Why do people not believe in evolution in 2020?

[Harbinger]

OP, there are two main reasons.

1. Stupidity

2. Acknowledgment of evolution is an acknowledgment of flaws in the bible.

[sandaltan]

If the mass of scientists believe in evolution why are a mass of scientists spending time and energy fighting against natural selection?

anyone know what the absolute fukk this guy is talking about

[2am]

Why cant it be both?

Touché

[BlackJack619]

anyone know what the absolute fukk this guy is talking about

Wheres the proof that you believe in evolution?

I'm not asking for proof of evolution, but proof that you believe in it.

You can build off of truth so if what you are saying is true, what have you built from it?

[DDSF1]

OP, there are two main reasons.

1. Stupidity

2. Acknowledgment of evolution is an acknowledgment of flaws in the bible.

You have no idea regarding thousands of years of Abrahamic theology if you actually believe #2. Hyper literalism is what most atheists and that small number of scriptural fundamentalists share alike—not theologians and religious scholars.

[sandaltan]

Wheres the proof that you believe in evolution?

I'm not asking for proof of evolution, but proof that you believe in it.

just tell me one single thing you'd accept as proof man

You can build off of truth so if what you are saying is true, what have you built from it?

youre gonna need to rephrase your question so that someone reading it can know wtf youre talking about

[Reliance012]

Religious indoctrination at an early age accompanied with our terrible public education system. To say that evolution from common descent is supported by overwhelming evidence would be the understatement of the century.

[sandaltan]

Religious indoctrination at an early age accompanied with our terrible public education system. To say that evolution from common descent is supported by overwhelming evidence would be the understatement of the century.

pretty much this

[Harbinger]

You have no idea regarding thousands of years of Abrahamic theology if you actually believe #2. Hyper literalism is what most atheists and that small number of scriptural fundamentalists share alike—not theologians and religious scholars.

Are you not from America, or have you not been to the south? I realize a lot of Christians understand the allegorical nature of the creation story, but I don't think it's a large enough percentage to disqualify #2.

[BlackJack619]

This will come off sounding bad, but looking back at Hitler you could tell he believed in evolution.

[SWDeath]

Remember evolution applies to every single living thing on the planet except for humans because IQ = conspiracy theory.

[sandaltan]

This will come off sounding bad, but looking back at Hitler you could tell he believed in evolution.

you got a look at hitler?

[Reliance012]

So the "theory of evolution" is the explanation of how evolution works, not a proposal that it happens. It doesn't mean that evolution is a sort of best guess rather than a fact.

For example, there is a "germ theory of disease". It's also reasonable to speak of "diseases" as a fact and also "germs cause disease" is a fact.

This. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is that alleles change in frequency over time. The theory of natural selection is one of several mutually inclusive theories that explain why that change occurs.

[DukeOfWoodBerry]

Does OP believe evolution led to some groups of humans being genetically smarter than others? (Europeans and East Asians compared to Sub Saharan Africans for example.)

[Ramoneb87]

Does OP believe evolution led to some groups of humans being genetically smarter than others? (Europeans and East Asians compared to Sub Saharan Africans for example.)

I've seen it suggested that sub saharan south africans are genetically less intelligent because they are the only group whose ancestors didnt breed directly with neandrathals, subsequently they have zero or nearly zero neandrathal DNA. In comparison East asians typically have the highest % of neandrathal DNA

[DukeOfWoodBerry]

I've seen it suggested that sub saharan south africans are genetically less intelligent because they are the only group whose ancestors didnt breed directly with neandrathals, subsequently they have zero or nearly zero neandrathal DNA. In comparison East asians typically have the highest % of neandrathal DNA

They aren't the only group. Australian Aboriginals or Pygmy peoples are the least intelligent people on the planet.

[squanto]

I used to debate this stuff heavily on this forum like 2005-2008, like provide annotated bibliography in my posts. I didn't drink in college lol.

[Tears]

Particularly in the US. Gallup does polls regarding this topic, and the percent of Americans polled who believe in literal creationism (God made man in his present form) has hovered around a staggering 40% over the last few decades, with the number at exactly 40% in a 2019 poll (and only 22% saying humans evolved from simpler forms in an unguided process). These types of poll results speak negatively about the understanding of basic science in the US today.

So...what are the reasons for not accepting the vast evidence of evolution from biology? People in Darwin’s day, including Darwin himself, didn’t even have the benefit of the molecular evidence, the gene concept, or myriads of fossil evidence we have today (although he did have things like comparative anatomy, biogeographical evidence, embryology, the theory of natural selection and its analog in artificial selection). There is a lot less room for excuse today vs in the 19th century to be uninformed of man’s evolutionary origins.

I have my guesses as to some reasons people do not believe in evolution (it is pretty clearly correlated with religious affiliation), but there are other reasons I think too.

It depends on your idea of evolution.

[numberguy12]

In after attempt of discussing why the theory is rejected becomes discussion about whether or not the theory is correct.

In after someone scientifically illiterate posts that a theory is the same thing as a guess.

In after the bacterial flagellum, how is that still a thing after the Dover trial?

Lol, you can pretty much just check off the boxes in any evolution thread on here.

Regarding the first sentence, yes that's what I was trying to get at in the OP: the reasons people dont believe in well-supported facts from biology....not as much a "debate" about evolution (anyone can research this evidence in books or online).

Some random guesses:

• It conflicts with their religion derived from a sacred text. For example, at odds with the narrative in Genesis, including the creation of a first man from scratch and woman from his rib (Adam is an important matter in theology), order of creation, the great deluge, all the species on Noah's ark, etc. Of course words in a text need not be true, and the best way to investigate the way the world is, and its history, is to observe it and consider the actual evidence.

• They argue from consequences. They think man is demoted to the less desirable inferior status of a mere animal if evolution is true, and are scared about what this means in terms of morality ("wouldnt we all act like beasts if we believe we are one?"....not that this is a justified stance). But things arent true or not based on how desirable their consequences are, they are just true or not....there's a name for this, wishful thinking. No one thinks that because hurricanes and tornadoes can cause severe damage and death, that they dont exist. The way nature operates does not depend on how man feels about it.

• They do not understand the science and evidence involved, lack of education, and also problems with the educational approach itself. Science literacy (not to mention mathematical literacy) in general seems to be low in the US. In terms of evolution, maybe teachers tiptoeing lightly around the subject in high school biology because they think it could be controversial with the students, or there is lack of good training. Of note, not understanding something has no implication on whether it's true or not. Many people dont understand how TVs, space rockets, and airplanes work...yet these things exist and work just fine.

•They think evolution is a controversial subject in scientific circles. The fact that evolution has occurred on earth and explains the diversity of life around us is not really a debate topic at all among biologists, nor has it been in over a century. This "debate" is largely an artificial construct brought about by various creationist groups.

• Just what they were brought up to believe, cultural influences in general, which includes religion. Well-funded creationist lobbying forces at work, trying to make the teaching of evolution seem controversial.....probably a bigger factor in the past than now.

• Distrust of science in general, "lab-coat" paranoia....(besides this being silly, these same people seem to happily make use of modern technology all over the place in every day life, or have no problem getting that medical procedure or drug if needed in some dire situation).

I'm sure there are more, which is the reason for the question in the OP. Some good thoughts in here..seems like religion is a major theme.

[BlackJack619]

Its not hard to understand why some would doubt anyone who doesnt practice what they preach.

[numberguy12]

Its not hard to understand why some would doubt anyone who doesnt practice what they preach.

Im not following what you are trying to say....how would one "practice" an observed fact about history like evolution? Shouldnt we just be looking at the evidence?

[BlackJack619]

Im not following what you are trying to say....how would one "practice" an observed fact about history like evolution? Shouldnt we just be looking at the evidence?

If it is indeed fact shouldnt we be able to build from it? What have we built from believing this fact?
I'm not completely convinced you even believe what you claim to believe. I really believe there should be evidence in your life.

[sawoobley]

Why are people forming two different sides? Evolution or religion. I suspect there is a better theory that will come along that will explain the origins of life that we haven't even thought of yet.

There are holes in the creation story (assuming you read it like a science book)
There are holes in the theory of evolution. We've done our best to explained things that happened hundreds of thousands of years ago.

I think we can learn things from the creation story and the evolution story. One can connect us to life on this earth and the other to God.

It seems very unscientific to close oneself off to new information or to assume we have evolution figured out especially since it isn't directly testable. Go ahead find an article where it is testable. Every time one is posted it seems amazing because people don't understand the details of how the experiment was performed and its implications. Most of what we read is hype. It is very difficult to pin things down through science and more so if the answers have been buried in time.

[sawoobley]

If we can induce speciation artificially why shouldn't natural forces be able to over greater time scales?

Because mutations almost never occur in a manner that is significantly beneficial to the organism unless someone makes it that way and if they did happen in nature there is a good chance that organism wouldn't be able to pass it on and have their offspring survive until today.

[squanto]

Why are people forming two different sides? Evolution or religion. I suspect there is a better theory that will come along that will explain the origins of life that we haven't even thought of yet.

There are holes in the creation story (assuming you read it like a science book)
There are holes in the theory of evolution. We've done our best to explained things that happened hundreds of thousands of years ago.

I think we can learn things from the creation story and the evolution story. One can connect us to life on this earth and the other to God.

It seems very unscientific to close oneself off to new information or to assume we have evolution figured out especially since it isn't directly testable. Go ahead find an article where it is testable. Every time one is posted it seems amazing because people don't understand the details of how the experiment was performed and its implications. Most of what we read is hype. It is very difficult to pin things down through science and more so if the answers have been buried in time.

Why do you think evolution isn't directly testable?

[sawoobley]

There's overwhelming evidence for the occurrence of evolution though...

To try and summarise it, a scientific theory, is an explanation of the natural world which can be tested multiple times over and verified in accordance with the scientific method.

It cannot be tested and verified. We can continue to collect more and more information and see how that new information fits our understanding of the theory. When things don't fit we can adjust the theory or accept whatever new one comes along that better explains things.

[sawoobley]

Why do you think evolution isn't directly testable?

Most of the evidence is lost in time and the evidence that is not lost is of organisms and processes that occurred a very long time ago. We cannot test things directly. We can only piece together what we find, we cannot challenge our assumptions like we can with processes of living organisms. Yes, we can map genomes and put things together as we think they should go but there are a lot of assumptions and the data doesn't fit as neatly as we are told.

[BlackJack619]

My belief has improved the quality of my life, and that of my offspring. How has your belief improved your life and the life of your offspring?
How have your life become better than your parents, and how will your children life become better than you by believing in evolution?

[Harbinger]

It cannot be tested and verified.

This is wrong right here. It has been tested and verified.

[Bodhy]

Easily explicable, IMO, via scientific illiteracy and ideological fervour.


But I don't care at all for OP's "Religion bad, science good" narrative that he likes to peddle around here, which is childish and obsolete. Any decently trained scholar could bodyslam that pop-tier dialectic with ease.