• In total there are 32 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 32 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

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
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6498
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

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

Unread post

lehelvandor wrote: 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.
To expand on my earlier point about the sociology of religion, evolution versus creation is not actually a debate about evidence. Imagining that evidence is relevant is why scientists and philosophers find this debate so frustrating and baffling. Part of the cunning trickery of creationist believers and preachers is to pretend that their arguments are based on evidence, so that scientists, whose whole method is about evidence, will wrongly think they have won the argument when they prove the creationist claims about evidence are false. Such scientific proof that evolution is true has not even entered the real zone of battle, but has been completely tricked by a decoy.

Creationists understand that talk of evidence in this political debate is just another rhetorical device, since the broad mass of supporters of creationism don't care about science and have not a clue about standards of evidence. They are swayed by confident moral argument, not by facts. Creationist claims about evidence are just a confidence trick, a decoy to open up a pretend debate. Their claims about eyes and missing links and so on only need to be sufficiently plausible to convince believers that there is a reasonable debate on the status of evolution, even though in fact there is no such thing.

Evolutionists tend to be very naive about the real nature of a political debate whose goal is persuasion of a mass audience with simple myths rather than discovery of facts. Proving facts is largely irrelevant to social influence, at least in the short term. What is important is how people think, especially those who are sympathetic to creationism, and what debating methods actually affect their views. Hostile mockery of their faith is likely to be counter-productive, leading their pastors to bring out big guns such as 2 Peter 3:3 “Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.”

The logic here is that belief in evolution is regarded by church goers as just a way to avoid the moral lessons of the Bible. Those who promote evolution are simply seen as dangerous and deluded evil scoffers who mock the truth of God. Once the terrain of debate has been framed in this way as faith versus scoffing, it becomes a set matter of good versus evil, and no amount of scientific evidence will even be heard. Many atheist writers play into this scoffing trap, since they find it emotionally comforting to abuse creationists as idiots. Such abuse needs to be used with great care, since it only reinforces peoples' already existing prejudices.
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

Flann 5 wrote:In a way evolution is more important to the naturalist than the theist. Theists can live with it. Can naturalists live without it?
Theists can live with it as long as they don’t think about it too much as it applies to humans. How do you reconcile the idea that humans have a unique, God-given immortal soul (that is the standard belief, isn’t it?) with the fact that there was never a first human? It’s gradual evolution all the way down. You would have to tell some story about an arbitrary point in time when God decided to insert the first soul or that he designed ahead of time when the soul would form itself for the first time. That would seem to be an important religious fact about when this happened, does anyone talk about it?

Can naturalists live without it? It is a fact about the world, it’s not something that we decide whether we can live with or without.
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

You're perfectly right, I just could not help drag it back to this central problem - I tried before via some greek mythology, too, to show that "comparing" in this case is invalid; in whatever ways one dresses it up, it goes back to the problem of an apparently objective method being used to compare a purely subjective matter with something that actually produced the method use for comparison...
I guess my very first note in this thread few weeks ago was that the problem is in the question that is the title of the thread. Belief used in the same sentence that refers to something that amassed data based on rigorous methodologies. And then we land ourselves in the mess that merely stating evidence is a desperately reiterated "belief" system.

When they talk about holes in evidence (and very very seldom they do that with understanding those holes and their implications), as it happened in this very thread, they use the methodical approach that was created by what they deny and/or criticise.

On the side, one of my favourite (perhaps not as clever as some others') mindgame is posing the question to any believer in various truths of various Gods:

Could they please enlighten us, with exactly the methodology they seem to think they competently use to probe "holes" in a (this case evolution) theory: which truth of which God is *the* one?

Let's not make it complicated, so without moving in time with our optics, just take here-and-now so-called absolute truths from various scriptures.

I am at least genuinely waiting for a tour de force, which uses the same instruments and methods used in probing scientific theories in the way seen in this thread, to demonstrate which God's truths to adopt in lieu of the criticised theories.

There are several. Oh dear. That's OK actually. There were many scientific theories, too on subject X or Y. We are used to that, it's part of the process.

However, to put the above simply, and I have mentioned it in an earlier question: which truth, that we should (just) accept (instead of various theories that are so well picked apart by rational methodology used by creationists ;) ), is the one?

==> The mammoth in the room, again, is that creationists actually resort to (in often flawed way, but even that is fine in the context I am using!) series of exercises that employ basically rational methodologies created by science in order to prove that their absolute truth (again, which one?) is superior to any scientific theory. If there was something more logically flawed and ironic, at least I am yet to find it.
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

Dexter wrote:
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.
Also, Ant and Flann have shown signs of being overtly religious; I don't know if Ant has come out and said he was religious yey, but he sure does act like he is regardless.

In any case, one of the hang-ups popping up time again on this thread is the same old misconception regarding what a theory actually is, what it claims, and what it can or cannot explain about said theory's topic. Which of course lends to the argument that science classes need to be better taught in high school of course.

If people start mentioning aliens, then they need to prove that aliens exist just like they would have to prove God exists.
I am just your typical movie nerd, postcard collector and aspiring writer.
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
15
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

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

Unread post

Robert Tulip:

To expand on my earlier point about the sociology of religion, evolution versus creation is not actually a debate about evidence...
Great post RT!

I love when somebody is able to succinctly distill thoughts like this. Thoughts i've had myself, but never managed to push all into one boat.
Flann 5:

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.
What's neutral? The effect of natural selection?

It looks like you are wondering if the effects of natural selection are actually pushing a species to be different than it's past lineage or if it doesn't really have an effect, am i reading that right?

Natural selection is not neutral. It is THE driving force of change in evolution. It is how randomness is guided to the design of the eyeball.

Lions. Strong lions do well in their hunting. Will that lead to a change in their genetics? Statistically, yes. Weaker lions are not as good at taking down game so they don't fare as well. The differences between any two lions may not be great enough to point and say, Lion 1 is definitely superior owing to this tiny mutation which increases the lion's strength by .05%. But statistically over millions of engagements with prey species through many generations of animals that .05% begins to make an impact and those lions will have performed better than those without that tiny genetic modification.


This numbers game is part of the issue people have when engaging the theory of evolution. Big numbers, over long time scales whith what seem like tiny changes having little observable effect.


But the mutation needs to have impact in some way. I gave an example in a different thread a long time ago. Eagles have better eye sight than we do. If evolution favors better configurations, such as the improved eye balls of eagles, then why aren't more species evolving toward, or already achieving the visual acuity of the eagle?

The other elements need to be there to take advantage of the differences to make them have an impact. If my son has the visual acuity of an eagle how does that benefit him? Eagles can make use of their visual powers through mobility. From high in the sky they can spot a field mouse in what looks to us like a field of grass. They can swoop down and make a meal of that mouse in seconds. Having the ability to see that mouse improves the eagle's abilty to survive on a daily basis.

What can we do with that kind of visual acuity? If i stand in a field and can see a goat crossing the field twenty miles away, that is not actionable info. I can't make a meal of that goat today, or tomorrow. By the time i led my tribe to the goat it would have moved on. And in the mean time everyone else with "normal" visual abilities would have been able to find food nearby that they were able to actually go and make a meal of in a reasonable amount of time. The vision of an eagle is no doubt better than what we have, but what we have is perfectly servicable for our abilities in other areas, so there would be no strong selective pressure to push for the visiual acuity of an eagle.

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.

The fact that harmful mutations do not lead to successful new lineage divergeances is all part of evolution. These are the random mutations that failed the test of natural selection. These are the million configurations that the jumble of magnets can make when shaken that are no good. Natural selection sees to it that those configurations are removed from the potential gene pool. Not through planning, or for-sight or malice, but through the simple fact that some configurations of material are more efficient than others.

You can have all the dysfunctional mutations you want. They don't hurt the evolution of a lineage because those mutations fail to thrive... that's how we define them as dysfunctional! This is how natural selection works! Harmful mutations fail to keep the gene pool going, successful ones do the opposite.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
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

Johnson wrote:Lions. Strong lions do well in their hunting. Will that lead to a change in their genetics? Statistically, yes. Weaker lions are not as good at taking down game so they don't fare as well. The differences between any two lions may not be great enough to point and say, Lion 1 is definitely superior owing to this tiny mutation which increases the lion's strength by .05%. But statistically over millions of engagements with prey species through many generations of animals that .05% begins to make an impact and those lions will have performed better than those without that tiny genetic modification.
I think part of the problem is that people simply cannot understand the inevitable outcome behind a mechanism such as this. Some people's brains only work by processing concepts and words, not by processing causation of complex systems. It's like picturing how gears turn in a series, or what will happen to a swinging pendulum if you intercept the arc with one finger(escept more complex). People don't grasp these mechanisms, they don't think mechanically.

Imagine trying to process your example above using only words, with the occasional piece of math. What does it mean for a lion to perform better? How can you be sure this sort of thing happens so much that the lion could change into a tiger? You can see what's missing. The imagination needs to be engaged to make sense of what all the evidence is telling us. Some people simply don't have that. They can't imagine how the mechanism would work that the theoretical narrative refers to.

Not that the theory relies on imagination. It relies on evidence and method. But understanding the theory relies on imagination. It's the translation of strings of words into how the real world operates, and that process of translation necessarily requires you to imagine how it would work. Short of reaching that point, it doesn't click for people.
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
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

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

Unread post

johnson1010 wrote:Natural selection is not neutral. It is THE driving force of change in evolution. It is how randomness is guided to the design of the eyeball.

Lions. Strong lions do well in their hunting. Will that lead to a change in their genetics? Statistically, yes. Weaker lions are not as good at taking down game so they don't fare as well. The differences between any two lions may not be great enough to point and say, Lion 1 is definitely superior owing to this tiny mutation which increases the lion's strength by .05%. But statistically over millions of engagements with prey species through many generations of animals that .05% begins to make an impact and those lions will have performed better than those without that tiny genetic modification.
Talking about lions brings me on a couple of tangents . . .

The first is game theory which predicts that the lion population will have mixed strategies in terms of how it survives and thrives within its niche. So not every lion will behave the exact same way in every situation. Mixed strategies is ultimately the best for the species and it can be reduced to a mathematical formula that has been finely honed through millions of years of natural selection. I don't pretend to really understand game theory, but it's a fascinating area of study.

The other tangent is the existence of the liger—a hybrid cross between a male lion and a female tiger. Ligers are very rare in the wild because the habitats of lions and tigers are such that they rarely cross paths. But obviously, lions and tigers evolved from a common ancestor. This is how two species can diverge, being separated geographically and each group starting to adapt to its own habitat. Eventually the two groups become so different from one another that they can no longer breed. The tiger and lion are at a point where they can still breed, but the resulting offspring—like the mule (which is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse)—is sterile. Actually the female liger is fertile, but the male is sterile. Two ligers cannot breed.

There's some criticism that evolutionary theory suffers from lack of falsifiability (which simply isn't true). I would predict that lions and tigers are closely related genetically, which can be tested. Just as humans share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, I think it's pretty likely that lions and tigers share much of their DNA. Through DNA sequencing, scientists can determine how closely related species are and even provide accurate estimates to how long ago the two species diverged.

This is all based on my limited understanding of the subject, of course.
-Geo
Question everything
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

The other tangent is the existence of the liger—a hybrid cross between a male lion and a female tiger. Ligers are very rare in the wild because the habitats of lions and tigers are such that they rarely cross paths. But obviously, lions and tigers evolved from a common ancestor. This is how two species can diverge, being separated geographically and each group starting to adapt to its own habitat. Eventually the two groups become so different from one another that they can no longer breed. The tiger and lion are at a point where they can still breed, but the resulting offspring—like the mule (which is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse)—is sterile. Actually the female liger is fertile, but the male is sterile. Two ligers cannot breed.
Why did neanderthals become extinct?
Is the evidence clear why they did?
If modern man was around at the time of neanderthals, there might have been interbreeding between the two to form hybrids. Why would those hybrids have become extinct? Wouldnt have they been physically and mentally better adapted to the environment?
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

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

Unread post

ant wrote:
The other tangent is the existence of the liger—a hybrid cross between a male lion and a female tiger. Ligers are very rare in the wild because the habitats of lions and tigers are such that they rarely cross paths. But obviously, lions and tigers evolved from a common ancestor. This is how two species can diverge, being separated geographically and each group starting to adapt to its own habitat. Eventually the two groups become so different from one another that they can no longer breed. The tiger and lion are at a point where they can still breed, but the resulting offspring—like the mule (which is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse)—is sterile. Actually the female liger is fertile, but the male is sterile. Two ligers cannot breed.
Why did neanderthals become extinct?
Is the evidence clear why they did?
If modern man was around at the time of neanderthals, there might have been interbreeding between the two to form hybrids. Why would those hybrids have become extinct? Wouldnt have they been physically and mentally better adapted to the environment?
I don't know. What do you think, Ant? Since you're asking the questions.
-Geo
Question everything
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

I dont know. Thats why Im asking.
I think Im in the right place to ask those questions.

What you said was interesting indeed.
Made me think about what may yet to be answered in relation to the rise of modern man.
Revisiting gaps is important.

Or shall I wait for the experts to develop a consensus and after scream "eureka!"
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”