact. Light is a fact. These are also scientific facts. It is scientific, because it can be observed, measured, etc. As mentioned by me above, one can argue the point 'fact'...it leads into the realm of Philosophy though...this is why no fact can really be absolute...because it never can attain 100% accuracy...for it could be, that this is all a dream, or somesuch.

However, there are facts, as facts are understood. Let us make no mistake here.

I AM WITH YOU DUDE!!!!!

Gravity is a fact, but the way we think gravity works may not be a fact, and all the factors that cause a certain amount of gravity may not be a fact.

So like you were saying, nothing is absolute. The only thing that is absolute is that we think. Everything, including our bodies, may be just a thought. Perhaps all we are is thoughts, and everything else is a part of our imagination.

Cell 816 ~ teamEarth ~ Asylum Quotes

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 02-07-2003).]

Like WS said, those kind of comments (we're all just figments of imagination kinda stuff) are trekking through the realm of Philosophy and getting a bit off topic IMO.

Cell Number: 494 / Inkstick

there is no spoon...

chris


KAIROSinteractive

^ that is the single greatest statement in this thread thus far.

Thank you Fig =) You've made my day! (no, I'm not being sarcastic)

But isn't this the Philosophy forum? I thought that's what this was all about...

All right ... you know what I meant ... sheesh ... I don't jump into conversations often, but when I do this happens ...

Cell Number: 494 / Inkstick

glad to dl

chris


KAIROSinteractive

quote:

---

those "days" may've spanned millions of years

---

That's the same kind of excuse my mum thought up. I think the creation story is an interesting piece of literature with sociocultural value. That's it.

ramses, check the book i mentioned that goes into the physics and science behind that theory and then let me know what you think. not just an idea i "thought up".

chris


KAIROSinteractive