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!

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.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

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!

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.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken G 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.)

Scientific evidence should, and does, directly influence religion, IMO. Religion must at least be plausible. If science reveals that a religious viewpoint must be false, then a portion of the religion is false (at least a false interpretation). Therefore, if religion is to be true, it must show science to be false or their interpretation must be revised. Either way, science can create a "disturbance in the force" for a religion, especially for religions which give specific details that are open to scientific review. [We agree, I think, that religion has no direct effect on pure science.]

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

You are of course welcome to define religion in any way you like, that's the beauty of it. The standard view of the world's major religions is that they have changed little in the last thousand years, while scientific knowledge has increased a thousandfold. Any sense to which "religion was there first" when it comes to this knowledge is difficult, if not impossible, to establish scientifically. Personally, I think it makes more sense to just say that they are different modes of thought, with different objectives and different methods, and above all, different ways of establishing what is "true". They can coexist, like peanut butter on bread, but attempts to comingle them in a physical way results in a gooey mess.

Yes, I agree in general with your view here. Yet, science has changed some religion in major ways. The idea that the Earth is not the center of the universe was a very difficult step for religion. Science revealed the truth, and reluctantly, it was adopted by many religions. In this case, non-Geocentricity was found to be non-contradictory, afterall; improved interpretation was possible due to the scant scriptural references. [Of course, there are always a few who hold to Geocentricity, but I am only using mainstream for both religion and science (though I am an expert at neither).]

Another great analogy; it's directly proportional to the number of nuts one is given to make the peanut butter mess.

Yet, I think I am not getting your viewpoint. I agree that areas where events are strictly taken on faith, and science has no direct impact upon, can have modes of thinking that are not in conflict. But some religious views are in direct opposition to the view science claims. In this case, a religion that will not review its interpretation finds that science is making it look silly, or worse - false. We see the result - conflict.

Perhaps you are suggesting a more allegorical viewpoint for religion. That might explain where I am loosing you.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward

"Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender

Thanks. See how science impacts religion.

[Added: the patient has entered "The Overlap". ]

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

I disagree very strongly. The basis of most religions is faith. Pure faith, the idea that you should believe something just because someone told you, is the exact opposite of science. So the very roots of the two things you use to understand everything else are contradictory.

Perhaps there is exoscience, but it's not necessarily religion. It's (in part, at least) just the stuff that science hasn't gotten around to covering yet. It will fall into the domain of science once we get to it, if we ever get to it.

But to say that religion has little influence on science is wrong. Creationism, objections to stem cell research, faith healing, Plan B... all of these things get widespread media attention. All cast doubt on science. That affects funding. That affects the directions in which science can be pursued. Then there are laws which prohibit things like human cloning. There's a direct impact.

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

Yes, that's part of what I mean. It has to do with what religion should be used for-- and interpreting scientific knowledge, like a model of the solar system, is not one of them. Basically, religion should never have been used to make a model of the solar system, that's not what religion is about. That's just what many religions try to do in the absence of actual scientific knowledge, but it's a mistake-- it's like a guessing game when religion tries to "inspire itself" into scientific knowledge. There is no evidence that "god" imparts scientific knowledge to humanity-- by definition, scientific knowledge is obtained via the scientific method. Individual scientists may feel that their inspiration for following the scientific method comes from their religion, but this doesn't directly affect the result, which must emerge scientifically or it is not science.

Is the earth 6000 years old or is it closer to 4.5 billion? You'd need a pretty philosohpically tortuous, vacuous and ultimatley meaningless definition of "truth according to mindset x" in order to be able to say that the answer is merely one of definitions.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

On the contrary, the question you ask as absolutely impossible to answer in any kind of absolute way. All you can do is adopt an approach to answering it. You make choices about what you are going to consider a valid argument. If you decide that you will employ logic, testable rules, and the simplest possible set of axioms (like things are what they appear to be, laws don't change, theories tested at discrete points extend smoothly to the interstices over which they have not been tested, etc.), then you are using a scientific approach. This choice has other merits beyond being an intellectual gain-- witness the benefits that have accrued from using this approach. Nevertheless, it is far from a unique perspective, and benefits may also accrue from other approaches. The key point in all this is, the answer to a question is never separable from the method that was used to find that answer, and the criteria that is applied for ascertaining the "correctness" of any given answer. I'm afraid you simply cannot get around that. We'd all like to believe in absolute truth-- there's no such thing.

Even more than that, the answer depends upon the whole context in which the question was asked. That may include the system used to derive the answer (though I think some Zen Buddhists might object), but also upon your definitions of the various elements of the question and answer, and whether you even have a concept of definition. How those elements link to other things. Everything like that.

Even the concept of repeatability exists only in context. After all, I have a feeling that no matter how many times I add six apples to seven apples, I will end up with thirteen apples. But there's nothing that really guarantees this, and nothing that guarantees that it'll extend to oranges. In addition, there's nothing that guarantees that my six apples don't look like five to you.

That being said, it's a pretty useless view to take.

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

I think we agree, actually. By science, I mean that which is constrained to the scientific method only. As you say, faith is the opposite of science, therefore, science, on this basis, is not directly influenced. Stating an idea based on faith will not add one jot or tiddle to science itself, unless it brings along measurable evidence. It could give direction, in rare cases, perhaps, but until a measurable result is found, it won't have any effect on the true science at hand.

I doubt science, as defined by the scientific method, can ever become so omnipotent; religion, philosophy, politics, etc. will always be separate, and outside science (ignoring overlaps), hence the idea of exoscience. Pure science is a nicely constructed stadium field with specific rules for the game. What transpires off the field does not change the rules of the game, though the players may be more, or less, energetic [by their activity off the field].

True, but I was not referring to the action of science, nor what effect science has on the community. I was limiting science such that Creationism and peoples feelings about stem cell research really doesn't change science itself. This is religion and philosophy that impact the rate and method, perhaps, true science is conducted. Eventually, science will demonstrate with repeatably accuracy just how genetics works. I should have clarified this in the post, sorry.

Galileo and I agree with you ( ), though it is easy to understand why it happened. This is a good example of how science impacted religion. As you know, Aristotle's Geocentricity was very appealing to religion, so it was adopted and chained to the wall of religion. When science demonstrated heliocentricity was the more truthful representation of the solar system, the wall came down only after pain and suffering. [Obviously, your view would have served everyone nicely back then.] The religious view that opposed it really had no impact on science itself (of course, it did on the scientists and culture). Pure science itself, the eventual model supported by evidence, emerged as it should. Religion may have slowed it down, but the truth became known. [Of course, there may be times when religion improves the rate science proceeds.] Nevertheless, Aristotle's model (strengthened by Ptolemy) presented a strong case for Geocentricity which, IMO, was an overlap issue.

I agree with your view until we encounter a literal religious view that is in direct conflict with highly supported scientific theory or finding. This is when I see turbulent waters for the religious who find themselves in this overlap. If a superior religious model emerges (revised interpretation), then they should be fine. Otherwise, the choices are allegory or demonstrating how science is false. Unfortunately, the latter, is, using your appropriate analogy, the "messy peanut butter".

Unfortunately, Elyk, it is difficult to educate those already adamant about their position of faith. This bias and the level of education necessary to grasp the merits of any given theory make circumstances more difficult.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!