<p>Many of the debate arguments against evolution are fundamentally flawed… particularly when it comes to those trying to argue that ‘intelligent design’ or something similar should be included in the science classroom.</p>
<p>People will often say “well evolution isn’t a proven fact so therefore opposing views are still valid and must be taught.”</p>
<p>Nothing in science is a proven fact… every scientist will admit this. This is actually science’s greatest strength and not, as some want people to believe, a weakness.</p>
<p>Science looks at the evidence and attempts to form the best possible answer from this evidence. Creationism/ Intelligent Design starts with the answer and tries to explain away the evidence. If a scientific experiment demonstrates that a current theory is wrong, the theory is challenged and subsequently adapted to account for the new evidence. However, if evidence contradicts religious belief it’s the evidence that’s challenged not the theory. </p>
<p>People also often try to suggest that the theory of evolution represents a very preliminary assessment of the evidence and as such is very likely to be wrong. </p>
<p>This couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, the theory of evolution is one of if not the most successful scientific theories every produced. I say this because it was able to predict the answers to questions before we even knew such questions existed (information uncovered from sequencing genomes is just one example… evolution predicted the linkages seen in genetic trees even before we knew anything about DNA, let alone how to sequence it). </p>
<p>However, even given all that every respectable scientist would say that if new evidence came to light which demonstrated that everything learned thus far was wrong… the theory of evolution would be changed. Creationists are exactly the opposite… as more evidence comes to light (which as of yet only supports evolution) they must come up with increasingly elaborate explanations as to why their ‘theory’ is still valid, rather than adapt that theory to fit the evidence.</p>
<p>intparent - this is OT, but did you hear the part about the caterpillar that pretends to be a queen ant so the other ants will take it to their nest and feed it? That is just fascinating.</p>
<p>Did you guys know that we’re one of only a few industrialized countries in the world that has less than 50% of its population believe in evolution? I think we were 2nd or 3rd lowest</p>
<p>Alright fine, say evolution is true, or even the big bang, where did the sun come from? where did the 2 gas clouds that collided come from? Where did the first particle from which we evolved from come from?</p>
<p>Many of the scientists who are studying evolution and the Big Bang will say that it all started with God. Just because you accept the theories of Evolution does not mean you are an atheist.</p>
<p>BTW, while those polls sadden me, I am sadly not surprised. I am from rural California. My senior year of high school which was in the '90s, our school board debated a textbook for the soon to be introduced AP Bio class. There were a few board members who were concerned because the book taught too much evolution. The teacher informed them they needed to learn about evolution for the AP exam. I couldn’t believe it. It turns out the text was the same one my college used. Oy.</p>
<p>It’s frustrating trying to talk to people who have become so defensive about evolution that they can’t simply shut up and understand why people have a harder time believing that one theory when compared to others.</p>
<p>Straw man? I can go test gravity. I can see the Earth revolve around the Sun and the Moon revolve around the Earth and in fact these things happen over and over again even in one lifetime.</p>
<p>Not everybody gets to see bacteria. Everybody sees gravity. Not everybody gets to study extensive fossil records. Everybody gets to see vinegar and baking soda volcanoes.</p>
<p>And the “macro” versus “micro” evolution is just a convenient way to talk about it. Some evolution can be observed. Nobody questions this. But this isn’t one animal turning into another animal. It’s moths changing colors due to ash. Only a moron would deny this because, in theory, you could see this happen in one lifetime - and indeed I believe it has been seen by one person.</p>
<p>You know, until the larger scientific - specifically, the biological - community is willing to accept that people have a right to have reservations about evolution, nothing’s ever going to change. Grow up. You keep pretending you know so much better than other people that you belittle them or recommend reading, and people will only continue to assume that you’re just stubborn dummies.</p>
<p>By the way, I already said several times I have no problem with evolution. I prefer to leave topics belonging to other sciences to the other scientists. In my experience, this is the policy of all scientists worth their salt, and I don’t plan on trying to pretend I’m some sort of Renaissance Man who can appreciate every scientific theory in existence. I don’t find evolution interesting, and I consider it to be completely different from things like the three body problem (which I do find interesting) and most other problems in Math, Physics, and CS.</p>
I think that’s unfair. I know my purpose here is to discuss the evidence for evolution, because I know many people don’t have access to bacteria, and don’t regularly read the scientific literature. I’m here to educate, not to defend.</p>
<p>
People absolutely can have reservations about evolution – I’d prefer to educate the world, but I know my profession can only do so much. But the fundamental problem biologists have is not that not everybody believes evolution happened, it’s that there are systematic efforts to introduce creationist points of view in the public schools in place of evolution. People can believe whatever they would like, and they can teach it to their children, but they can’t use the public schools to do it unless it’s empirically supported.</p>
<p>Are you saying the Bible and the Koran are not scientifically based books? Are you saying just because it is before our time it makes it not concrete information? Darwin was before our time so wouldn’t be thrown away as inconclusive evidence. It’s easy to believe a bunch of evidence but the fact is that they havent proven it yet, they can’t prove it. How about we refer to ancient philosophy in which Science was first created. Plato believed that there was a world of Forms, (heaven) where we were all knowing and are simply in the world of becoming, waiting to die until we reach the world of forms again. Or how about Aristotle, in which all things can be reduced down to one simple substance (God). Are you saying that Aristotle and Plato are incorrect just because they are before our time?</p>
<p>I can’t believe it’s that low…but then again 72.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot…(lol) ;)</p>
<p>Anyone notice, though, how Google chose to change their logo to celebrate Darwin’s b-day instead of Lincoln’s? I know Google is ultra liberal but any thoughts in it. I just wonder how they decide which ones to celebrate and which ones not to…like when they REFUSED to celebrate Memorial Day b/c war is wrong (yet arguably necessary at times) and even so, they did not want to honor deceased veterans… what is the mindset of these people!!! Honoring those who risked their lives for us does not indicate you support war…sorry there’s my somewhat random rant.</p>
<p>It would be helpful if the prophets had their divine communication in view of others, rather than wandering off into the desert where there was no one to corroborate their story.</p>
<p>Aristotle and Plato may be correct; however, those beliefs are completely untestable- and explanations that better fit the evidence came along. The only real tenet of science is that what we perceive with our senses is real. Granted, we could be living in some sort of Decartesisian/Matrix-type world where we’re being deceived, but science is buggered in that situation. Creationism readily accepts that we’re in some sort of Plato Cave allegory, so it doesn’t feel the need to play by science’s rules.</p>
<p>You’re totally missing the point. Scientific theories develop over time and are derived from the best available evidence at that time. Modern scientists don’t look down upon their predecessors as these predecessors were simply making their own best interpretation of the evidence available at the time. It is these initial theories that are refined and then refined again as new evidence becomes available. </p>
<p>Earlier scientists had, what now appears to be, totally crazy ideas about how atoms worked; however at the time these were valid scientific theories as they were supported by the evidence available at the time. But… as more evidence became available it quickly became clear that their theories were no longer supported by the evidence and thus such theories are no longer considered valid science. </p>
<p>Scientists strive to find the answer that best fits the evidence, not (as creationist arguments work) try and find the evidence that best fits the answer. </p>
<p>Because of this, the Bible and other religious texts are, by definition, not scientific texts. These are very important works no doubt, but to suggest that they are a legitimate basis for scientific ideas is factually incorrect for the simple fact that it violates the foundations of what science is about (ie the scientific method). A valid scientific theory must be formed as an unbiased interpretation of the available evidence in a way that is fully supported by the available evidence. </p>
<p>Finally, scientists are not arguing that there is or is not a ‘God.’ This is another common misrepresentation used by those trying to discredit modern science. Accepting the theory of evolution does not mean that you reject God… it simply means that you do not believe that the Bible (or other religious texts) provide an exact description of how life was formed. </p>
<p>It is, after all, this selective literal interpretation of the Bible that ultimately blows a huge hole in the “I believe what the Bible says” argument. </p>
<p>The Bible says slavery is fine… do you believe that? The Bible says we should burn people at the stake for doing something as simple as sewing your garments incorrectly… do you believe in that? The Bible says that if anyone works on a Sunday, they should be killed… do you believe in that? </p>
<p>Taking this and all the above into consideration, it should come as no surprise that the established scientific community does not even remotely consider creationism as a valid ‘alternative theory’ to explain the evidence used to form the theory of evolution.</p>
<p>“Are you saying the Bible and the Koran are not scientifically based books?”</p>
<p>Correct, they are not, though the writers presumably tried to explain their worlds, but they did not know what we now know. Science is a long way from knowing everything, but it keeps pushing forward, refining theories as more is learned, whereas these religions cling to old unchanging beliefs. Imagine your god cringing at how his believers are wasting the brains he gave them, unwilling to consider the wonder he set in motion with the Big Bang 14 billion years ago.</p>
<p>Every scientist and engineer that I know, regardless of their specific field, is interested in all things science. They’re by no means expert in everything, and by and large would never represent themselves as experts in other fields. But any scientist “worth their salt” IS interested, even in a casual way, with all things scientific, and certainly with evolution. That in a few cases means that they have a problem with it, are frustrated or angered by it–but uninterested? No. </p>
<p>I would like to see a Gallup poll on if people “believe” in continental drift. Like with biological evolution, we can see changes within fractions of our lifetime, but we can’t directly observe the continents whizzing about over the surface of the earth within our lifetimes. Anyone want to take a bet that people in the US are far more accepting of the theory of continental drift than of biological evolution?</p>
<p>I’ve always wondered what the “in” in “believe in” is supposed to mean. I understand “believe that”, but the “in” part raises all kinds of phenomenological problems.</p>