If people don't believe in evolution, why do they even bother posting in the biology or the science sections?
487852
good question and one oi would love to answer, read some of my questions from ywesterday and you will see more evidence of flawed logic, and closed mindedness.\n\ni dont hate religious types, unless they are the ones that try and change the world in the name of a go who may or may not exist (thats fundamentalists of ALL denominations), but they seem to hate the fact that there are arguments that go against thier opinion, thay hang on to the smallest thread of relevance thier argument has and try to do down the scientific evidence that already exists, theyt have even resorted to calling me sick because i asked why they do not belirve in evolutiuon.\n\nAAAAArgh what can you do????
636760
because most people see it as either an attack on god or as an attack on science. there are however a few of us who believe that the theory of god and the theory of evolution can coexist. i try to keep an open mind about things that are not yet proven or unproven to be true.
44109
Wow.  There is a staggering amount of ignorance exhibited in this thread.\n\nEvolution can be taught as science because it actually *is* science. Intelligent Design/Creationism is merely a faith based leap to "God did it!" Science is about observing, modelling, and predicting the universe around us.  Creationism is closing your eyes to the world and explaining everything by magic.\n\nHere's part of an answer I posted in another thread that addresses many of the same questions raised and misinformation spewed by some of the responses\nabove:\n\n---------\nThe trouble with most Creationists- scratch that. ONE of the troubles with most Creationists is that they seldom actually argue against evolution as it really is, but against straw-man charicatures of evolution. Rather than actually educating themselves about the subject they ask inane questions like "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" and then pat themselves on the back thinking they've scored points rather than revealing their ignorance about the subject. And then the choir they are preaching to nod their heads and agree.\n\nHere's a few simple things to remember:\n\n1. Evolution is NOT the study of how life began.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/abiogenesis.htm#Origins\n\n2. Evolution does NOT say man came from monkeys.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/\n\n3. There will be no "intermediary forms" if by that you expect to see a half-this/half-that critter, nor does evolution say there should be.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm\n\n4. Evolution is not incompatible with religious faith. Plenty of scientists believe in both God and evolution. It is only incompatible with the literalist view of Genesis espoused by young earth creationists. Of course, these folks' views run counter to geology, physics, paleontology, archeology, and astronomy as well.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html\n\n\n5. While there is vigorous debate about some of the mechanisms and features of evolution, there is no doubt in the scientific community that evolution is real. OF COURSE you will find some cranks out there on the fringe who will fight against evolution (most making a tidy living giving talks to fundamentalist religious groups), just like there are historians who insist the Holocaust didn't occur. Every large enough group will have it's nutballs.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/\nhttp://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html\n\n\n6. Yes, speciation has been observed.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html\n\n7. "Theory" means something entirely different in scientific language than in colloquial use. In science, a theory is a well-tested model of how things work, not "just a guess."\nhttp://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm\n\n8. Evolution is not guided solely by random chance.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html\n\nI personally don't care if somebody wants to believe that God, Allah, or the Tooth Fairy created the universe. What does bother me are those people who argue against a "cartoon" view of evolution because they feel that it threatens their faith, or because they are too lazy to learn what evolution is before choosing to try and smear it.\nSource(s):\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/\nhttp://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/evolution.htm\n----------------------\n\n\nFollowup:  Ummm.... You DO understand that Darwin was *ages* ago, and that the field of evolution has advanced light years beyond his notions right?  Darwin's ideas were formed in the 1830s-1850s, and he was unaware of genetics, radiometric dating, protein synthesis, plate tectonics, and a host of ot
783822
Most religious folk do accept evolution, it is really only in the USA that you have this problem, and it really is a problem.\n\nEdit:\n\nAnd no nothing makes a difference, all the information is out there, they just put their hands over their ears, its really not about evidence, they don't have a problem with the theory of relativity which is way more difficult and controversial than evolution.
650283
Seriously, it's a nice question.\n\nUnfortunately, any worthwhile answer to the details you’ve provided is beyond the scope of Yahoo Answers. You’d do better scouring the web for books on the topic from both perspectives and/or joint perspectives, if you really want to understand what both sides and not just one believes and why.\n\nHowever, I can address your literal question, which is, “Why don’t people ‘get’ this?”\n\nOne of the arguments for why many people “don’t understand” the points you’re contributing is because there has been SUCH an extensive, detailed discourse over the validity of evolution for more than a century, there’s no way to stay abreast of every development and every argument (pro and con) unless one is either working professionally in the field or is committed to the subject as a full-time hobby.\n\n(I’ve dabbled in it on and off over twenty years myself -- just enough to know what it would cost me to really get my hands dirty and be able to rationally debate for either side. And even being the philosophy and knowledge junkie I am, I just have far too many other things on my plate.)\n\nAlong with the breadth of information that must be consumed by the average person is the degree of critical thinking skills needed to weigh such extensive and detailed arguments/evidence for each position, as well as determine which authorities are actually trustworthy and which are not. That’s another full-time job in itself – besides the fact that many people simply aren’t “wired” for that level of analysis.\n\nRealistically, I would NOT expect many people to be well-versed on the geological data regarding evolution, understand the biological and ecological impact, explore all the contexts for how things might most logically fit together, and so forth. The topic is simply far too time- and resource-intensive. \n\nCoupled with this is that your argument seems not to be concerned in the least with the question of “Why?” \n\nWhy are we here? What makes humans different, if we are? And how does this impact us personally in our day-to-day lives? To many people, the evolutionary debate is irrelevant to the daily demands of life and what they want to get out of it. \n\nEvolutionary theory has nothing to do with who they love, what they sacrifice for, who they care about, what they are willing to dedicate their energy to. It doesn’t help them figure out who to marry, or how to pay their bills, or how to help their kids back on a good track, or decide what car to buy. It doesn’t give them any sort of reason for them personally to live.\n\nIn fact, it rather runs counter to all that. If your supposition is completely true, then no inherent purpose to life exists, we’re all just animals cursed by the cosmos with irrelevant self-awareness, and death is the end. Yet most people want to live, and live meaningfully.\n\nThe narrative they want to create of their lives is actually the OPPOSITE of the narrative of evolution, which (to me and others) necessarily devalues human existence.\n\nWe can argue about whether your theoretical narrative is factually true or not (and people of course have been doing so for years); but in the meanwhile, the evolutionary narrative has no value to the majority of people out there, and it even undermines the meaning they believe exists inherently in their lives.\n\nSo I wouldn’t broadly call most people ignorant of evolution, as much as I’d call the details of evolution irrelevant to most people.\n\n(And if evolution's true as you've laid it out, why does it even matter that most people understand it anyway? Their understanding or lack of it has no lasting ramifications.)
1097273
Evolution is only a theory.  If it is being taught as "fact" then they are doing you a disservice.
1017763
Humans didn't evolve. Science itself refutes Darwinism. Science is disproving evolution more every day. There is less evidence for evolution today than there was when Charles Darwin first came up with the theory (hypothesis). There are a lot of scientists that don't believe in evolution, and more are changing their beliefs all the time. Here is a partial list of creation scientists (past and present).\nhttp://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html\nWith all the evidence against it I really don't see how any open minded intelligent human being could believe in evolution. With the lack of proof for evolution it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation and intelligent design. There is a lot more evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution. Evolution isn't mathematically possible. The complexity of life points to Intelligent Design as revealed by such complex structures as:\n\n* Cells and DNA\nIn Darwin's time, scientists thought cells were just blobs of protoplasm. Since that time the advance of science has uncovered ever more powerful evidence that what Christians believe is true on all levels, including the natural world. And that is becoming even clearer today as scientists learn more about what is inside the cell-and especially the structure of DNA.\n\nAccording to cell biologist Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, "The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."\n\nEven the simplest cells are bristling with high-tech machinery. On the outside, their surfaces are studded with sensors, gates, pumps and identification markers.\n\nInside, cells are jam-packed with power plants, automated workshops and recycling units. Miniature monorails whisk materials from one location to another. No such system could arise in a blind, step-by-step Darwinian process.\n\nThe most advanced, automated modern factory, with its computers and robots all coordinated on a precisely timed schedule, is less complex than the inner workings of a single cell.\n\n"A bacterium is far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism. One cell is more complicated than the largest computer that man has ever made." - Sir James Gray, from Cambridge University\n\nDNA is like a language in the heart of the cell, a molecular message, a set of instructions telling the cell how to construct proteins-much like the software needed to run a computer. Moreover, the amount of information DNA includes is staggering: A single cell of the human body contains three or four times more information as all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. As a result, the question of the origin of life must now be redefined as the question of the origin of biological information. Can information arise by natural forces alone? Or does it require an intelligent agent?\n\nDNA is composed of ordinary chemicals (bases, sugars, phosphates that react according to ordinary laws. What makes DNA function as a message is not the chemicals themselves but rather their sequence, their pattern. The chemicals in DNA are grouped into molecules (called nucleotides) that act like letters in a message, and they must be in a particular order if the message is going to be intelligible. If the letters are scrambled, the result is nonsense. So the crucial question is whether the sequence of chemical "letters" arose by natural causes or whether it required an intelligent source. Is it the product of law or design?\n\nSince DNA contains information, the case can be stated even more strongly in terms of information theory, a field of research that investigates the ways information is transmitted. The naturalistic scientist has only
642658
I find it interesting how everyone ASSUMES the writer is religious just because he disagrees with evolutionary theory.  Actually, belief in God (yes, it's capatilized) is more reasonable than belief in no higher being.  See the gamble in philosophy: if there is a God and you believe you get your reward, if you believe and there is no God then the same thing happens to you that happens to everyone, if you don't believe and there is no God you have the same situation as above. Finally, if you don't believe and there is a God you're SCREWED - yes, that's the technical term).  \n\nEvolution is definitely NOT proven, in fact, I have not seen any convincing evidence for the theory and it has turned out to not be very predictive. Unlike the theory of Gravity, which has not had any evidence against it yet and therefore is a good theory, evolution is a bad theory because it does not explain the observed facts.  Yes, here comes the wailing about the fossil record, finches in the Galapagos, etc...\n\nConsider this for a minute:\nThe Miller Experiment produced a racemic mixture of amino acids whereas living systems take almost primarily L-amino acids.  It is also extremely difficult to produce polypeptides in the lab without the required enzymes.  Plus, it has been accepted that oxygen was in the early atmosphere.\n\nThere are no known transition forms in the fossil record (maybe the winged lizard which I don't know how to spell).  If Darwinian evolution occurred the fossil record should be full of transition forms, but it's not.  Instead, it is characterized by rapid appearance of fully-formed organisms (like the Cambrian explosion or the appearance of flowering plants).  This led to theories like puntuated equilibrium, which is just an evolutionary form of intelligent design/abrupt appearance.\n\nThere is not a single proven mechanism by which ANY biological system has formed from inorganic matter.  How did an eye form?  What about just a bacteria?  These are much more complex than previously thought and is not a "lower" organism.\n\nFinally, most (if not all) mutations are either harmful or have no affect on the organism due to junk DNA.  It is unlikely that the great diversity present at this time could have occurred due to accumulation of mutations.  The age of the earth as accepted by most scientists do not give enough time for this to have occurred (I think it's about 4 billion years or something like that).\n\nYou want to know why it is still taught?  It is a pseudo-religion of materialistic atheists and allows atheists to comfortably believe there is not a God.  This is the same reason why there was resistance to the helocentric model of the solar system depsite the accumulating evidence.  People liked the earth and our civilization having a special place in the universe.
16854
If you’re a believer in facts, scientific methods, and empirical data, the picture is depressing. \n\nA recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Science found that 64 percent of respondents support teaching creationism side by side with evolution in the science curriculum of public schools. A near majority—48 percent—do not believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries. Thirty-three percent believe that a general agreement does not exist among scientists that humans evolved over time.
1112493
The answers you're getting really crack me up.\nThe level of ignorance displayed about religion and science here is laughable.\nBiologists (as in the serious professionals) explain the fact of evolution with the theory of Natural Selection.  This is not a cosmological theory; it merely attempts to explain the observable world around us.  The theory is completely silent on the origins of life.  Science is patently ignorant of the supernatural (by definition).  Religion, by definition requires faith in a higher order that is outside the physical world that science is studying.\nIf Faith can't withstand science then there is something lacking in the faith.  Never try to explain God with science (it makes god testy).  Likewise, do not deny science with religion (that's just freakishly fundamentalist).\nThanks for the entertainment.
1154023
That response from gimpalomg was kinda disrespectful. Evolution is a waste of time. It tries to disprove something that cannot be disproved. Evolution is baseless, unfounded and a big scientific hoax to sway believers into thinking that science answers such questions. Evolution is circular reason. You say the earth couldn't possibly be 10000 years old max, I ask why, u'd probably bring up some evolution based theory that attemot to explain away the truth, which is the bible, but for now, I won't be forcing those doctrines down ur throat =D. \n\nThibnk about the bible for a second. The flood would explain so many things that science fails to answer such as the extinction of dinasuars, they're too big to fit on an arc.  Bare in mind that dinasuars are simply reptiles we see tody except that everything had the ability to live longer, if you want to explore that theory look it up because I promised not to use circular reasoning. the flood would explain why fish remains are ound on every mountain peak. It would explain why there was a "nomadic" time period in that time. And sooo obvious to us, it would explain what the heck a huuuge arc is doing on mount Ararat, which by the way was picke dup by NASA satellites. It should be noted that the bible states that Noah's arc rested atop mount Ararat. \n\nLastly, Evolution should not be in text books. The theory is warped an d blown aout of proprtion. I believe there are six major theories that compose the entire science of evolution. Only 1 uno theory hasbeen proved. That theory is microevolution which states that some organisms have the power to make themselves evolve MINOR CHANGES i.e Darwin's discovery of natural selection (longer beaks vs. shorter beaks etc.). This is GREAT, sure, except that the other theories cannot be proven but some have been disproven, there's something they don't always include in text books. Macroevolution which is the level above Microevolution comprises of the theory that species make huge changes over time such as extra limbs, DNA changes etc, again, not proven, even disproven by "vestigial" organs... aren't we supposed to evolve by GAINING other parts, not losing them. Buut scioentiest insist on using vestigial organs as the tailbone... guess WHAT ppl, it's not vestigial; you try walking around without it then try calling ir vestigial ,it serves a purpose. &#92;\n\non to the whole age thing. The earth is more likely to be 10000 years max than millions. According to the evolutionary theory, dinasuars became extinct MILLIONS of years ago. How much time does it take for flesh to decompose? I'm thinking FAR less than a million years. Why then are red blood cells still being found in dinasuar remains? The best answer is that the earth could NEVER be nearly as old as we think it is. I also want to point out thaT the earth is usually dated by ratioactive dating, which, in itself, is VERY unreliable. Research Radioactive dating accuracy and find the fact. The dates are beyond the level of being off, scientists know this. All they do is find a formula which is closest to the actual date even if it is millions of years inaccurate. Don't believe me? Research it yourself. \n\nEvolution is something that has been put in textbooks to simply explain away religious doctrines they feel are impossible. If you do your research like I did, you will easly see that evolution is no more true than Roman mythology\n\nAnd one dangerous thing we seem to be doing. The bible is NOT all symbolic.  That is REALLY dangerous. If i told u that the wings of the eagle stretched far beyond my reach then went on to recap yesterdays events, would you beleive that all of what I said was symbolic. How symbolic can anything be. The bible is literal at times. If you want to read the prophecies in the bible about the establishment of Israel, the rebuilding of the temple, the aliance os powers against Israel and it literally being sur
817849
That's impossible to quantify at the present. We'd have to poll millions of people around the globe just to get a reasonable demographic. What's more, everyone really should believe in evolution, and anyone who does not believe in evolution is clearly ignoring the facts. Evolution is a fact, not a possibility, and not just a theory. Whether or not it conflicts with Christianity's premise is yet to be determined, and I really could not care less. Evolution isn't a religious doctrine, it's a scientific analysis.
158486
hen non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:\n\n    In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."\n\n    Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.\n\n    Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.\n\n    Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.\n\n    - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981\n\nGould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:\n\n    Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignora
29214
Because people don't want to believe in a God. I have yet to find a single person who can answer the question of why science can't have God. But other than that, people don't like to be wrong, evolution is a religion, and it is the popular opinion (which many people will follow, although this does not determine the truth of it). There is tons of evidence against evolution, and not too much for it. If you want some sources, www.trueorigin.org is a good one. There is also the Institute for Creation Research, which I can't remember the website of right now. If want lots of sources, email me. I have a huge list of them right now from the paper I just wrote on this topic. It's spiderlover128@yahoo.com.
746231
ONLY a theory? hehe! Then those people don't even understand the terminology they're using. Yes a theory is a proven hypothesis (versus disproven).  Only when someone can disprove it will it lose it's status.  So evolution is a theory. :)
418415
evolution is just mans way of trying to understand how life got here and is how it is. Its a theory and not a proven fact. People just refuse to believe a higher power created them.\nI believe in breeding and that's it. God created basic life on the planet and then through breeding of those animals we got several different species in one classification of such.
922140
It’s hard for human beings to grasp every phase of evolution, but that really isn’t evolution’s problem, especially when we are talking about the small scale things.  It’s hard to actually picture the change, but just because someone (like me) doesn’t have the imagination to picture it, it doesn’t matter.  Evolution doesn’t need me to understand or even believe in it.  Aleins did not create eukaryotic cells, don’t be silly.  Then again, we can't disprove it so it must be true (that's the logic christian like to throw out there as far as god goes so it can work with alein's too, right?) lol :)