Anyone else have a hard time believing in evolution?

[Gigantron]

---

Members don't see this ad.

*srs response*

Here were my thoughts in an evolution thread posted sometime earlier this year:

Halethsonofhama, the confusion comes because many people do not understand what the theory of evolution says.

To many people who haven't studied evolution, the "theory of evolution" simply says that evolution has happened. That's why creationists say "It's just a theory" and why people who accept evolution but don't really understand it say "The theory of evolution has been proven!" That's not what the theory of evolution says at all. To sort this mess out, we need to take a look at the scientific definitions of "fact" and "theory".

In science, a fact is simply a data point; something that has been observed and catalogued. For example, you could say that gravity is a fact because when you let something go, you can observe it falling to the ground. If the object is acting under the influence of gravity alone, it falls to the ground every single time. It NEVER falls up. This is what makes gravity a fact; it is observable and universally true.

So is evolution! We have observed evolution, both in the laboratory and in nature. Now some people who don't want evolution to be true will tell you that we haven't ever observed evolution, or that we've only seen microevolution (not macroevolution). These people are wrong. There's really no other way to say it. They want you to think that microevolution and macroevolution are somehow two different things, and that one can happen while the other can't. They don't want you to know that micro- and macroevolution are just two different ways of looking at the SAME THING. Beware creationist lies.

A scientific theory is quite different from a fact. A theory doesn't say THAT something happens (so the creationists are wrong here too), but attempts to explain HOW something happens. For example, the theory of gravity doesn't say THAT gravity happens (we can see that much without any theory), but attempts to explain HOW gravity happens. Why do all massive objects exert a gravitational pull on each other? That's what the theory of gravity seeks to answer.

The theory of evolution does not say THAT evolution happens - that much is accepted as fact by almost all scientists - but attempts to explain HOW evolution happens. That's what creationists don't get. They're trying to discredit the theory of evolution, but even if they somehow manage to do that, it doesn't change the fact that evolution is a scientific reality.

Can a theory ever be proven? No. Unfortunately, many people think that the reality of evolution means the theory has been proven. That's not the case. The explanation about HOW evolution occurs can never be proven, just as NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY CAN BE PROVEN! You can accumulate evidence to support a particular theory, but there must always be the possibility of falsification. The theory of evolution could be falsified if we found some example of evolution that is not occurring in the way that we think it does. Again, even if the THEORY were falsified, that doesn't mean that evolution isn't happening. It just means we're back to the drawing board to figure out HOW.

So when you ask "Is evolution real?" the answer is yes. It's been observed and catalogued. It is a fact.

When people like you say "It's just a theory", they are showing ignorance regarding what the word "theory" means to a scientist.

And when people say "The theory has been proven", they're ALSO showing ignorance regarding what the word "theory" means to a scientist.

And anybody who says that you can't accept evolution AND believe in God is doing a disservice both to science and to faith. And they're also wrong.

 

[bubbadoc]

And now we've gotten into an argument of "law" versus "theory."

No thanks on the expansion. Let's keep the focus of this thread solely on bashing the OP.

 

[rentedmule]

Still waiting for the argumen of why my view on evolution will affect my practice of medicine.

I'll give you one reason (of many):
If you don't believe in evolution, you don't believe in antibiotic resistance. Are you going to prescribe intelligently designed drugs to combat a novel, evolved pathogen or are you going to assume evolution is just a theory and prescribe the penicillin+prayer cocktail?

 

[MedAdComMD]

Timeline of human evolution:

Sahelanthropus tchadensis: 6-7 million years ago
Australopithecus afarensis: 3-4 million years ago
Australoptihecus africanus: 3 million years ago
Homo habilis: 2.5 million years ago
Homo erectus: 2 million years ago
Homo heidelbergensis: 800,000 years ago
Homo sapien idaltu: 180,000 years ago
Homo sapien sapien: 150,000 years ago


The world 60,000 years ago was coinhabited by different types of humans:

Neanderthals in Europe
Denisovans in Asia
Homo erectus still across much of the Old World
Homo heidelbergensis also across much of the Old World
Homo floresiensis (the tiny hobbit) in the island of flores
Homo sapiens



So, what part of evolution don't you believe in?

 

[TallScrubs]

I absolutely love this thread

 

[BigMac92]

I absolutely love you

 

[theWUbear]

Still waiting for the argumen of why my view on evolution will affect my practice of medicine.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk[/YOUTUBE]

Similar to the above argument (start at 1 minute 15 seconds) but even more potent due to the relevance of evolution to the biological basis for the science of medicine. A physician is responsible for the lives of his patients. One who refuses to believe a basic tenet of the biomedical sciences is a liability to the medical profession.

Anyways, how does it feel to have to justify being a doctor without having stepped a foot into medical school yet?

 

[GooseWing]

If you actually read and study it, the Bible and evolution can coexist almost fully in the forms that they are both generally taught/understood.

Jus' sayin'.

No. They cannot coexist. People like to think they can, but science completely undermines religion. In every way possible.
The fact that you believe in both simply means that you haven't thought about one or the other hard enough. If you do this, you will stop being religious.

 

[TallScrubs]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk[/YOUTUBE]

Similar to the above argument (start at 1 minute 15 seconds) but even more potent due to the relevance of evolution to the biological basis for the science of medicine. A physician is responsible for the lives of his patients. One who refuses to believe a basic tenet of the biomedical sciences is a liability to the medical profession.

Anyways, how does it feel to have to justify being a doctor without having stepped a foot into medical school yet?

Probably the same aswhen you have to justify why your status is MS -1, lol.

 

[BigMac92]

No. They cannot coexist. People like to think they can, but science completely undermines religion. In every way possible.
The fact that you believe in both simply means that you haven't thought about one or the other hard enough. If you do this, you will stop being religious.

How so?

I believe that God created man and then man evolved from there. Thomas Jefferson thought of God as a clock-maker in the sense that He made the clocks and only intervened when necessary

 

[DeltaPlaya]

Religion is mostly based off faith and experiences. Abrahamic faiths being off faith while the eastern religions lean towards one's own experiences regarding his or her's mind and body. that being said, it is really really difficult to tie things in together for science and religion. there might be some similarities/coincident/unusual things that might make them to link in a way, but in the end it's really hard to say.


i don't think its wrong to believe in a particular faith and still believe in evolution.

im an agnostic and my Hindu upbringing backgrounds don't stop me from believing in evolution. In fact the avatars of Vishnu, the main deity for many Hindus, show a form of some sort of evolution, going from less complex to more complex etc.


"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind"- Einstein

 

[GooseWing]

How so?

I believe that God created man and then man evolved from there. Thomas Jefferson thought of God as a clock-maker in the sense that He made the clocks and only intervened when necessary

I can't help but see God as an artifact of antiquated belief systems. Throughout the course history we've attributed less and less of what we observe around us to myths and fairytales and more to logical, understandable processes.

 

[0919mmk]

How so?

I believe that God created man and then man evolved from there. Thomas Jefferson thought of God as a clock-maker in the sense that He made the clocks and only intervened when necessary

Because natural history clearly shows that "god" did not create man. Instead, there is a logical, scientific, natural record of where man came from. Science has elucidated that record from every angle, and continues to do so. You can't have both, I'm afraid. If you are honest with yourself, you have to either believe that a magical being made everything, or he didn't. There isn't much room for middle ground. Too many loose ends in the middle ground.

 

[Gigantron]

OP: I strongly suggest you reconsider your proposed career in medicine, and instead consider something more along your line of intelligence/education. For the sake of our future patients

i have a harder time believing you're going to be a doctor.

I'll give you one reason (of many):
If you don't believe in evolution, you don't believe in antibiotic resistance. Are you going to prescribe intelligently designed drugs to combat a novel, evolved pathogen or are you going to assume evolution is just a theory and prescribe the penicillin+prayer cocktail?

Similar to the above argument (start at 1 minute 15 seconds) but even more potent due to the relevance of evolution to the biological basis for the science of medicine. A physician is responsible for the lives of his patients. One who refuses to believe a basic tenet of the biomedical sciences is a liability to the medical profession.

Anyways, how does it feel to have to justify being a doctor without having stepped a foot into medical school yet?

I love the self-righteous application of Burnett's law in this thread.

 

[Negrodamus]

I'm a practicing Christian and still don't understand why Christians have such a hard time accepting evolution. If you actually read and study it, the Bible and evolution can coexist almost fully in the forms that they are both generally taught/understood.

Jus' sayin'.

lolwut

 

[0919mmk]

Religion is mostly based off faith and experiences. Abrahamic faiths being off faith while the eastern religions lean towards one's own experiences regarding his or her's mind and body. that being said, it is really really difficult to tie things in together for science and religion. there might be some similarities/coincident/unusual things that might make them to link in a way, but in the end it's really hard to say.


i don't think its wrong to believe in a particular faith and still believe in evolution.

im an agnostic and my Hindu upbringing backgrounds don't stop me from believing in evolution. In fact the avatars of Vishnu, the main deity for many Hindus, show a form of some sort of evolution, going from less complex to more complex etc.


"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind"- Einstein

I respect what you are trying to do here, but if you do any deeper research in to the life and beliefs of Einstein, you will find that this quote was more whimsical than serious. Einstein was an atheist.

 

[pvmed]

.

 

[BHaus9]

No. They cannot coexist. People like to think they can, but science completely undermines religion. In every way possible.
The fact that you believe in both simply means that you haven't thought about one or the other hard enough. If you do this, you will stop being religious.

This is wrong if religion can be loosely defined as belief in a preternatural deity. I myself am not among the faithful, but the truth is that science can do nothing either to validate or to undermine religion (thusly defined). That's the beauty of the concept of God - a being postulated to exist outside the confines of the physical universe is unamenable to investigation by rules of inquiry developed within that universe. Sure, science can disprove occurrences recounted in biblical mythology, or explanations of how things are the way they are, but if that's what it means to "completely undermine," then it would seem by extension that science is incompatible with itself, as history is rife with instances in which fastidiously-held "scientific" beliefs have been refuted. If you don't believe in a natural infinite - which is a hard concept to grapple with - then it's understable that somewhere along the line you'd question what set the causal chain in action. Of course I'd then ask what gave rise to God, but whatever...

Like I said, I don't believe in God myself, but the dismissive/bombastic tone of some of the posters in this thread borders on the type of bigotry you see in a lot of creationists. Let it be... I don't think anyone denies that antiobiotics develop resistance. There are some dumb people out there, but I don't think anyone would refute that. The evolution/creationism debate is not about whether a species changes, but about whether such changes are sufficient to account for the diversity of life on earth. I feel this should be obvious, but some posts have indicated otherwise.

 

[BHaus9]

Because natural history clearly shows that "god" did not create man. Instead, there is a logical, scientific, natural record of where man came from. Science has elucidated that record from every angle, and continues to do so. You can't have both, I'm afraid. If you are honest with yourself, you have to either believe that a magical being made everything, or he didn't. There isn't much room for middle ground. Too many loose ends in the middle ground.

Not a creationist here, but for the sake of argument...

do you see how the bolded statement is self-contradictory?

 

[TallScrubs]

I love the self-righteous application of Burnett's law in this thread.

Hahahaha. Can I win troll of the year?

 

[bookfreak89]

Like I said, I don't believe in God myself, but the dismissive/bombastic tone of some of the posters in this thread borders on the type of bigotry you see in a lot of creationists. Let it be... I don't think anyone denies that antiobiotics develop resistance. There are some dumb people out there, but I don't think anyone would refute that. The evolution/creationism debate is not about whether a species changes, but about whether such changes are sufficient to account for the diversity of life on earth. I feel this should be obvious, but some posts have indicated otherwise.

Agreed. Seriously, 'liability to medicine'? Give me a break.

 

[DeltaPlaya]

I respect what you are trying to do here, but if you do any deeper research in to the life and beliefs of Einstein, you will find that this quote was more whimsical than serious. Einstein was an atheist.

Einstein wasn't religious, but I don't think he was an all out atheist. He was more of an agnostic. He did reject the personal God, but didn't call himself an Atheist.


"I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but does not know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws."


Einstein rejecting the personal god did not make him an atheist just as much as saying this "When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous", doesn't make him a Hindu.

I think he was always open to the idea of something supernatural, but never really openly discussed it as much. What he is/was is really a mystery and we can only make a judgement based off reflections on what he said. There may be some things that contradict what I posted, but then again he did say those things regarding religion, and in the end it might just be a mystery.

 

[0919mmk]

Not a creationist here, but for the sake of argument...

do you see how the bolded statement is self-contradictory?

Granted. I suppose I should have said that science has elucidated the origin of the human species from many angles - biochemistry, genetics, fossil record, sound theoretical framework, etc. I.e. sufficient evidence exists so that logic demands putting the god explanation in to the "not proven to be wrong but as close to proven wrong as is scientifically possible". I agree that science can never disprove anything, but basing assumptions on the 0.00...0001% chance that something (creationism) is true is not reasonable.

 

[GooseWing]

This is wrong if religion can be loosely defined as belief in a preternatural deity. I myself am not among the faithful, but the truth is that science can do nothing either to validate or to undermine religion (thusly defined). That's the beauty of the concept of God - a being postulated to exist outside the confines of the physical universe is unamenable to investigation by rules of inquiry developed within that universe. Sure, science can disprove occurrences recounted in biblical mythology, or explanations of how things are the way they are, but if that's what it means to "completely undermine," then it would seem by extension that science is incompatible with itself, as history is rife with instances in which fastidiously-held "scientific" beliefs have been refuted. If you don't believe in a natural infinite - which is a hard concept to grapple with - then it's understable that somewhere along the line you'd question what set the causal chain in action. Of course I'd then ask what gave rise to God, but whatever...

Like I said, I don't believe in God myself, but the dismissive/bombastic tone of some of the posters in this thread borders on the type of bigotry you see in a lot of creationists. Let it be... I don't think anyone denies that antiobiotics develop resistance. There are some dumb people out there, but I don't think anyone would refute that. The evolution/creationism debate is not about whether a species changes, but about whether such changes are sufficient to account for the diversity of life on earth. I feel this should be obvious, but some posts have indicated otherwise.

I understand your argument and agree with it, but just because you've defined something in a way that cannot be refuted simply by the nature of how it's defined (just as God is) doesn't give me any reason to believe in it. If something does "exist outside the confines of the physical universe" and "is unamenable to investigation by rules of inquiry developed within that universe," why invest so much of oneself in it that you deny the laws and realities of the universe that you do exist in. This is precisely what the fiercely religious do.

 

[0919mmk]

Einstein wasn't religious, but I don't think he was an all out atheist. He was more of an agnostic. He did reject the personal God, but didn't call himself an Atheist.


"I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but does not know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws."


Einstein rejecting the personal god did not make him an atheist just as much as saying this "When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous", doesn't make him a Hindu.

I think he was always open to the idea of something supernatural, but never really openly discussed it as much. What he is/was is really a mystery and we can only make a judgement based off reflections on what he said. There may be some things that contradict what I posted, but then again he did say those things regarding religion, and in the end it might just be a mystery.

Yes I agree with you that there is no definite answer as to whether Einstein believed in "God" (however you choose to define that word). And he certainly made statements like your original quote. Like any true scientist, he would never say that anything, including god, is impossible. However, from what I understand, the biographers agree that Einstein thought of "god" as traditionally defined, to be very unlikely. But he lived in a time where atheists were a closeted ~1% of the general population - the word atheist was basically a slur (and in some parts of the USA even, that hasn't really changed). If he were alive today, I think it's fair to assume that he'd be in Richard Dawkins' camp sooner than the pope's.

 

[BHaus9]

Granted. I suppose I should have said that science has elucidated the origin of the human species from many angles - biochemistry, genetics, fossil record, sound theoretical framework, etc. I.e. sufficient evidence exists so that loggic demands putting the god explanation in to the "not proven to be wrong but as close to proven wrong as is scientifically possible". I agree that science can never disprove anything, but basing assumptions on the 0.00...0001% chance that something (creationism) is true is not reasonable.

I agree. The conversation had just seemed to regress into a debate about atheism vs. theism, and I just wanted to make sure that the thoughtful theists out there got their fare shake. Evolution may be incompatible with creationism, but it is not incompatible with faith. After all, a theist can always fall back on the "why anything" argument. It's a stretch, but a number of people maintain that a god gave raise to the matrix of matter and physical laws which provided the context for evolution to occur. I don't believe it, but it's a hard belief to assail. As for the creationists who believe the earth popped into existence 8000 years ago, well, I won't even discuss them because that's preposterous. Same goes for people who deny evolution entirely.

As for my own non-belief, it's definitely an application of Occam's Razor. God seems to me to be more than is necessary to explain the things I've experienced in life, so in all probability he/she/it isn't real.

 

[MeowMeowCAT]

Not really. There is a lot more evidence supporting evolution than there is evidence not supporting it, and considering that it is a "theory" and all the requirements for something to achieve such a label, it would be foolish of me not to agree with it.

If people could establish a theory that evolution is not true and that in fact it is religion that tells that truth in terms of how organisms were created, then I'll be damned, I guess I have been believing a lie for most of my life now. But until then, I accept evolution as being true.

 

[BHaus9]

I understand your argument and agree with it, but just because you've defined something in a way that cannot be refuted simply by the nature of how it's defined (just as God is) doesn't give me any reason to believe in it. If something does "exist outside the confines of the physical universe" and "is unamenable to investigation by rules of inquiry developed within that universe," why invest so much of oneself in it that you deny the laws and realities of the universe that you do exist in. This is precisely what the fiercely religious do.

I agree that it doesn't necessitate belief on your part. But I also think that the the scientific method has yet done nothing to necessitate non-belief. It's a huge stretch to say that most religious deny the laws and realities of the universe. The only "reality" the religious consistently and unanimously deny is the non-existence of God, but to claim absolute knowledge of something that can't be known is a little ambitious, no matter what your beliefs.

 

[GooseWing]

I agree. The conversation had just seemed to regress into a debate about atheism vs. theism, and I just wanted to make sure that the thoughtful theists out there got their fare shake. Evolution may be incompatible with creationism, but it is not incompatible with faith. After all, a theist can always fall back on the "why anything" argument. It's a stretch, but a number of people maintain that a god gave raise to the matrix of matter and physical laws which provided the context for evolution to occur. I don't believe it, but it's a hard belief to assail. As for the creationists who believe the earth popped into existence 8000 years ago, well, I won't even discuss them because that's preposterous. Same goes for people who deny evolution entirely.

As for my own non-belief, it's definitely an application of Occam's Razor. God seems to me to be more than is necessary to explain the things I've experienced in life, so in all probability he/she/it isn't real.

I appreciate your contribution to our conversation. I always value the "devil's advocate" that will articulate the concerns/arguments of an absent party in a debate.
I find the explanation for your beliefs very interesting, I've never heard it argued in such a way.
Finally, excellent Eastbound and Down video in your sig. Kenny Powers is a riot.

 

[DeltaPlaya]

Yes I agree with you that there is no definite answer as to whether Einstein believed in "God" (however you choose to define that word). And he certainly made statements like your original quote. Like any true scientist, he would never say that anything, including god, is impossible. However, from what I understand, the biographers agree that Einstein thought of "god" as traditionally defined, to be very unlikely. But he lived in a time where atheists were a closeted ~1% of the general population - the word atheist was basically a slur (and in some parts of the USA even, that hasn't really changed). If he were alive today, I think it's fair to assume that he'd be in Richard Dawkins' camp sooner than the pope's.

You're right, he probably would be more open to discuss his views today. I agree he was closer to Richard Dawkins rather than the pope regarding religious views, but then again the word God is so vague. There are so many complex ideas that could be given the title god.

I guess we only find out when we die

 

[NickNaylor]

lol at the narrow definition of religion as being "what's in that stupid book, the Bible" or "evolution exists, science demonstrates the causes of many natural phenomena, therefore religion is stupid"

The problem with staunch atheists that attack religion is that they don't understand religion and therefore can't attack it. If you use any permutation of the above arguments, you're just perceived as a fool. This is why Richard Dawkins does atheism a pretty deep disservice in serving as the informal spokesman for the movement.

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

I understand your argument and agree with it

Yes I agree with you that there is no definite answer as to whether Einstein believed in "God

I agree.

I agree that it doesn't necessitate belief on your part.

I appreciate your contribution to our conversation.

I agree he was closer to Richard Dawkins rather than the pope

I concur.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ_fnaJDsgA[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Copernicium]

I think I have the answer to everyone's problem:

[YOUTUBE]zHex9GDQ2S0[/YOUTUBE]

 

[ucsfstudents]

When it comes to evolutionism vs creationism, one should just agree to disagree.

 

[KurtLucas10]

.

 

[KurtLucas10]

When it comes to evolutionism vs creationism, one should just agree to disagree.

👍

 

[bubbadoc]

The biggest problem I ever had with religion is the whole "everything happens for a reason" argument, especially when it comes to deaths of children and other equally unfair topics.

To quote one of my favorite Scrubs episodes,
"Now his parents want to talk to me. What am I supposed to tell them, Peter lived a good long 7 years?"

I'd love to think there's some sort of guiding force in the world, but eventually you reach a point where you realize it's just not feasible.
The people who don't choose to live in their own ignorance.

 

[alienwares]

lol at the narrow definition of religion as being "what's in that stupid book, the Bible" or "evolution exists, science demonstrates the causes of many natural phenomena, therefore religion is stupid"

The problem with staunch atheists that attack religion is that they don't understand religion and therefore can't attack it. If you use any permutation of the above arguments, you're just perceived as a fool. This is why Richard Dawkins does atheism a pretty deep disservice in serving as the informal spokesman for the movement.

lol at the narrow definition of religion as being "what's in that stupid book, the Bible" or "evolution exists, science demonstrates the causes of many natural phenomena, therefore religion is stupid"

The problem with staunch atheists that attack religion is that they don't understand religion and therefore can't attack it. If you use any permutation of the above arguments, you're just perceived as a fool. This is why Richard Dawkins does atheism a pretty deep disservice in serving as the informal spokesman for the movement.

I don't think Richard Dawkins performs as much of a disservice as you say here. It's true that his critiques of religion are heavily based upon a fundamentalist interpretation of religion--such as literal belief in the Adam/Eve story as an argument against evolution--but fundamentalist Christianity represents a fairly significant proportion of religious beliefs in the US at least.

I think the main reason for that is because once you move away from 100% literal Biblical interpretation, there are an incredible number of variants: if one part isn't true, what parts are? It is very difficult to establish any sort of ground rules for a discussion once you begin omitting various parts of the Bible.

 

[Narmerguy]

Anyone that thinks evolution is some kind of "counter" to religion isn't very well versed in either evolution or religion. There are many mature, prominent biologists that are religious and also helped pioneer the search for better understanding evolution, DNA, etc.

Though some of the details of evolution are disputed (and rightfully so), it is fully compatible with many different religions.

Richard Dawkins is hardly the best atheist to read up on by the way. His dogmatic views are rejected by most philosophers and theologians and it's unfortunate for everyone that he continues to draw such attention to himself.

 

[BHaus9]

I appreciate your contribution to our conversation. I always value the "devil's advocate" that will articulate the concerns/arguments of an absent party in a debate.
I find the explanation for your beliefs very interesting, I've never heard it argued in such a way.
Finally, excellent Eastbound and Down video in your sig. Kenny Powers is a riot.

haha, yes. Kenny Powers IS God as far as I'm concerned.

 

[MrBird]

I really don't see why it matters whether someone believes in Creationism or Evolution. Just because evolution is supposedly "the basis of biomedical studies," as an above poster claimed, doesn't mean you can't practice medicine without believing in it. Do you know exactly how a remote control works for your TV? Yes? No? Doesn't really matter, does it? You just gotta know that ESPN is on channel 43.

 

[CodeBlu]

Evolution exists, we have observed it.

How it works, we don't know.

Now, I'm sorry, but if anyone claims that God speaks to them...God told them to drown their babies... those people are crazy.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

Take a philosophy class on the existence of god and evolution. It really puts stuff into perspective.

 

[DeltaPlaya]

The biggest problem I ever had with religion is the whole "everything happens for a reason" argument, especially when it comes to deaths of children and other equally unfair topics.

To quote one of my favorite Scrubs episodes,
"Now his parents want to talk to me. What am I supposed to tell them, Peter lived a good long 7 years?"

I'd love to think there's some sort of guiding force in the world, but eventually you reach a point where you realize it's just not feasible.
The people who don't choose to live in their own ignorance.

usually those "everything that happens for a reason" people follow eastern religions which is heavily based off of karma and reincarnation, which go hand in hand.

to them, the concept makes everything fair, a child dying is usually the karma of a previous life to them.

im not saying this is right, but a lot of times you see other faiths "importing" an idea or not understanding it and then giving lectures on it. I know the Bible says "you reap what you sow", and because I am not too fluent in the Bible, I cannot argue that they can support why a child dies according to their faith, im sure there is or not.


In the end I think personal beliefs should be left personal, there is no use telling someone they died because it was "god's plan" or that some child died because "in their past life they committed a crime that made them die early this life" etc, because not everyone follows the same religoin and many don't believe in any religion.

Same thing goes for people saying it is stupid for people to believe in such things such as everything happens for a reason.

like someone said earlier, we agree to disagree

just trying to keep it neutral, ive seen enough problems religion has caused, but i don't like it when atheists/agnostics come down to the same level by calling out theists. thats where all the problems start.

 

[ucsdhopeful]

No. They cannot coexist. People like to think they can, but science completely undermines religion. In every way possible.
The fact that you believe in both simply means that you haven't thought about one or the other hard enough. If you do this, you will stop being religious.

the belief that religion and science can not coexist is a fallacy. the astrophysicist neil degrasse tyson describes how a star dies, explodes its guts of carbon and nitrogen and oxygen out into the universe. and it that process, the dust cloud forms planets and we are all connected to each other and to the earth chemically. that we are IN the universe, and it in us.

and when he looked into the sky, he was filled with reverence, awe, and a sense of belonging. the same feeling many feel during religious practices. you see, if the universe created mankind (through the big bang or whatever future relevant theory), then IT can be the creator. IT is the god.

religion does not HAVE to be the God of the abrahamic faiths. it does NOT have to be a magic man in the sky that zaps things into being. in fact, that is the most common and narrowminded thinking when it comes to what religion really can be.

btw how would you describe the religious scientists? they just dont THINK hard enough?

and back to the OP, just because you cant grasp the concept, doesnt make it hold any less ground.

 

[NickNaylor]

I don't think Richard Dawkins performs as much of a disservice as you say here. It's true that his critiques of religion are heavily based upon a fundamentalist interpretation of religion--such as literal belief in the Adam/Eve story as an argument against evolution--but fundamentalist Christianity represents a fairly significant proportion of religious beliefs in the US at least.

I think the main reason for that is because once you move away from 100% literal Biblical interpretation, there are an incredible number of variants: if one part isn't true, what parts are? It is very difficult to establish any sort of ground rules for a discussion once you begin omitting various parts of the Bible.

Fundamentalism represents a "significant proportion" of religious people?

No, no, no.

This is the exact problem with Dawkins' argument. He picks an easy target (fundamentalism) exactly because it's ridiculous. Most Christians are NOT fundamentalists. They are very much a minority.

Also, accepting Dawkins' attack on Christianity and attempting to apply it to religion in the abstract doesn't work, something many Dawkins zealots do.

 

[DeltaPlaya]

I really don't see why it matters whether someone believes in Creationism or Evolution. Just because evolution is supposedly "the basis of biomedical studies," as an above poster claimed, doesn't mean you can't practice medicine without believing in it. Do you know exactly how a remote control works for your TV? Yes? No? Doesn't really matter, does it? You just gotta know that ESPN is on channel 43.

NO, you're wrong, EPSN is on channel 141... sucka

 

[NickNaylor]

the belief that religion and science can not coexist is a fallacy. the astrophysicist neil degrasse tyson describes how a star dies, explodes its guts of carbon and nitrogen and oxygen out into the universe. and it that process, the dust cloud forms planets and we are all connected to each other and to the earth chemically. that we are IN the universe, and it in us.

and when he looked into the sky, he was filled with reverence, awe, and a sense of belonging. the same feeling many feel during religious practices. you see, if the universe created mankind (through the big bang or whatever future relevant theory), then IT can be the creator. IT is the god.

religion does not HAVE to be the God of the abrahamic faiths. it does NOT have to be a magic man in the sky that zaps things into being. in fact, that is the most common and narrowminded thinking when it comes to what religion really can be.

btw how would you describe the religious scientists? they just dont THINK hard enough?

and back to the OP, just because you cant grasp the concept, doesnt make it hold any less ground.

This a million times.

 

[DeltaPlaya]

the belief that religion and science can not coexist is a fallacy. the astrophysicist neil degrasse tyson describes how a star dies, explodes its guts of carbon and nitrogen and oxygen out into the universe. and it that process, the dust cloud forms planets and we are all connected to each other and to the earth chemically. that we are IN the universe, and it in us.

and when he looked into the sky, he was filled with reverence, awe, and a sense of belonging. the same feeling many feel during religious practices. you see, if the universe created mankind (through the big bang or whatever future relevant theory), then IT can be the creator. IT is the god.

religion does not HAVE to be the God of the abrahamic faiths. it does NOT have to be a magic man in the sky that zaps things into being. in fact, that is the most common and narrowminded thinking when it comes to what religion really can be.

btw how would you describe the religious scientists? they just dont THINK hard enough?

and back to the OP, just because you cant grasp the concept, doesnt make it hold any less ground.

someone give this guy an award. agreed 100%

 

[MeowMeowCAT]

This is the exact problem with Dawkins' argument. He picks an easy target (fundamentalism) exactly because it's ridiculous. Most Christians are NOT fundamentalists. They are very much a minority.

That's the problem with most beliefs, even with atheism. It's always the nutty big mouths, that make the rest of the people look bad. I don't think that there is an race nor religion that doesn't have people that make said race or religion look bad to some degree.

 

[deleted393595]

I am not really a practicing Catholic and I consider myself a 'scientist', but I am having a hard time believing 'fully' in evolution. I guess it might play a role but it is hard for me to believe that all the minute mechanisms in, say, the human body, could have been produced by random mutation. The timeframe doesn't make sense to me (yes I know it has been over millions of years...but still).

Any thoughts?

Not millions. Billions and backed by evidence.

And you don't believe in evolution and you want to go into medicine?