• In total there are 7 users online :: 2 registered, 0 hidden and 5 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

Thanks Flann, yes, remark on Macy's was funny - but at that point could not take it very humorously
You implied in one of your posts that hominids wore clothing.
Did you not??

I didn't know they wore clothing.

What evidence is there that hominids wore clothing (or skins, or whatever)

Thanks

By the way..,

I read these posts and post replies mostly from my cell phone.
I honestly thought your name was lavender. I thought it was unique and very pretty.

I am sorry. From now on I will refer to you simply as "L"
Or do you prefer "Lord L"?

Take your pick.., I don't care. Either is fine with me.
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

ant wrote: Why do I want to know all this??

GOOD QUESTION!!

Simply because there is a BIG FREAKING DIFFERENCE between knowledge and the appearance or feigning of knowledge in rhetoric.
You’re implying, as Flann states explicitly, that this “BIG FREAKING DIFFERENCE” actually applies to the current state of evolutionary theory.

The consensus view among scientists is that evolution is a FACT. Again to quote Stephen Jay Gould, it is “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” So do you agree, or not?

The National Academy of Science:
“Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.”
So are you arguing about the FACT of evolution, or about the frontier of evolutionary theory where people are debating about the details?
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

johnson1010 wrote:Flann,

Evolution to me is not an argument that there is no god, but rather an understanding of how life can be the way it is in purely naturalistic terms.
Hi Johnson, Thanks. My point was that people like Dawkins present it this way. He did write a book called "The God Delusion", and "The Blind Watchmaker" ergo there is no designer.

As far as natural selection goes some scientists say it's predominantly neutral. I'm not an expert. These things are debated amongst biologists themselves. There is a neutral theory,right?
I can see that strong lions do better than weak ones.Will that produce something new genetically? Probably not.
Mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious. You can say that as long as we get enough advantageous ones and have enough time that will do the job.
In the end it's the prevailing view and actually I haven't been debating it of late.In a way evolution is more important to the naturalist than the theist. Theists can live with it. Can naturalists live without it?
User avatar
lehelvandor
Freshman
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:09 pm
9
Location: Cambridge, UK
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 104 times
Contact:

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

:)))) Ant... please, not Lord L , by no means :)

Anyway, yes perhaps bad choice of word in my far from first language, but poked around the ice age as example again, i.e. if we took animals vs. our ancestors, latter were in possession of a number of differentiating instruments (not to use the word tool) compared to former. Therefore introduced a number of crucial factors into the equation of what physiological changes they should/would have suffered etc.

Anyway, without any fear (or apnee problems) regarding extinguishing evolution here:

For point (1)-(3) I tried, obviously failed, to actually go at it directly with the other thought experiment (again with Zeus and the annoying lightning). Essentially to make the point that it is commendable to approach the actual question in the quantitative manner you initially posed it... but... it is using a comparison between very different things and could be misunderstood completely.

But apologies, we need to clarify a few things even before that:

(1) - in what specific point / area is the homo sapiens-related baggage, or its parts, merely a hypothesis? There are hypotheses there on some things within that, and there is (even very very recent and quite frankly astonishing) evidence on other things... I may have mentioned, actually definitely did, the common ancestor issue - with the gobsmackingly precise fusion of 23rd and 24th chromosomes, that was beyond the proposers' wildest dreams... and side-stepped the anthropological matters (and other things that use a shovel sometimes :) ).

(2) - in the evolution theory or the theory we also rant about on the forum, namely creation or divine design etc.
Perhaps this point is the easiest to quantitatively compare - clearly, there is one hypothesis (or as some had put it, a certainty...) vs. a set of different hypotheses from numerous overlapping and non-overlapping sciences, with various degrees of evidence/observation.

(3) - do we count it? can we? I can't. But... this is the point that triggered my Zeus lightning example. Whilst we may end up here with an answer, we need to be careful as in some minds, a non-zero number means the entire thing fails, as several commented before about a particular fallacy.

(4) - are we focusing then only on simple -> intelligent life? or the entire saga, going back to early geophysics that prepared the ground (as reproduced in labs) for the building blocks for life to start with? and follow it through its entire "history"?
If we are only looking at simple -> intelligent, in another thread I dared to make a parallel with two things from the cyber world... well, from artificial intelligence. We need to be careful in how complicated we deem intelligence and consciousness even. We humans re-creating it to some degree from e.g. puny artificial neurons that have one trivial algebraic formula inside them to connect inputs to their output(s) is interesting, and limited of course... It can be hypothesised where the limit is and what limits it, naturally, but any firm statement on that can be proven wrong quite rapidly, as we learned (no pun intended) from some slabs of metal finally passing the Turing test with flying colours.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

ant wrote:1) at what point does theory begin to lose its scientific meaning because of assumptive auxiliary hypotheses (evolution as it specifically relates homo sapien)
You’re saying that the evolution of homo sapiens is an auxiliary hypothesis? The evolution of homo sapiens is a hypothesis that has been tested for, and there is evidence that supports it. Which means it is the test hypothesis at least some of the time, not merely an auxiliary hypothesis(assumption) in general. The same is true for almost every facet of the theory of evolution. As one is tested, the others are auxiliary. What makes the theory of evolution so strong is that the auxiliary hypotheses all have their time in the spotlight. I challenge you to find a part of evolution that has not been the test hypothesis for an experiment that yielded confirming evidence.

ant wrote:how many said hypotheses are there in the theory we are ranting on about
How many hypotheses are auxiliary? I’m not sure where a scientist would begin to identify all the auxiliary hypotheses for even a single experiment. Let alone the entire edifice. Why do you ask?
ant wrote:3) What is the amount of evidence missing and what are the assumptive hypotheses currently in place filling our evidence gaps.
The amount of evidence missing is the total objective sum minus what we’ve discovered(sorry for the tautology). Which means we likely only possess a tremendously small fraction of the total. Again, it’s not what’s missing that alters the status of our knowledge, it’s what we have.
ant wrote:4) How much narrative explanation (as opposed to empirical explanation) is there that is currently in place to get from simple life to complex "intelligent" life.
In between each piece of evidence there is a narrative that adheres it to the body of the theory. There is a vast amount of such narrative, as much or more than there is actual evidence. We humans understand things in words, so the information must be translated as such.

As long as the narrative follows from the evidence, makes the fewest assumptions possible, and is logically sound, it is an essential part of any theory.


Here’s a question for you: Is there any possible way to acquire knowledge of complex mechanisms that does not include an explanatory narrative?
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

Dexter wrote:
The consensus view among scientists is that evolution is a FACT. Again to quote Stephen Jay Gould, it is “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” So do you agree, or not?
Yes, no, and partially.

Yes - we have a collections of FACTS that various forms of life have evolved from related cousins.

Yes - it would be perverse to withold assent related to various forms of species that have been proven, by the highest degree of evidence, to have evolved from "simpler" life forms.

I do not understand what crucial evidence is missing, or the evidence that has been discovered that lends itself to MORE questions about the evolution of complex life. I'm defining homo sapien and it's very unique cognitive abilities that strongly differentials itself from lower life forms here.
So, no, N-O, having what I have, I can not say at this time the theory of evolution is a "case closed" theory (however strong for other species) in regards to what we call "intelligent" life.

For all I know, bloody Richard Dawkins may be right - maybe WE (homos sapiens) WERE SEEDED here.
Remember he said that???!!

And lets not EVEN start talking about the origin of life. which is a totally different ball game.

Did you see my questions?
I'm waiting for you to lay them out for me on the table instead of continuing, like Wizard said, to fall back on religion as your primary argument while pushing the I believe button without actually having a complete understanding of the theory.

The consensus has been wrong several times in history, no matter how strong a theory was thought to have been.
Wrong in the sense that it conceptually changed our impressions of Reality.

As I've said before (maybe you do not belong in this group)., there has been hypocrisy here when discussing the logic of agreeing with the experts.
It's has been totally thrown out the window a couple of times despite the expert consensus.
“Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.”
Fine.

What has been tested and observed numerous times that serves as a scientific explanation for the evolution to homo sapien?
Are you saying what has been tested and observed has done away with any assumptions connected to the evolution of simple to complex life?

Give me specifics, please.
I'm interested.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

okay guys. time out.

I want to read what L has said and also wanted to get back to Interbane's response to what I first threw his way.

Everybody go get a drink and ease your nerves.
Make it a strong one too. You all seem to need one.

Bye
User avatar
Movie Nerd
Intelligent
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:36 am
9
Location: Virginia
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:Booktalk in principle takes a light approach to moderation in order to encourage conversation between people with conflicting views. This is a great asset, but it also brings risks and challenges.

This form of dialogue is an intrinsically difficult thing to sustain, since when people vehemently disagree, for example on whether God created the world, it can be hard to find respectful areas for discussion that don't degenerate into propaganda and name calling. And as Chris has recently noted, if a person sets out to systematically game the forum, continually teetering on the edge of acceptable comment, this can be confusing and difficult for newcomers who don't see what is happening, and get sucked in to feeding the troll.

The vehemence of conflicting views can generate more heat than light, and this heat has a way of sucking oxygen away from a more serious intellectual discussion. But just a serious discussion could be too dry and boring.

For example there is much to analyse regarding why creationism has such a social and emotional hold on people. My impression is that people who are trained in the sciences often have a superficial grasp of the social function of religion, and that this is an area where learning and debate is useful, without descending into the maelstrom of a trollfest.

Booktalk's latest non-fiction selection, Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart - by Lex Bayer and John Figdor (see link in book list at bottom of every page) offers some clear and simple suggestions about how to develop a positive worldview that excludes supernatural delusion.
lehelvandor wrote:Flann, you are right that (I could add with healthy sense of humour) one could just treat it as "under the radar" and most of the time I would think it is under the radar.

What specifically incensed me from few days ago was that it escalated and was wholly orthogonal to the actual points that one wished to debate (and some are deliberately traps or provocative). So in that sense, belittling via silly name calling is IMHO not helping one's efforts in a discussion.

I came here thinking that, after a superficial look, there are incredibly interesting and erudite discussions on these forums. But it is just shocking (and in some people's cases ironic) what non-civilised methods are used to try to make a point that, with all the personal attacks crowbarred into it, is presented as so infinitely superior to everyone else's.

Apologies, this is not in thread topic area - but we need to really ask ourselves whether we want to have a civilised discussion on very complex and fascinating matters (and mysteries), or the tone of these forums is to a good extent defined by infantile tactics that just don't take a rest... So it goes to the quality of the forum...
The problem with the civilized debate in this context is the fact that we're still talking about core beliefs--some people have a hard time being able to do that. Which is exactly why more discussion needs to be had concerning how we can have morals, social situations, and other positives from religion, without the dogma. If that makes sense.
I am just your typical movie nerd, postcard collector and aspiring writer.
User avatar
lehelvandor
Freshman
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:09 pm
9
Location: Cambridge, UK
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 104 times
Contact:

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

A couple of notes:

- Interbane addresses the points well, as usual, but I would be a bit devilish to point out again that the actual undercurrent is again that in the balance, we have 1. something with vast amount of data supporting it from many scientific areas, with some holes that have been consistently shrinking over time, 2. something that so far has been supported by zero data.
So yes we can do a mental exercise (and I tried some mindgames), but are we really discussing above contrast... As time and time again said, it is the nature of the beast(s) that there are questions, there is data, there are methods and there is evolution of our knowledge.
So far the key alternative(s) have been remarkably static over very long period of time and have not accumulated any comparable (in nature, in quality, in quantity) evidence. Somehow this doesn't seem to worry some at all.

- "case closed" is a term that can be misunderstood. Nobody sane and rigorous ever said it is a case closed in its fullest sense, that is why research goes on. Gravity, to use my favourite simple example, is still not case closed, in practical or theoretical physics - despite the fact that we could have closed shop on it a while ago. Depends what the mental rigour and expectation is.
This is where the scientific approach shows its slight :) difference from alternatives... goes back to the static nature of those alternatives.
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

ant wrote: What has been tested and observed numerous times that serves as a scientific explanation for the evolution to homo sapien?
Are you saying what has been tested and observed has done away with any assumptions connected to the evolution of simple to complex life?

Give me specifics, please.
I'm interested.
You're asking about evidence of human evolution? This is uncontroversial science, my explanation of it would have no added value. Here you go:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/evidence_mn.html

Again, no one is claiming to be certain and know everything.
I'm waiting for you to lay them out for me on the table instead of continuing, like Wizard said, to fall back on religion as your primary argument while pushing the I believe button without actually having a complete understanding of the theory.
Outsourced to Interbane above. Religion is a "primary argument" because neither you nor Mr. Wizard have given any indication that you have a non-religious alternative, unless you want to go with aliens, which just pushes back the question whether aliens evolved. Which is why I said the only alternative is that Wizard must be accepting all the evidence out there as brute fact or coincidence without a theory. To which you replied that I was badly missing the point, without further explanation.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”