Why don't people take the time to actually learn what they are against? I think it's just stupid how many people refuse the facts...apparently for no reason at all I might add. Just wondering if you guys know any people who are really against the fact of evolution and why they go against it.

Well, I know two people quite well who oppose evolution very strongly, one twenty-something girl, and one sixty-something guy. The girl has an undergraduate biology degree, believe it or not.

The why in both cases is mostly religious. The girl with the biology degree was brought up in a very religious family, and more than that, she feels that she has to be more religious than anyone else. She has security issues or something. So she adopts views and behaviours that will make her feel like she's more of a believer. She's also rather gullible (believes in homeopathy, naturopathy, fluoridation of water is an evil corporate conspiracy, et cetera). I'm not sure why, but if it has to do with health or biology, she'll latch onto anything that is ATM. We've had a number of discussions about evolution, and she seems to just accept ATM claims like "speciation can never be observed," and she just gets angry when I point out that it has been many times (and the next time the discussion comes up, she seems to have forgotten). Otherwise, a very smart person, though.

Same with the old guy: normally good logic, fun to spar with verbally, but just closes his head when things he doesn't want to hear are said. His method is funnier, though. Instead of getting angry, he just talks louder and louder, until whatever disagreeable thing you are saying is drowned out. Very amusing at restaurants.

My little sister, of all people, doesn't believe in evolution, either. However, she told me that she doesn't believe in it because she hasn't seen enough evidence for it yet. When I told her, "look, it's a fact," she replied with, "why should I believe you?" I wasn't sure whether to hug her or slap her. I'm not worried. With that mindset, she's in good shape to go through life.

__________________
"It's turtles all the way down."

My IQ has just dropped by 50 points for reading this thread. My father and mother are very religious and oppose all forms of evolution. I don't desire to smack them, but I increase in desire to love them.

Lets not turn this into an evolution/creationism battle... If you want to discuss the science of evolution, go ahead, but please don't turn it into a science vs religion argument.

Forum Rules

I'll unsubscribe.

If people did really learned about what they are against, they would find themself’s not against it.

I see this with skeptics and woowoos, you can only really be against something you don’t know anything about. Or, listen to someone who knows less then you do!

But, to learn from someone,you have to trust them. And if you are against them,you don’t trust them. And you will not learn anything. This is the cycle of ignorance.

It has nothing to do with religion, just look at the debate about global warming. If you have your ‘Rose colored glasses’’ on, you only see what you want.

__________________
WoodGuard from Canada, An Skeptic in training.
A Human is an ape with a mutated brain, a twisted thumb and a bad back.
I am not a bright I am enlighten!

Thanx galaxy,
State my credentials openly. Suscribe not to any religion.
Anathema to me in my search for truth.
Galaxy, if I may. Darwin only scratched the surface, I feel there is
a program embedded within the genetic code, mostly it works,
sometimes faults arise, genes are switched on or off, so we have
sickness. But feel Galaxy, the program has been successful so far,
or we would not be having this conversation.
Galaxy, would not dream of trying to explain the programmer,
because, in a word, am not that advanced yet to understand.
I do understand my limitations Galaxy, entertaining a God that
would fill in the blanks is to me like writing a bad cheque.
I stand by what I read, evaluate, learn and know.
Enjoy converse with you Galaxy Girl, stay cool.
Nokton. (Peter)

As I have said before on this forum. If the IDers ever took control, then that would be the end of science, therefor mankind would be doomed and would not escape the planet to populate the galaxy. This would be evolution at work.

edit-but on a galactic scale.

I have never understood this argument. You are not going to be herd by the person who does not listen. People have the right to be wrong. Why do you persist in attempting to show, explain, or change the way others see things. Its their right. Its my wrong. Am I right or wrong.? and who cares.
Well I do. Nothing bothers me more than ignorance. It's my view that the weight of evidence is undeniably in favor of evolution. Its still happening. Look around. The alternative is unsupported be evidence. . . but, remember as I do. That you are not, never going to sway those that will not look. This is a pointless argument. We are the converted. and they will not be.

The Overlap between science and religion can be a turbulent place. For some, science presents facts which are mutually exclusive to some religious viewpoints (e.g. the Earth's age). The tenets of mainstream evolution are counter to some small segments of some religious denominations. Interestinly, I do not know of any religious tenets which directly oppose evolution, for the physical things in nature are not supernatural and do not constitute becoming a tenet of faith. Nevertheless, I suspect there may be a few that have made anti-evolution a new tenet.

I know several YEC folks. They are great folks, active in helping others. They just feel obliged to defend a popular literal view of Genesis and are not open to a better literal interpretation that gives harbor to those in The Overlap.

Is there a single book that completely explains all of evolution including exactly how genetics work? Many opponets know it is a difficult topic to master and even the masters argue. Anti-evolutioists wrongly use this as an excuse not to understand it, however.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

Our young friend from the female galaxy has a point. I have been involved in the creation - evolution argument for decades, and have yet to find a single person whose real reason for rejecting evolution was not religious. It might be an excellent study in psychology; Kurt Wise has a PhD in paleontology, earned under Stephen J. Gould; John Baumgardner earned his PhD in geophysics from UCLA. Both of them started out as commited young earth creationists, and both had every intention of using the knowledge gained in their PhD programs to prove the scientific validity of a young earth, and to falsify evolution. They both failed, and have retreated from mainstream science, still convinced that they cannot be wrong. Their religious convictions take precedence over every other thought, and there are plenty more where they came from, all with advanced degrees in physics, engineering, biology & related fields. Indeed, the anti-evolution discussion invariably turns into a discussion of science vs religion.

There are plenty of other places to look for debates and/or information along those lines. The Talk.Origins Archive hosts a large number of articles defending mainstream evolution & the old age of the Earth, and also hosts a collection of links to other pro- and anti- creationism sites. And if you want to get into an argument (some people do like that you know), then hop on over to the talk.origins newsgroup, which is basically an anything goes free-for-all. Or visit one of the many discussion boards, which are much like this one, only their focus is at least in part the debate between evolution & creation.

__________________
Don't try this at home - We're what you call "professionals" - MythBusters.

Well you have people that are ignorant against anything that is not of their "world." And these people come in all sizes and flavors. They can even be geologists, astronauts, military agents, the highest regarded skeptics of ufology, and anyone else in particular.

There is a philosophical practice or state of being that insures you are not one of these people.

You must not allow your envy and pride control your thoughts. Envy in desiring the traits or knowledge of others. Pride in being so confounded in your own knowledge and beliefs to not accept change. Fear is also a great factor that takes part in hindering intellectual thought.

To not be controlled by envy you must concentrate entirely on that which most matters with you, such as everyday life. To not be controlled by pride you must accept the possibility that you might be wrong, regardless of what you are talking about. To not be controlled by fear, you must not show fear or restraint in thought.

Those that tell you it's okay to be a little bit skeptical, but not too much are those that have achieve a fair enough portion of this state of psychological being.

Not everything we regard as a fact is actually a fact. Evidence and information that is gathered is always open to speculation and interpretation.

I sense a great deal of hostility from your tone. It would be better if you took the time to understand these people before criticizing them. After all everyone had a reason for why they are skeptical or confounded by information.

Generally it's due to pride, envy, and fear.

Well I certainly am not against the concept of evolution. And I do regard it is a fact, because I took the time to understanding it.

Most people here take evolution as a fact, clearly for some sort of reason outside of intellectual understandability.

Contrary to such, I understand evolution quite literally due to my great understanding of chromosomes and how they are effected by cosmic rays and the environment.

A change in diet over a long period of time can alter your genetics enough to possibly create a mutation in your offspring. If this trait is benefitial it will carry on into the next generation. And after many of such changes take place over a course of many many years, you may see a new species or race in the population. But this of course depends on the lifespan of the creature and the rate in which mutation oftenly occurs within such an organism.

Evolution is a scientific fact, insofar as it satisfies the criteria for that designation. Religion generally has no overlap with scientific facts, and is better off that way (to avoid the "god of the gaps" problem that has been mentioned before on this forum). Note that neither science nor religion have cornered the market on "truth", as this term is utterly impossible to define without first adopting a particular mindset or approach to it. I wish more people would understand this simple statement as a starting point for all comparisons of thought and belief.

I just read something that specifically answers the OP, at least in part. It's an essay from Dawkins' book "a devil's chaplain" entitled "The Infected Mind."

The thrust of the argument goes as follows. Suppose there exists a set of ideas which is self-reinforcing. That is to say, if you believe in idea A, that makes your belief in idea B stronger. And if you believe B, that makes your belief in A stronger. It becomes very difficult to break out of such a loop. Often, these cycles are created/implanted at an early age, so they are almost hard-wired into the adult brain.

Dawkins uses the specific example of faith as a virtue (A), coupled with that faith (B). The more you are willing to accept improbable things, the more virtuous you are. And the more virtuous you believe you are, the more you should accept things on faith.

So that, right there, might cover a lot of cases. The evidence for evolution isn't strong enough to break such a cycle in many people -- at least, the evidence presented to those people is not. There are other possible cycles, though. I suspect that a lot of the crazy ATM proponents are stuck in these types of idea sets. They're not necessarily religious ideas, but instead misconceptions about science which reinforce other misconceptions, which in turn reinforce the original misconceptions.

As an exercise, check out the Sully DC thread and see if you can pick out the self-referential, reinforcing ideas.

__________________
"It's turtles all the way down."

I guess some people can't let go of their beliefs. I have changed my beliefs many times to be closer to the truth but maybe it's just me.

These points are valid, but I have two observations. The first is that self-reinforcing sets are surely a natural part of a properly functioning consciousness. They come up all the time in science, for example.

The second comment is that I think Dawkins is thinking too hard. There is a much more obvious, and truthful, reason why people have faith. It is not because they think it is virtuous, and it is also the main reason they reject evolution. People do not want to believe that they live in a world that emerged at random, and has no real point, no higher mission. They feel in their bones, for whatever reason, that life matters more than that. They derive a greater sense of importance by believing in a higher power. This is the piece that science must address if it wishes evolution to supplant creation as the dominant mode of thought about our origins. Personally, I feel that each mode has its place.

Amen to that Ken G. I'm a hard over evolutionist (Daniel Dennett) who is strongly attracted (as a non-believer) to the Judao-Christian definition of God and the definition of the high moral road commensurate with that theology.

If there were a god or some willful anthropic principle, what would be the substance of its structure and the organization of its infrastructure? Could there be some sub-quark-like phenomenum forming the field through which It exerts influences to configure the structure of the universe and the thoughts of humans such as disguising a universe that is only a few thousand years old to appear to be 13.7 billion years old, etc.? If so, to what end?

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

I agree that religion generally has no influence on pure science. Could it be said there is science and exoscience (speaking strictly from the point of view of science)?

Yet, though rare, there is some overlap between science and religion. If a religious document states a city is buried at a specific location, science may consider it as evidence and see if it was true or false. Regardless, even if true, it would be invalid for any argument to suggest the rest of the religious document is necessarily true.

If a scientific theory, or finding (highly credible evidence), states something that is contradictory to a religious view, an overlap exists. This overlap will not alter true science, so, I suppose, from the point of view of science, no influencing overlap exists, at least from the standpoint that any scientific result would [not] be affected. [Is this what you mean by no overlap?] Perhaps, a superposition of science over religion may be a better description. If science produces evidence for a mutually exclusive hypothesis between it and religion, it is religion that suffers the stormy waters in The Overlap, not science. Of course, the scientific community may suffer, too, but that is a philosophical problem, where religion overlaps philosophy, politics, and purse strings.

I still like the idea of The Overlap to help us picture the problematic issues. This enhances the starting point for what is needed to be learned, as per the OP (hopefully, I am not on a tangent to the thread). A 6000 year universe, Geocentricity, “Turtles all the way down” (I read it was Eddington who got that one), a global flood, etc., are all examples where an overlap, or superposition, exists.

Great point, Ken, but, regretfully, very difficult to realize at times from a religious standpoint. The key for religion is to know when a specific interpretation needs study in light of scientific findings. If a religion really seeks truth, then science should be applauded, not abhorred.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

Yes, I mean there's no overlap in the sense that neither informs the other. No one chooses their religious beliefs on the basis of their scientific content, and no one decides a scientific fact based on religious beliefs (or at least, they shouldn't, it's mixing apples and oranges.)