Why do people not believe in evolution in 2020?

[numberguy12]

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.

[Dorich]

Creatures very slowly evolving into newer/changed/superior versions of their former selves? Sure.

The creation of a new species? Hell no.

Darwin was an idiot.

[EdwardTheGreat]

Religion is a helluva drug

[Mr Beer]

Yeah well religion is largely to blame for creating a "team bias" when it comes to well established facts. In a related note, humans absolutely suck at critical thinking and are useless at unconsciously understanding probability. I guess maybe education is a problem as well, I don't think evolution should be a cornerstone of the school system but the basics should come be a core topic in high school biology.

[alain]

I don't know, isn't called the "theory of evolution"?

So it's just the best hypothesis put forward until something that makes more sense pops up or evolution can be proven categorically or should we just be dogmatic with these theory's and believe the science.

I always used to believe that your biological sciences, math, geology, engineering etc.. are more your what you call your factual subjects. This rock is limestone, this species in male. 1+1 =2 etc. Set in stone via parameters.

Study of the bing bang theory, evolution etc.. is more your theoretical science. Essentially you make your best guess with what you have around you and argue it out with other scientists to find truth.

Now that we are in clown world this seems to have flipped

I'm not a zealot or an extremist in this matter so whatever makes people happy, will be interesting to here peoples point of view on this.

[2am]

Creatures very slowly evolving into newer/changed/superior versions of their former selves? Sure.

The creation of a new species? Hell no.

Darwin was an idiot.

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

[Mr Beer]

I don't know, isn't called the "theory of evolution"?

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.

[PITA21]

explain why humans can't breed with chimpanzees if we're so closely related but donkeys and horses can

checkmate op

[kingmanaverage]

I don't know, isn't called the "theory of evolution"?

So it's just the best hypothesis put forward until something that makes more sense pops up or evolution can be proven categorically or should we just be dogmatic with these theory's and believe the science.

I always used to believe that your biological sciences, math, geology, engineering etc.. are more your what you call your factual subjects. This rock is limestone, this species in male. 1+1 =2 etc. Set in stone via parameters.

Study of the bing bang theory, evolution etc.. is more your theoretical science. Essentially you make your best guess with what you have around you and argue it out with other scientists to find truth.

Now that we are in clown world this seems to have flipped

I'm not a zealot or an extremist in this matter so whatever makes people happy, will be interesting to here peoples point of view on this.

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.

[NicaM]

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 no evidence of evolution producing new species, just evidence of existing species adapting based on DNA they already have.
And Darwin himself stated that the existence of any irreducibly complex organ would destroy his theory. Take a look at the flagellum - an incredibly useful structure for a single celled organism, composed of a number of smaller pieces all of which would be at best useless and at worst a liability individually. It could never have evolved.

Not to mention, science also says that a) at one point this universe did not exist, b) matter cannot come from nothing, and c) life cannot come from non life. It takes me a lot less faith to believe that Alahim created the universe than it would to believe it came from nothing in a series of random events.

[2am]

LOL @ Creationists

[kingmanaverage]

There is no evidence of evolution producing new species, just evidence of existing species adapting based on DNA they already have.
And Darwin himself stated that the existence of any irreducibly complex organ would destroy his theory. Take a look at the flagellum - an incredibly useful structure for a single celled organism, composed of a number of smaller pieces all of which would be at best useless and at worst a liability individually. It could never have evolved.

Not to mention, science also says that a) at one point this universe did not exist, b) matter cannot come from nothing, and c) life cannot come from non life. It takes me a lot less faith to believe that Alahim created the universe than it would to believe it came from nothing in a series of random events.

But then who created Alahim?

[PITA21]

explain why humans can't breed with chimpanzees if we're so closely related but donkeys and horses can

checkmate op

the answer is chromosomes btw

[2am]

the answer is chromosomes btw

It must be nice having a spare one

[alain]

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.

Interesting, like i said i'm not a zealot on this so interesting to hear this.

How would you apply and test evolutionary theory or has it it already been applied and tested?

[Mr Beer]

Interesting, like i said i'm not a zealot on this so interesting to hear this.

How would you apply and test evolutionary theory or has it it already been applied and tested?

Basically there's no other way it can work when you look at the fossil record. That's how Darwin arrived at the theory. There was a period of various conflicting theories, which were pretty much put to bed once we discovered the mechanism of heritability, which is DNA.

Since all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, we can read the DNA, check which genes are common and which are not, and from create a "family tree" of life.

[Mr Beer]

So one way to test evolution is to observe a bodily structure in a species and consider whether it's built in a way that an engineer would use to solve a problem or whether it's the culmination of a series of comparatively small mutations that ends up with something that does the job but is in no way the best way to do that job. Then make observations in the fossil record for that species and its ancestors and observe those small changes occurring as we move through deep time.

That's pretty much how the eye works in modern mammals, reptiles and birds.

This article explains why the eye is poorly designed. It starts off by pointing out that the human eye is basically crap compared to bird's eyes. You can maybe skip that bit, the meat is when it explains why eyes don't work the way they would if they were designed rather than evolved.

https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/20...the-human-eye/

e.g. this bit:

Now on to the physical design of the eye. One of the all-time most famous examples of quirky designs in nature is the vertebrate retina. The photoreceptor cells of the retina appear to be placed backward, with the wiring facing the light and the photoreceptor facing inward. A photoreceptor cells looks something like a microphone: the “hot” end has the sound receiver, and the other end terminates with the cable that carries the signal off to the amplifier. The human retina, located in the back of the eyeball, is designed such that all of the little “microphones” are facing the wrong way. The side with the cable faces forwards!

[sandaltan]

the US uses the imperial system, loves religion, hates evolution

[kingmanaverage]

Interesting, like i said i'm not a zealot on this so interesting to hear this.

How would you apply and test evolutionary theory or has it it already been applied and tested?

You can apply and test it through observations of the natural world, combined with evidence from the fossil record.

It's easier to observe the process of evolution and natural selection at work when looking at smaller animals which reproduce very quickly and so can undergo quite a rapid amount of change in a relatively short span of time.

One example could be the development of pesticide resistance over time in certain insects where certain favourable gene mutations have been selected upon and over time increase in frequency within the population.

Another could be the light coloured moth which became darker during the period of the industrial revolution. Pollution meant that dark coloured moths blended better into their surroundings and so were less likely to be eaten by predators.


People can also compare their hypotheses to the fossil record, I.e if humans evolved from apes then you would expect to find evidence of multiple transitional sort of human, sort of ape species which have varying degrees of both ape and human like characteristics, going from being more ape like to more human like over time. Such fossils have been found.

[numberguy12]

There is no evidence of evolution producing new species, just evidence of existing species adapting based on DNA they already have.
And Darwin himself stated that the existence of any irreducibly complex organ would destroy his theory. Take a look at the flagellum - an incredibly useful structure for a single celled organism, composed of a number of smaller pieces all of which would be at best useless and at worst a liability individually. It could never have evolved.

Not to mention, science also says that a) at one point this universe did not exist, b) matter cannot come from nothing, and c) life cannot come from non life. It takes me a lot less faith to believe that Alahim created the universe than it would to believe it came from nothing in a series of random events.

There is actually lots of evidence of speciation and common ancestry...enough to fill books. But from your post I’m guessing the amount of effort you have spent looking into the subject is on the level of looking at Intelligent Design talking points, which have been addressed in detail.

[DDSF1]

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.

[Jasonw1178]

With humans I believe in de-evolution. The lower the IQ, the more backwards the culture, the more kids they have, and it shows.

[adimare]

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?

My best guess as to why fewer people believe in science today is that in the past everyone pretty much only had access to solid information about science (library, school, educational shows, etc), so they weren't exposed to all the nonsense that they're exposed to today. People got used to trusting information that was presented in a certain way, and now that they're presented with nonsense in the same format it's hard to discern what's legit and what's not; and if you throw confirmation bias into the mix, it becomes very easy to convince people of whatever they already want to believe (just look at how often miscers post "news" from the gateway pundit on this forum). I think we're just witnessing the growing pains of having access to more information, and hopefully people will start to learn to be a bit more skeptical about the BS they run into online as time passes.

[StyleGent]

There is actually lots of evidence of speciation and common ancestry...enough to fill books. But from your post I’m guessing the amount of effort you have spent looking into the subject is on the level of looking at Intelligent Design talking points, which have been addressed in detail.

Classic answer from the science is religion crew.

[BlackJack619]

If the mass of scientists believe in evolution why are a mass of scientists spending time and energy fighting against natural selection? Where is the evidence OP even believes what he is preaching? If OP believes what he says wouldnt his life have evidence of that?

[kingmanaverage]

If the mass of scientists believe in evolution why are a mass of scientists spending time and energy fighting against natural selection? Where is the evidence OP even believes what he is preaching? If OP believes what he says wouldnt his life have evidence of that?

I'm confused what you're even talking about. Be a bit more specific.

[2am]

If the mass of scientists believe in evolution why are a mass of scientists spending time and energy fighting against natural selection? Where is the evidence OP even believes what he is preaching? If OP believes what he says wouldnt his life have evidence of that?

Are you trolling?


By this logic we should do away with agriculture and civilisation in general.

Why should we as a species not fight the forces of nature?

[BlackJack619]

I'm confused what you're even talking about. Be a bit more specific.

Normally when you believe in something theres evidences of it in your life.

[BlackJack619]

Are you trolling?


By this logic we should do away with agriculture and civilisation in general.

Why should we as a species not fight the forces of nature?

I think it's silly to fight nature because nature will always win. I would rather our species adapt to the climate than fight against it.

[2am]

I think it's silly to fight nature because nature will always win. I would rather our species adapt to the climate than fight against it.

Either weak troll or stupid