Why do people not believe in evolution in 2020?

[navid93]

I have built a lot from believing in the laws of thermodynamics, ohm's law, and Pascals law ect.... theres a purpose in believing in those laws.
What purpose does believing in evolution serve?
OP wants to know why people dont believe in evolution and I am telling you because it serves no purpose, unlike beliving in ohm's law.

I thought you were saying that’s why YOU didn’t believe it. Yeah, I agree that’s why many people don’t believe it

[sawoobley]

I was responding to someone wondering how it might be tested. One way is by testing it against fossils around us or against genomes in different species... real things in our world that are observable. The whole point of being testable....it makes some rather specific predictions that are confirmed by repeated observation.

Yes, it makes some accurate specific predictions because the theory itself was based on evidence of those predictions being true. You cannot say evolution is the way things happen because it accurately predicts the way things are and the evidence fits. Of course the evidence fits and of course it accurately predicts the way things are. The theory was built upon that evidence in the first place. All it means is it is our best explanation so far and we have no other coherent explanation that fits the data. Had we been testing a living process in real time we could build a stronger case but since we are studying the distant past the chance we are missing things that might lead to a better explanation and theory than we currently have is much greater IMO. I am not arguing against evolution per se but rather our certainty in what we know.

[kingmanaverage]

I have built a lot from believing in the laws of thermodynamics, ohm's law, and Pascals law ect.... theres a purpose in believing in those laws.
What purpose does believing in evolution serve?
OP wants to know why people dont believe in evolution and I am telling you because it serves no purpose, unlike beliving in ohm's law.

The earth is round and yet knowing so doesn't benefit me in any way. I'm not sure if you're trolling or not here.

[sawoobley]

I think the theory of evolution was seen as a threat to early religious believers and it wasn't just about the creation story. One of the purposes or benefits of religion is it is suppose to elevate mankind. People are supposed to look to God, their Father in Heaven, and His Son Jesus Christ (in the case of Christianity) as to how to treat people and live their lives. Yet, when people talk about evolution there is a tendency to look at the behavior of other organisms as a way of understanding ourselves. That is fine to a certain extent but when taken too far it lets people accept a lot of behavior that religion finds objectionable.

This is the conflict I think evolution has created for religion. How do you get believers to not focus on the physical world and their connection to it and instead focus on the fact we are children of God and as such we are capable of so much more than our baser desires and tendencies? Religion will continue to keep evolution at an arms length until it can reconcile evolution with our relationship to God and until the most ardent voices supporting evolution are not pushing destructive ideas associated with the theory. The truth of man's relationship with God far outweighs any truth that may be discovered about the origins of our physical bodies.

[BlackJack619]

The earth is round and yet knowing so doesn't benefit me in any way. I'm not sure if you're trolling or not here.

My belief in thermodynamics helps me to build machines, my belief in the world helps me to know how to build my machines...

Tell me why I need to believe in evolution? I can tell you why a engineer needs to believe in pascals law.

[numberguy12]

It's amazing a mathematical genius still can't disprove god, but can very well argue against the mark of the beast.

I cannot disprove that an invisible monster doesnt exist in my closet [whatever disprove would even mean here]. This doesn't keep me up at night.

There are enormous quantities of books that attempt to prove a great many things. And you actually didn't address anything I said. Talking points are talking points for a reason, so maybe don't jump to conclusions because they're what people go to first. Your response is, after all, something I've heard before a few times. I could just as easily refer you to the evidence that fills the books that argue against whatever books you're thinking of.

But looking over the thread, that's clearly not what you actually want to discuss. You're here to prove to yourself a dichotomy between religion and science. My response to that is simple - religion is what you believe about the origins and purpose of the universe, science is better understanding the universe through detailed observation. Neither you nor I am capable of going into science without religion coloring our conclusions.

Unclear what you are trying to say. The evidence, and entire subject of modern biology sides with evolution having occurred and common ancestry [a few posts up I listed some typical examples of evidence...there is no need to play university bio teacher here though, not the point of the thread]. As another poster mentioned, I thought the non-point of the bacterium flagellum was dead since the dover trial, but looks like the talking point continues...there is nothing fundamentally "irreducibly complex" about this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Flagellum

Even if somehow there was a major "gap" in our knowledge with this specific appendage relating to evolution, well it'd just be a gap, and further research would shed light [wouldnt magically abolish all the clear evidence we have around us that evolution occurred].

I believe in the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of pascal, ohm's law, Boyles's Law, and by believing in these I can build machines that can improve my life and the quality of life of others, theres purpose in believing in these laws because they are true and you can build from them. Theres a reason someone would want to believe and understand ohm's law.

What reason does someone have to believe in evolution? What has been built from observing the "truths" of evolution. How does believing in evolution improve anyone's life?

I can easily make the arguement how believing in the laws of thermodynamics has improved our quality of life, I can also make the argument how believing in ohm's law makes what we we are doing now possible. I can also argue how believing in religion serves a purpose, so why would someone believe in evolution if it serves no purpose?

I mean the concept of evolution does have applications..people usually mention the field of medicine as an example here. Here are various fields evolution applies to, from wikipedia:
Biosocial criminology
Ecological genetics
Evolutionary aesthetics
Evolutionary anthropology
Evolutionary computation
Evolutionary ecology
Evolutionary economics
Evolutionary epistemology
Evolutionary ethics
Evolutionary game theory
Evolutionary linguistics
Evolutionary medicine
Evolutionary neuroscience
Evolutionary physiology
Evolutionary psychology
Experimental evolution
Phylogenetics
Paleontology
Selective breeding
Speciation experiments
Sociobiology
Systematics

Artificial selection has played a huge role in everyday life....from the foods you eat to dog breeds and much else. Now no one actually has to understand evolution/natural selection to perform this [humans were selectively breeding plants and animals for thousands of years]....but yet it's still based in those concepts.

All the above is besides the point. The truth of something isnt dependent on how useful it is to your life. I know the planet Uranus is farther from the sun than Jupiter. I dont think this knowledge has any practical benefits for my life [minus maybe if it would come up in a game of trivia or something]. However, this doesnt change the truth of it. I'd argue that the origins of man- where we actually came from- is an interesting topic in itself that is worth learning about.

[Harbinger]

Has someone attempted to disprove god in this thread?

InB4 buT BElief dONt SErvE a PuRPose.

The laws governing thermodynamics would be there and scientists and engineers would use them to better lives regardless of your beliefs.
Your belief in them has not impacted your life. If you stopped believing in gravity, would float away?

[BlackJack619]

I cannot disprove that an invisible monster doesnt exist in my closet [whatever disprove would even mean here]. This doesn't keep me up at night.



Unclear what you are trying to say. The evidence, and entire subject of modern biology sides with evolution having occurred and common ancestry [a few posts up I listed some typical examples of evidence...there is no need to play university bio teacher here though, not the point of the thread]. As another poster mentioned, I thought the non-point of the bacterium flagellum was dead since the dover trial, but looks like the talking point continues...there is nothing fundamentally "irreducibly complex" about this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Flagellum

Even if somehow there was a major "gap" in our knowledge with this specific appendage relating to evolution, well it'd just be a gap, and further research would shed light [wouldnt magically abolish all the clear evidence we have around us that evolution occurred].



I mean the concept of evolution does have applications..people usually mention the field of medicine as an example here. Here are various fields evolution applies to, from wikipedia:
Biosocial criminology
Ecological genetics
Evolutionary aesthetics
Evolutionary anthropology
Evolutionary computation
Evolutionary ecology
Evolutionary economics
Evolutionary epistemology
Evolutionary ethics
Evolutionary game theory
Evolutionary linguistics
Evolutionary medicine
Evolutionary neuroscience
Evolutionary physiology
Evolutionary psychology
Experimental evolution
Phylogenetics
Paleontology
Selective breeding
Speciation experiments
Sociobiology
Systematics

Artificial selection has played a huge role in everyday life....from the foods you eat to dog breeds and much else. Now no one actually has to understand evolution/natural selection to perform this [humans were selectively breeding plants and animals for thousands of years]....but yet it's still based in those concepts.

All the above is besides the point. The truth of something isnt dependent on how useful it is to your life. I know the planet Uranus is farther from the sun than Jupiter. I dont think this knowledge has any practical benefits for my life [minus maybe if it would come up in a game of trivia or something]. However, this doesnt change the truth of it. I'd argue that the origins of man- where we actually came from- is an interesting topic in itself that is worth learning about.

Are you really using wikipedia as a source? I thought you were better than that.

[Harbinger]

My belief in thermodynamics helps me to build machines, my belief in the world helps me to know how to build my machines...

Tell me why I need to believe in evolution? I can tell you why an engineer needs to believe in Pascal's law.

I think I know what's happening here. You're confusing belief with understanding.


edit: numberguy understands mathematics, he doesn't believe in it.

[numberguy12]

Are you really using wikipedia as a source? I thought you were better than that.

Strong response to the content of my post. It's literally just a list of fields where evolution has application. Go look into those fields, in whatever format you want to: academic research journals, textbooks, whatever else, you choose.

[BlackJack619]

OP wants to claim people dont believe in evolution because of their religion. However I think people dont believe because of its lack of functionality. Theres functionality in believing in exercise science, physics, ohm's law ect....why would someone believe something that serves no function? I know op wants to point the blame at religion as being an excuse why people dont believe in evolution, but I believe there is also a reason why intellectuals also wouldn't believe.

[BlackJack619]

OP is claiming the study of ethics is rooted in evolution? Really op?

[Harbinger]

OP is claiming the study of ethics is rooted in evolution? Really op?

Why wouldn't it be?

[BlackJack619]

Why wouldn't it be?

Lol

[BlackJack619]

OP is now even claiming the foundation of economic is rooted in evolution?really op?

[Harbinger]

Lol

So we've gotten to the point where you don't answer the questions? Just an uncomfortable lol, because you can't Google the answers?

[BlackJack619]

So we've gotten to the point where you don't answer the questions? Just an uncomfortable lol, because you can't Google the answers?

No I generally think it's funny that the op believes ethic comes from believing in evolution.

[BlackJack619]

This is what google says about ethics.

In terms of where ethics come from, they come from society and the collective beliefs and values of its citizens. But, more specifically, ethics also come from those individuals willing to make difficult choices and think about big questions: good and bad, right and wrong.

By the way I dont necessarily believe Google or wikipedia is a reliable source.

[Harbinger]

No I generally think it's funny that the op believes understands ethics comes from believing understanding in evolution.

There is a definite link between evolution and ethics. There is an evolutionary advantage to living in large groups, this advantage is made better if we get along with each other. Studying how to get along helps that.

This is what google says about ethics.

By the way, I don't necessarily believe trust Google or Wikipedia is a reliable source.

This is probably a good idea for opinion stuff, they're fairly accurate on the science though.

I think it would be a good thing for you to start looking for synonyms for the word belief and using them in your daily life.

[yeshli2nuts]

There's been a strange and quite alarming science denial movement in America over the past few years. This is just a part of it. People are getting stupider and stupider and it's scary where it might lead to.

[BlackJack619]

Remind me when the study of ethics started versus the study of evolution?

The op wants to know why people don't believe in evolution, but you have guys in support of evolution that are triggered by the word belief, kinda strange things going on in here.

So we are clear I am not saying I don't believe things can evolve I truly believe people can evolve, technology can evolve, ethics can evolve ect.
But I dont believe something can evolve from something it never was.

I'm sorry If I triggered anyone for saying the B word.

[Harbinger]

There's been a strange and quite alarming science denial movement in America over the past few years. This is just a part of it. People are getting stupider and stupider and it's scary where it might lead to.

Very.

[numberguy12]

In response to sawoobley, the Access Denied forum error is preventing me from responding to your post in more detail (ridiculous forum), but in summary....

It is hard to understand what your posts are even trying to say, they are all over the place, and just seem to be some vague defense of religion. Without even going into the examples of "evolution in action"* such as with bacterial populations in modern times and polyploid speciation [common in plants, with examples in modern times]......your post seems to be a misunderstanding of the meaning of prediction in science.

When coming up with his theory of gravity, Newton was aware of the astronomical evidences such as the elliptical orbits of the planets and observations of the moon. Out of this, a robust theory of gravity was devised with its corresponding famous equation. Later, using this theory, a planet was predicted past Uranus, and its position predicted. Alas, Neptune was found to be where it was predicted due to the theory, and a new planet was discovered (b.b.b.but Newton's gravity was developed from astronomical evidence in the first place and was on sure footing because of this....of course it was, this doesnt change that it made a prediction that generated new, useful results).

Instead of new planets predicted in a certain region of the sky, evolution can predict, say, transitional fossils in certain regions of history (maybe between 250 and 300 million years ago)....and new, previously unknown fossils might be found in this region of the fossil record- this has indeed happened. Evolution is tested when fossils are dug up....it is "on the line", so to speak.

*: not that this is needed anyway. We have quite useful pictures of stellar evolution without observing a single star going through its life cycle over billions of years- we have evidence around us. If an alien spent 3 total days on earth, it could feasibly develop a decent picture of human aging by observing humans at different states- older frail people, infants, etc (b.b.b.but the alien wouldnt "see" aging in real time at all, as no one shows visible signs of aging in 3 days).

[numberguy12]

OP wants to claim people dont believe in evolution because of their religion. However I think people dont believe because of its lack of functionality.

Then why does it seem to correlate along religious groupings so well in polls about evolutionary belief?

I mean I give you credit, you are at least offering a possible reason why people dont accept evolution in contrast to some others in here: because its not useful to them.

I just find this odd....do people really tend to make judgments of truth based on the utility of the concept, in general? Doesnt a significant percentage of people believe that Saturn is a planet past Jupiter, or that elephants are larger than ants, even if these facts arent used much in their daily lives?

Do you understand that things arent true or not based on their usefulness or desirability of their consequences?

edit: you are touching on a subject close to home here.....in mathematics there are all kinds of truths that have little to no practical application to human affairs (I'd even argue there is somewhat of an inverse relationship between usefulness and interesting mathematics...the more interesting concepts tend to be the less useful ones in everyday life, the less interesting concepts tend to be the ones with more practical application). Essentially no one is using Fermat's Last Theorem in their daily life, or the fact that pi is not the solution to any polynomial equation in integer coefficients. However these are proven theorems and are true.

[Sakeoe]

I'm surprised by OP's stance on this topic. After all, to understand and accept evolution one needs to accept that the natural world isn't static. That living systems are constantly changing, constantly balancing on the edge of collapse and sometimes going over that edge. One also needs an intrinsic understanding of chaos. Two things OP has repeatedly proven he rejects and doesn't understand. In addition you would need to have knowledge of phylogenetic bracketing, genetic mutations and paleogenetics. Subjects OP has never shown any indication of having intimate knowledge of. Based on what I know of him, I would have expected him to deny evolution.

Actually, as I am writing this it all makes sense to me. OP doesn't understand evolution, he merely "believes" in it. He is, after all, an individual that lacks a certain degree of critical independent thought. He is a person that chooses the path of least resistance. So for him, believing in evolution is easy as that is the most popular thing to do. Every child learns in elementary school that "evolution is real", and they'll go their entire lives "believing" it is real without really knowing why. Just like OP.

So good job OP for being right I suppose, but it's unfortunate you are right for all the wrong reasons.

[numberguy12]

I'm surprised by OP's stance on this topic. After all, to understand and accept evolution one needs to accept that the natural world isn't static. That living systems are constantly changing, constantly balancing on the edge of collapse and sometimes going over that edge. One also needs an intrinsic understanding of chaos. Two things OP has repeatedly proven he rejects and doesn't understand. In addition you would need to have knowledge of phylogenetic bracketing, genetic mutations and paleogenetics. Subjects OP has never shown any indication of having intimate knowledge of. Based on what I know of him, I would have expected him to deny evolution.

Actually, as I am writing this it all makes sense to me. OP doesn't understand evolution, he merely "believes" in it. He is, after all, an individual that lacks a certain degree of critical independent thought. He is a person that chooses the path of least resistance. So for him, believing in evolution is easy as that is the most popular thing to do. Every child learns in elementary school that "evolution is real", and they'll go their entire lives "believing" it is real without really knowing why. Just like OP.

So good job OP for being right I suppose, but it's unfortunate you are right for all the wrong reasons.

Yikes, I barely know who you are, but you seem to think you know all kinds of things about what I know or don’t know lol ....this is a very odd post.

Hard to make out what you are even trying to say, but no....it is actually possible for people to research a well-studied and evidenced subject in science, and make their conclusions accordingly (strange as it may seem). Faith is when you are believing in something without evidence present. Hope this helps.

[Sakeoe]

Yikes, I barely know who you are, but you seem to think you know all kinds of things about what I know or don’t know lol ....this is a very odd post.

Hard to make out what you are even trying to say, but no....it is actually possible for people to research a well-studied and evidenced subject in science, and make their conclusions accordingly (strange as it may seem). Faith is when you are believing in something without evidence present. Hope this helps.

You are conflating "researching" a subject and parroting someone else's opinion. You have faith, as you believe in evolution because someone claims to have evidence not because you have understood anything yourself.

[numberguy12]

You are conflating "researching" a subject and parroting someone else's opinion. You have faith, as you believe in evolution because someone claims to have evidence not because you have understood anything yourself.

I mean I know you are trying to turn this thread into an attack on me for whatever reason, but sorry, no...

It is actually quite possible to understand a concept after thorough research. People do this all the time....someone can understand the subject of calculus by learning about it in high school for example. It is very hard to decipher what you are even trying to say, besides making a mindless, poverty attempt at a personal attack.

[numberguy12]

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE


I have no opinion on this issue. I haven’t studied it all. I don’t personally know any religious people that deny evolution and the only ones I know of that do deny it are guys like Stephan Meyer in the video above. The other two are atheists.

Missed this earlier. This is the kind of problem when you get three people in a room- none of whom are biologists, or even mathematicians- and they try to act like experts in matters of evolution and mathematics (if trivial probability calculations can even be called mathematics). Even includes a couple from the Discovery Institute, that pseudoscientific think tank promoting intelligent design, for the cherry on top.

Lol, I can’t be bothered to watch an hour-long video of likely nonsense, but from a brief glance it appears to be tired talking points and sleight of hand....nothing new or exciting, and points that have been addressed in detail.

Ironically this is, however, offering an example of why someone might not believe in evolution....they watch YouTube videos like this instead of a more thorough investigation into the subject...along the lines of what adimare commented on the first page.

[Sakeoe]

I mean I know you are trying to turn this thread into an attack on me for whatever reason, but sorry, no...

It is actually quite possible to understand a concept after thorough research. People do this all the time....someone can understand the subject of calculus by learning about it in high school for example. It is very hard to decipher what you are even trying to say, besides making a mindless, poverty attempt at a personal attack.

You are (intentionally?) mischaracterising my argument. I'm not saying one cannot research a concept and reach an understanding, I'm saying you haven't.