Do people deny evolution out of fear?
597102
They are not willing to accept evolution because if they do, all their other beliefs will also be called into question.      So maybe you are correct in your assessment- they are scared of the consequences.
1157187
Your question is a very reasonable one --and brave, since you'll certainly get answers from religious zealots who have completely closed their minds.  Let me start by saying my *only* personal agenda is a search for the truth, no matter where it leads me.  Unlike many, I'm not here to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. \n\nThe short answer is that I doubt it's possible in this kind of forum to get into enough details to convince a confirmed *creationist* that humans evolved from simpler life forms.  But I hope to encourage an open-minded person to continue with their own research, and not be tempted by overly "easy" answers.   \n\nThe long answer (most of it written by me, some of it transcribed manually; none of it pasted)...\n\nI, too, was unclear about the evolutionary process for a long time.  While I'm not an expert (and *nobody* has *all* the answers) I think I can help you get to a place where it makes *sense* to you as it now does to me, since you appear to have an open mind.  (Agnosticism is good!)  \n\nAfter hearing people's arguments and questions for many years, I am convinced that there are six huge factors getting in the way of a general acceptance of the *overwhelming* scientific evidence for evolution.  \n\n1 - the common misconception that evolution claims apes or chimpanzees changed to human beings, and the perceived indignity -- and indignation -- that goes along with that idea... or with *any* suggestion that we evolved from a lower form.  It's nothing but ridiculous human arrogance!\n2 - the lack of human conception for the vast time life has had on Earth to evolve\n3 - the human temptation to rush things and jump to ridiculous (and therefore naturally hard to believe) conclusions.  Evolution involves not three or four steps, like fish to amphibian to ape to human!)... not hundreds, or even thousands of big, visible steps... but perhaps hundreds of millions of minute, subtle changes in a life form.  Remember, we have had the time!\n4 - the mistaken notion that creatures evolved because they "decided" to, or "wanted" to.  When we say, for example, that fish needed to absorb oxygen more efficiently from the water, so they evolved gills, that's not to imply it was a choice.  Evolution is about mutations... changes that were random from one generation to the next, over long periods of time.  Those changes that happened to be good for the creature meant that creature survived long enough to reproduce, which meant there would now be lots of little babies with that same feature.\n5 - a fearful and/or stubborn refusal to abandon faith in a Creator, since doing so might condemn the unbeliever to eternal suffering\n6 - It's just *easier* to think about a Creator.\n\nI know you want to see some details of our "life's path" to make sense of it, and I will provide that, below.  Just a bit more, first.\n\nThe central ideas of evolution are that all life shares a common ancestor, and that it has changed over time (obviously, if we are to explain getting from A to B).  While it's hard for many people to imagine the changes that would result in, for example, human beings from lifelessness, the first thing to keep firmly in mind is that we are talking about an *unimagineable* amount of time to play with... the earth having been around for some 4.5 billion years, as you said.\n\nUnderstandably, few people can appreciate how much a billion is.  Do you realize that roughly a billion *seconds* ago, "The Godfather, Part 2" was about to win the Academy Award for Best Picture?... that Richard Nixon was President of the U.S.?... that Hank Aaron had just broken Babe Ruth's record of 714 career home runs?  1974 was drawing to a close -- one billion seconds ago.\n\nIt's a lack of appreciation for this vast amount of time which, I think, makes people skeptical.  They wonder how, in any amount of time they can envision, an ape can c
1036079
read this and diside for you self \nIt's understandable why some people think that humans evolved from ape-like creatures, but how is saying that complex life forms arose spontaneously from molecules floating around in the sea any more plausible than myth? There is no proven mechanism by which molecules can give rise to simple organisms that later give rise to more complex ones like dinosaurs, just because evolution can happen among very closely related species. A single mutation\nhas very little chance of benefiting an organism, so the chances that millions of organisms can have the right combination of mutations to adapt to their environment is pretty much none. If you try to write a working code for a computer program by wildy mashing buttons, you will not make any progress even if you had all the time in the world. Evolution is the default theory based on process of elimination, for lack of a better explanation without using religion. Evidence of evolution or religion doesn't always have to exclude the other.
1181871
Yes, many people here follow their beliefs dogmatically, in spite of evidence countering their belief. For example, many people here will not accept evolution in spite of so much incontevertible evidence that it is true.\n\nInstead, they cling dogmatically to a story in the bible
333840
There are still many people that fear God.  \nThere has always been people that DIDN'T fear God.\nI guess it depends on who you are talking to.
679044
Darwins initial theory of evolution has some truth to it, the part of adaptation is essentially true.. the part of making something out of nothing and having it evolve is false .. only the Creator can do that.. as far at the earth being billions of years old.. that is also false... dinosaurs existed with man.. if you read Job it tells you that the giant animals were in existence and not all dinosaurs were giants.. there is a lot of information out there to research concerning your question.. the first book I would suggest is the Bible... it will essentially answer all of the above question.. if that doesn't satisfy you I would suggest checking in a Christian bookstore on evolution.. Darwin had some good ideas, but his predecessors ran with it in the wrong direction.
34443
To everyone here - you can't argue with each other. You are arguing matters based on someone's faith - so there can be no logical outcome as viewed from both parties. To have religious faith means you 'just believe' despite what might be shown false - that's when these folks tend to raise the 'get real - how can that be so' attitude.\n\nStay in your realm and believe what you want to, but do not tell me and others that all of observed science is garbage. If you fell ill at ease when looking at science - perhaps you need to look inwards and ask what is making you feel uneasy?? If you feel that folks who believe in evolution are all going to hell for denying God - then why worry about them? I'm sure that they are not concerned about it.
629435
They are neither Darwinist nor Evolutionist. Such -isms are indicative only of belief systems, not of processes of fact. You can no more have an 'evolutionist' than you can have a 'gravitationist' or a 'germist'. There simply are no terms for people who accept the available evidence, except perhaps 'cynics'.\n\nWe don't have terms for people who believe in the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease or the theory of evolution. Those things are all simply facts, as far as facts are possible.\n\nDarwinist is completely incorrect since Darwinism as a theory was falsified over 60 years ago. Nobody accepts Darwinsim any more. At an absolute stretch you might be able to apply the term 'neo-Darwinist'.\n\nBut realistically the only correct term I can think of is 'cynic'.
859775
The line drawn in the sand has been made worse by the propaganda on evolution by those who DON'T believe that God made the world or even exists. ....and by some Chrisians who want to make the creation account in Genesis a doctrine of salvation.\n\nThese evolutionists who don't even want "intelligent design" mentioned as part of the world coming into being seem to have an anti-God agenda.  And they are using the law to try to have evolution taught as a "fact" and not a theory.    Trouble is, they don't agree with each other and have no proof of what they preach.  They believe in their form of evolution on the basis of their "faith" in their theory.   They are as soundly religious as the preachers who don't want  evolution mentioned .\n\nGod did create the world.  As I have been looking up passages, I am suprised at how many, many times in both the New and Old Testament the Bible  declares that God created the heavens and the earth. He seems to want all to know that it was HE who created all things.\nBut He does not explain how He created it.\n\nThat is my agreement with you.
359880
I've frequently had the impression that the affect on common people, or at least their reactions since Origin of Species was published has been based less on their actual reading of the book or keeping up with current research and more about assuming they know what was actually written.  In other words, rather than going to the original source and attempting to understand it fully (either in order to accept it as working model or to attempt to refute it), much of both the defense of evolution and the refutation of evolution has been based on summaries of the work in other, frequently inaccurate or biased sources, especially news reports which were, hard as it may be to believe, frequntly even more sensational (and less honest) in the 19th Century than they are now.\n\nHowever, I suspect the vast majority of people just after Origin of Species was published went on with their lives just as they always had whether they accepted Darwin's conclusions or not.  Just as most people today manage to get by on a daily without needing to come to grips with the theory or accept or reject it.  \n\nI honestly don't think most people get up in the morning and start the day with one of two thoughts:\na)  I am the product of millions of years of evolution.\nb)  I am the product of thousands of years of decent from Adam and Eve.\n\nThere may be some people who do that, but they obviously have more time than me.  I'm usually worried about where the nearest source of caffeine is and whether the dog needs to be walked.  I worry about the evolution thing around noon.  :)
976495
I think they object to the WORD "evolution" itself.  :)  I've noticed this too.  They describe it and say they agree with the process but deny it when you call it "evolution."\n\nIt's like the ones that won't celebrate "Halloween" but are fine dressing up in costume that same night for a "Harvest Party."  Muahahaha!\n\nI can see Jesus now, sorting them out at the Pearly Gates.  "YOU, girl dressed like a strawberry, you can come into heave.  You were clearly at a Harvest Party.  But you?  Little ninja boy?  Clearly Halloween.  Hell 4 u!"
231135
People have trouble accepting evolution for the same reason they had trouble accepting that the Earth was not flat and was not the center of the universe. The funniest thing is when people claim that creationism has been proven or is fact. It's a fact just like it is a fact that the world is flat. It looks that way so it must be true. Since we can't see evolution it must not exist. I also find it amusing that people think that it makes more sense that women were created from a man's rib than that we are the result of evolution.\n\nI've noticed that many people don't understand the theory of evolution, and essentially use that as a basis to attack it. For example, many people will point out that evolution does not explain the origin of the first cells or where matter came from. No duh it doesn't. It's not supposed to. Evolution explains the origin of the diversity of species, not the origin of life. There are other theories that address that issue, and I don't think any of those are accepted as fact. I do, however, think it's a fair bet that life does in fact exist, so it's perfectly valid to construct a theory that presupposes that life exists.\n\nPeople also misunderstand the concept of a scientific theory. What they fail to realize is that most of science is made up of theories, and while many of these theories have been effectively proven true, they're still called theories. Unlike the common English use of theory, in science a theory is an explanation of facts, which is subjected to rigorous scientific testing. Evolution is called a theory not so much because we're not sure if the basic concepts are accurate, but because we are not confident that every single little detail is perfectly accurate. There may be complexities and details that are not yet fully understood, but the basic idea that species evolve and that the process of evolution has resulted in the diversity of life we see today is basically an established fact.\n\nAnother problem that may be partly to blame for the confusion regarding evolution is the presentation of "scientific evidence" by creationists that the claim contradicts the theory of evolution. I often see misleading and incorrect use of scientific data to "disprove" evolution. For example, on prominent creationist website cites a study John A. Eddy and Aram A. Boomazian which they claim says that the sun has been contracting for 400 years when, in fact, the study examined evidence from under 100 years and extrapolated the rest from a single report of the appearance of a solar eclipse in the 1500s. Furthermore, the study was conducted about 50 years ago, and dozens of studies since then have found that the data was based on flawed methodology and the sun is actually not contracting.\nHere's that site:  http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/418/\nAnd some background on the study they cited:  http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html\n\nThe problem is that people read that and believe that evolution has been disprove. I saw someone quote that particular website here on Answers as scientific proof that the theory of evolution was false. The people who wrote the creationist article probably did their research and latched on to the one study that supported their theory, but the people who read it don't know that it is an outdated study, that the conclusion is overinflated (the 400 year thing), or that it contradicts the findings of dozens of more recent and more accurate studies.\n\nApparently the phenomenon of distorting scientific data to further a creationist agenda is fairly widespread. One of my bio profs talked about a particularly egregious example of someone (I don't remember his name) who actually obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology for the expressed purpose of disproving the theory of evolution, and now goes around writing articles that pretty transparent to scientists but are just believable enough to c
528044
It does not matter what I believe. The theory of evolution by natural selection is overwhelmingly supported by fact and argument. Intelligent Design is not supported by any facts that I know of and the argument seems to be basically, " a argument from ignorance ".
255424
Alright I will jump into this. Bombs Away! I know some hot heads will respond but I live in a country where free speech is a given right.\nSo here I go.\nEvolution in and of itself has never been proven. Do the research for yourself. The faith that it takes to believe all of the scattered pieces of science ( which by the way changes daily) fit into one theory is enormous. There are people who wholeheartedly believe that science makes everything factual. It doesn't. Science is like a river, constantly changing even with the basic elements in tact.\nSo for it to be taught as a fact is wrong,wrong,wrong. \nYes,evolution should be tought, but as a scientific theory, and not the final word for all mankind.
894605
Fine. I'll level with you.\n\nI believe evolution is possible. I think that certain organisms have developed over time to better their "fitness" (if you will). However, I am a Creationist and believe that God created the Earth and the creatures on it. Sorry if I find it hard to believe that a blob evolved into the life on the planet today.
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.
935289
I think a lot of these questions come from people just vacuously repeating what they read on anti-science websites. This is an argument that is many decades old and based on a misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. They seem to believe that every member of one species gradually changes until they are so different that they become a new species and the parent species is entirely converted en masse. They don’t understand that modification with descent involves multiple branching – it’s not a tree it’s a bush. They also think that evolution proceeds merely by mutation and is a purely random process, and so, incapable of forming complex biological systems. In short, they completely misunderstand evolution and are not interested in educating themselves. They may still disagree with evolution if they ever bothered to understand it properly but they have no wish to pursue it and argue from a position of ignorance. \n\nI would also guess that most of these people believe humans are better than all other organisms – the crown jewel of creation – the ultimate species – this is the height of arrogance.