Why do you think people still argue again evolution?

1. 66

   NathanielZhuposted 13 years ago

   Why do you think people still argue again evolution?
   
   Seriously. This is the 21st century. I'm thinking they're in denial because it's against their religion - or they're just ignorant. What do you think?

   replyreport
2. 80

   Trish_Mposted 13 years ago

   Hi
   
   Yes, because it goes against what is taught by their religion, and, also, because they do not want to accept that their ancestors were mere 'animals'. They want to believe that they were specially made in the very image of God.

   replyreport
3. 0

   Giselle Maineposted 13 years ago

   As a scientist myself, I still persist in calling it "evolutionary theory".  Why? Not because I disbelieve evolution (I don't think it is mutually exclusive with religion, either), but simply because it is just that - a theory.  Unlike many other areas of science where you can do experiments to test a hypothesis, evolutionary theory is on such a large timescale that you can't really 'design' experiments to test it out.  In other words, it's a theory which is not as testable/observable as other branches of science. Ditto for the "RNA world" theory.  I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve either theory, just that we need to recognize that they are simply that: theories. 
   
   While I wouldn't argue *against* evolution, I would argue that it is not one of the most well-documented branches of science out there.  So some people who argue against evolution may simply feel there is not enough evidence either way and what there is, is 'after-the-fact' stuff like fossils which induces a lot of 'handwavy' arguments by those in the field, instead of experimentally testable hypotheses.

   replyreport
4. 61

   nightwork4posted 13 years ago

   some people hate to admit that we are from the same gene pool as animals. i find it funny that they will act like they were created by some great being that is invisible but they won't admit that evolution caused our existence.

   replyreport
5. 60

   cooldadposted 13 years ago

   Because people are dying to believe that god is real.  Humans are animals, we are just a highly advanced form of animal (in some respects).
   
   While I do believe in evolution, I hope science will one day be able to definitively prove evolution.  That way, the skeptics will have to stop arguing.  But until then, the debate will rage on.
   
   People are so intent on feeling like they have a distinct path as defined by their god.  Personally, I believe we are just animals on the planet, reproducing and then we die and rot in the ground.

   replyreport
6. 61

   Jonesy0311posted 13 years ago

   Again, I always say that most religions are basically "God of the Gap" theories wherein the Creator is responsible for whatever science is yet to explain. Obviously, evolution is diametrically opposed to common Christian beliefs of Creation. I think it is still being argued because it is something that none of us are taught prior to college (which many Americans never attend). Moreover, scientists in the field (such as evolutionary biologists) feel that the topic of evolution is so fundamental that they don't bother debating it. Just watch a primate at the zoo and then observe a family walking around...it's pretty obvious.

   replyreport
7. 73

   lone77starposted 13 years ago

   There is a small, but growing minority of Christian Fundamentalists who do not believe in evolution and the reason has more to do with ego than ignorance, though both apply.
   
   Most, if not all, interpretations of the Bible are wrong. With so many interpretations in disagreement, only one can be right, and there is a strong possibility that none of them are right. That doesn't mean there's no value in religion or the Bible or any other spiritual text. Humility is the key to discovery, both in religion and in science. Too many have big egos, and those attitudes of "know it all" get in the way to learning anything.
   
   Perhaps a few confuse the biblical passage of man being in God's image and think that this must mean that Homo sapiens is special because of that image thing. But they got Gen.1:26 all wrong. That passage is talking about the spiritual nature of man, not the physical. God is not a physical being.
   
   And yet, Homo sapiens is special, because they are the vessels of choice for the immortal children of God to have continuity of consciousness. The dreams of the fallen ones are too chaotic without these bodies. Planning our escape is impossible without intelligent thought, speech, and the creation of civilization.
   
   Did Homo sapiens evolve from primates? The evidence is overwhelming in favor. And this doesn't affect my beliefs or faith in spirituality in the slightest.
   
   Some of us have experienced being outside of our Homo sapiens bodies, so we know that these temporary vessels are not the real us. And contrary to Steven Hawking's proclamations that belief is based on a fear of the dark, my knowledge and beliefs are not shaped by a fear of death. I've already experienced many of them and too soon will experience another. I only hope that the real self within fully awakens before then so that continuity of consciousness is maintained.
   
   Some biblical literalists think the universe was created 4004 BC. That's too little time for evolution. Little do they know that Genesis has a hidden timeline which is compatible with those of science. The Young Earth Creationists are beating their chests and hooting at science all for nothing. How embarrassing for them.

   replyreport
8. 60

   Sundryposted 13 years ago

   It's difficult to challenge belief. Then again, one also needs to have a certain amount of "belief" in scientific theory, so both are beliefs. Science is not the only philosophy, it is a small part of a conglomerate of philosophies. Besides that, it's an interesting and provocative argument to have at a Friday night dinner for example or at a small coffee shop.

   replyreport
9. 0

   scottcgruberposted 12 years ago

   I firmly believe one of the reasons evolution meets such opposition is that it is poorly taught. This is a fundamental, foundational pillar of biology, and yet it is given a paltry few hours of classroom time. Teachers are often afraid to delve to deep into it for fear of instigating the fundamentalist students, or deemphasize it because they don't believe it themselves.
   
   Students are given a few basic concepts without a full understanding of how it works and why it is correct and how scientists know everything they know about it. If people were actually taught the theory in proportion to how critical it really is to life science, there would be much less opposition to it.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Stormy1990posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I am sorry for this late comment, I can't recomment on my comment anymore I just wanted to ask you if there's any other proof of evolution? I want to check it out... :-)

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Robert the Bruceposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Stormy, many of the hubs here have links to scientific studies on evolution. However, I'm pretty sure you're not interested in those. You want to see a chimp give birth to a human baby...which won't happen. The facts are there for the those who study

      replyreport
10. 69

    Stormy1990posted 12 years ago

    Because evolution itself is still a theory! The fossils do NOT prove evolution, in fact, its quite the opposite. Think about it, according to evolutionists, the process of fossilization takes millions of years, and anti-creationists use this as evidence against evolution. But logically, an animal would not die and just sit there for millions of years waiting to be fossilized!
    
    BUT! creationists know that fossilization can happen very quickly. When Mt. St. Helens erupted, fossils were created in a matter of weeks! If a volcanic eruption did that, what would happen if there would be a worldwide flood.
    
    I realize that this doesn't disprove evolution nor does it prove creation, but it does prove that evolution, according to the scientific process, is a theory, not a fact.
    
    In my opinion there are more facts supporting creation then evolution.
    http://stormy1990.hubpages.com/hub/Crea … ific-Facts

    replyreport
    1. 0

       scottcgruberposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       This response is a typical pile of creationist lies and false dichotomies. The eruption of Mt. St. Helens may have created "fossils," but only in the broadest sense of the word - a living thing preserved due to a rapid process.

       replyreport
    2. 69

       Stormy1990posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       My point was that evolution is still considered a scientific theory. IT IS NOT A PROVEN FACT! Neither is creation in a scientists' eyes. Thus, people argue over whether or not evolution is a fact...
       
       ...unless you have proof that evolution is a fact?

       replyreport
    3. 0

       scottcgruberposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Evolution is fact and theory. It is a fact that living things change over time. The theory is that the driver is natural selection. If you want proof of the fact of evolution, I give you MRSA. Look it up.

       replyreport
    4. 69

       Stormy1990posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Many people do think that this is proof of evolution, but MRSA is still a germ, it didn't evolve into something more complex. This is an example of microevolution. The most common example of this are dogs, they all came from one basic breed.

       replyreport
    5. 0

       scottcgruberposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       You can move the goalposts all you like, but MRSA still proves the fact of evolution. A straing of bacteria evolved resistance. The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time.

       replyreport