Anyone else have a hard time believing in evolution?

[Gigantron]

---

Members do not see this ad.

That's actually a significantly higher proportion than I'd expect; I'd be interested in seeing where you got that from.

Even so, the beliefs of 40% of the members of ONE faith doesn't at all speak for religion as an abstract entity. And I'm assuming that poll was limited to the US, which itself isn't representative of the beliefs of all Christians.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5788/765

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx

 

[OnDemond]

Everyone relax. Most medical schools require only 8 hours of biology, essentially just biology 1 and 2. While those semesters are nice and informative they do not exactly go to far in depth, they are somewhat very general and try to cram a lot of topics in two semesters. To get a more in-depth understanding you would have to take classes like microbiology, genetics, and other higher level biology course. There you would get much more appreciation for the complexities that is our world. It is not just evolution, there is so much more than that. It is a whole microscopic world that is constantly active on the microscopic level that makes the general view of evolution laughable.

However, since medical school admission believes that only 8 hours of biology is enough then you can not really blame the fact that there are doctors that do not believe in evolution. It is just general biology, it is not enough to change one's beliefs.

To reiterate, I took cell biology (400 level) and biodiversity (300 level) courses from a professor who did not believe in evolution. He treated evolution as a way to explain scientific phenomena w/o having to put God in the picture. This in a state-funded well-known college w/ no "religious" affiliation.

 

[NickNaylor]

It's a pretty famous poll from December 17 2010 conducted by Gallup.

Just found the poll (here it is for those interested: http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx).

That is pretty lulzworthy (and sadworthy).

 

[Suncrusher]

Just found the poll (here it is for those interested: http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx).

That is pretty lulzworthy (and sadworthy).

yes, America is pretty much alone among western developed countries in our high rate of rejection of science...

 

[BigMac92]

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.

I do believe God made everything. Just in forms that have evolved from then.

Please elaborate though where natural history clearly shows that God did not create man?

 

[Bungie]

As for the evolution vs. intelligent design debate, I just have a hard time believing that evolution and Big Bang account for all the diversity we have on earth. Too many questions about the beginning of time, the amazing complexity of life, etc.. for me to believe evolution is the end all answer. Can I buy into microevolution and adaptation? Of course. Macroevolution? Partially, perhaps. Only learned about evolution in intro bio so I can't say I'm overly educated in it, though I probably will look at it more deeply in the future. I'll be doing a study on Genesis soon, so I'll be interested to see what John McArthur says in his commentary in my study bible.

So instead of discovering evidence to answer questions/hypothesis, you will just accept what a book states without evidence to defend its claims? Also one does not believe in evolution, one accepts it because it is a scientific theory. Unless of course you don't believe in the scientific method...

 

[OnDemond]

Hey, don't forget the Jews. Us Jew-boys also believe in creationism, although it is vastly more complex than the Christian version. In a nutshell: God created all species with the ability to adapt to their environment. Chicken before egg. 😎

 

[Onres]

yes, America is pretty much alone among western developed countries in our high rate of rejection of science...

You're assuming that everyone who believes in creationism rejects science. That doesn't have to be the case.

 

[Bungie]

To reiterate, I took cell biology (400 level) and biodiversity (300 level) courses from a professor who did not believe in evolution. He treated evolution as a way to explain scientific phenomena w/o having to put God in the picture. This in a state-funded well-known college w/ no "religious" affiliation.

I would never take one of his classes. That'd be like taking a physics class from a prof that didn't accept the theory of gravity.

 

[MeowMeowCAT]

Hey, don't forget the Jews. Us Jew-boys also believe in creationism, although it is vastly more complex than the Christian version. In a nutshell: God created all species with the ability to adapt to their environment. Chicken before egg. 😎

Damn you Jews!

Why must you always one up everyone else and bring logic and reasoning to something like religion?
😛

 

[Onres]

I would never take one of his classes. That'd be like taking a physics class from a prof that didn't accept the theory of gravity.

law?

 

[RogueUnicorn]

1) There a major difference between evolution and adaptation. Every species in the world must be able to adapt to their environment, whether it's a bacteria which picks up a gene which gives it resistance to a drug, or a bird which undergoes beak morphology change following migration. However, they will remain the same species and will not differentiate into species with radically different characteristics. A chimpanzee will never "evolve" into a human - not even in a million years.

why? says who? more bull**** half-justification. it's this kind of arbitrary separation of micro- and macro-evolution that the creationists have concocted that continues to allow the scientific consensus to be twisted into their agenda. it's completely ridiculous and beyond illogical to suggest that something can happen on a small scale but will magically never apply on a larger scale. btw, a chimpanzee will never evolve to be a human because humans aren't further along the evolutionary tree than chimps. we share ancestors. they are our cousins, not our grandparents.

2) The whole "big bang" theory is ridiculous from a logical standpoint. The idea of two particles (where did they come from) colliding to form enough matter for entire galaxies is laughable. The only way it makes sense is if you figuratively press the rewind button on history. If you had no starting point, or the point of time when creation happened, then there's no way to explain the universe other than the big bang. This is how the chicken/egg question arises. However, according to the Judaic school of thought (which is very different than the Christian Creationism), everything was created in its climax of its natural development, i.e. modern human was created as a 20-year-old, the chickens started out as young, fertile rooster and hen, etc.

lol OK. einstein. good thing you're here to tell us what's completely logical or not to help guide our knowledge. because you know, the duality of light is totally a logical concept too.

To reiterate, I took cell biology (400 level) and biodiversity (300 level) courses from a professor who did not believe in evolution. He treated evolution as a way to explain scientific phenomena w/o having to put God in the picture. This in a state-funded well-known college w/ no "religious" affiliation.

the fact that your professor was a ***** doesn't lend any more support or credence to your belief. i'm sorry your well-known state-funded school has piss-poor biology professors. i went to a christian school but my religion professor didn't believe in god, so god must not exist right?

 

[Mithril]

Please elaborate though where natural history clearly shows that God did not create man?

In science, you're supposed to disprove the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis being that God did not create man. Natural history is a science, so if you're trying to mix in the science of natural history with the concept of God, I'll propose to you something that's based on science.

 

[OnDemond]

I would never take one of his classes. That'd be like taking a physics class from a prof that didn't accept the theory of gravity.

Funny, his classes were some of the clearest, most informative, and interesting classes from among my bio classes (and I was a bio major)...
And please don't give me the whole "if you don't believe in evolution then you don't believe in gravity" shpiel. Need I explain the difference between proving a past occurrence and observing a natural phenomena? Environmental adaptation does not equal evolution of species.

 

[Bungie]

law?

Theory.

 

[Gigantron]

I do believe God made everything. Just in forms that have evolved from then.

Please elaborate though where natural history clearly shows that God did not create man?

Buddy, the onus is on YOU to prove your entity, not for us to prove you're full of it. You cannot explain complexity (evolution) by positing the existence of an even more complex entity (God) because then you need to explain that as well. It doesn't make the problem simpler, so how would you explain it?

If you're not willing to, then you need to remove yourself from reasonable or scientific discussion and instead discuss it in Church.

 

[Bungie]

And please don't give me the whole "if you don't believe in evolution then you don't believe in gravity" shpiel. Need I explain the difference between proving a past occurrence and observing a natural phenomena? Environmental adaptation does not equal evolution of species.

I never said that. I was just using it as a comparison since evolution is as important concept to biology as gravity is to physics.

Edit: IMO.

 

[Suncrusher]

You're assuming that everyone who believes in creationism rejects science. That doesn't have to be the case.

No, I'm not. The poll shows 40%Edit: 38% of Americans are young-earth creationists, a view which directly rejects scientific findings. The only way around it is a bunch of hocus-pocus about god creating the universe 6-10 thousand years ago in a such a state where it is already 14 billion years old.

40%Edit: 38% is a high rate of rejection of science.

The poll also showed a slightly higher percent of Americans believe that god created life but that evolution occurs and might or might not be guided by god. I did not lump that portion of Americans in with the young-earth creationist group whom I called fundamentalists who reject scientific findings.

 

[OnDemond]

Damn you Jews!

Why must you always one up everyone else and bring logic and reasoning to something like religion?
😛

Unfortunately, it was the other way around. We had logic and reasoning and then some kooks turned it into a 2nd-grade-level theory beyond which nothing can be true. Non-believers to The Place With No A/C.
I love the Christian fundamentals, and we share many agreements, don't get me wrong. But the fact that they took the Bible, turned it into a simplistic text, and selectively use it for their own purposes, can sting. 🙁

 

[Onres]

No, I'm not. The poll shows 40% of Americans are young-earth creationists, a view which directly rejects scientific findings. The only way around it is a bunch of hocus-pocus about god creating the universe 6-10 thousand years ago in a such a state where it is already 14 billion years old

In your earlier post you said they reject science. To me, that implies science as a whole. I think it's possible to believe in creationism and still accept much of science.

 

[Suncrusher]

In your earlier post you said they reject science. To me, that implies science as a whole. I think it's possible to believe in creationism and still accept much of science.

😕

 

[MrBird]

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

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[911 Turbo]

In your earlier post you said they reject science. To me, that implies science as a whole. I think it's possible to believe in creationism and still accept much of science.

Are you suggesting it's ok for you to accept the parts of science you do like and throw out the ones that conflict with your beliefs?

 

[Onres]

Are you suggesting it's ok for you to accept the parts of science you do like and throw out the ones that conflict with your beliefs?

I'm saying that it likely happens. And that it's possible to be intelligent or educated enough to understand that even though certain events aren't likely, people still find comfort in believing in them because it adds meaning to their life. People are complex. Minds are complex. Not everything is black and white.

There is no prove that heaven or hell exist, but many people still believe in them because it adds meaning. These aren't stupid people, or inferior to mighty SDN pre-meds.

 

[BigMac92]

In science, you're supposed to disprove the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis being that God did not create man. Natural history is a science, so if you're trying to mix in the science of natural history with the concept of God, I'll propose to you something that's based on science.

Buddy, the onus is on YOU to prove your entity, not for us to prove you're full of it. You cannot explain complexity (evolution) by positing the existence of an even more complex entity (God) because then you need to explain that as well. It doesn't make the problem simpler, so how would you explain it?

If you're not willing to, then you need to remove yourself from reasonable or scientific discussion and instead discuss it in Church.

Ahhhh, okay, I get you guys. I do not know enough about creationism and evolution to base an argument off of. As a Christian, my belief is based on faith. And I'm pretty sure you can't find concrete evidence for an emotion.

Though, I guess I believe in creationism seeing how we, as humans, are here. I just can't see where else we could have come from unless it was from an entity such as God. I refuse to believe that humans evolved from some pre-historic ape though, unless provided with concrete evidence.


Even still, as a student, I am open minded and live to learn. So I just wish to be enlighten on your stance in this argument as to see where you are coming from

 

[911 Turbo]

Ahhhh, okay, I get you guys. I do not know enough about creationism and evolution to base an argument off of. As a Christian, my belief is based on faith. And I'm pretty sure you can't find concrete evidence for an emotion.

Though, I guess I believe in creationism seeing how we, as humans, are here. I just can't see where else we could have come from unless it was from an entity such as God. I refuse to believe that humans evolved from some pre-historic ape though, unless provided with concrete evidence.


Even still, as a student, I am open minded and live to learn. So I just wish to be enlighten on your stance in this argument as to see where you are coming from

Start here?

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&feature=channel_video_title[/YOUTUBE]

Edit: Btw, I regard creationism as the belief that God created organisms and all natural aspects of the Earth in accordance to the Bible

 

[AZFutureDoc]

I only read the first page (and laughed my ass off), but

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[Tin Man]

Not a Christian, but I see no logical fallacy with believing both Christianity (or any religious story) and evolution.

The Bible IS pretty much a book full of metaphors and symbolism. That was kinda Jesus' thing, wasn't it? Simplifying complex ideas with stories that the dumb masses could understand and use?

Same idea here, I could imagine. Imagine if the book of Genesis said, "Then God created atoms, which associated into nucleic acids. These nucleic acids, under specific conditions, associated in such a way as to begin reproduction. Thus begins life. New forms of life branched off of this event through small changes and mutations to the genetic code in response to environmental stimuli."

First, that's suck to write on parchment. Second, the people would be all like, "Lolwut?"

Nah. If the whole idea of Christianity is right, then I could totally see the entirety of Genesis being a symbol for what REALLY happened. In fact, if you allow for some creative translational errors, the story of the seven days of creation actually seems to match up pretty closely with the leading theories on how life developed chronologically...

 

[Blarry]

I don't understand why both ideas can't be accepted as true here is my logic anyway. ok so if you are christian or catholic or whatever religion based on the bible you believe that everything was made in it's adult form. so whats to say the earth is not 4 billion years old if when we were originally created we where 20 or so. we are able to see how humans develop because it happens in a very short time however the earth must also develop except at a much slower rate so we have to use scientific evidence to derive how we got to this state.... i could go on and on but i don't think anyone will read this as it is.

TL;DR version: can't we all just get along.

 

[AZFutureDoc]

I don't understand why both ideas can't be accepted as true here is my logic anyway. ok so if you are christian or catholic or whatever religion based on the bible you believe that everything was made in it's adult form. so whats to say the earth is not 4 billion years old if when we were originally created we where 20 or so. we are able to see how humans develop because it happens in a very short time however the earth must also develop except at a much slower rate so we have to use scientific evidence to derive how we got to this state.... i could go on and on but i don't think anyone will read this as it is.

TL;DR version: can't we all just get along.

yumadtho.jpg

 

[Suncrusher]

In your earlier post you said they reject science. To me, that implies science as a whole. I think it's possible to believe in creationism and still accept much of science.

I'm saying that it likely happens. And that it's possible to be intelligent or educated enough to understand that even though certain events aren't likely, people still find comfort in believing in them because it adds meaning to their life. People are complex. Minds are complex. Not everything is black and white.

All my posts indicate that I'm talking about the 40%Edit: 38% of Americans who are young-earth creationists and reported their beliefs as God creating life in pretty much their current forms within the past 10,000 years.

You can't just choose certain incredibly well-supported scientific findings to reject and claim to still accept the scientific method and the things humans have discovered using it.

The fact that there are people out there who are young earth creationists but probably still claim to accept science does not make that position any more defensible or any less of a logical contradiction.

 

[Gigantron]

Ahhhh, okay, I get you guys. I do not know enough about creationism and evolution to base an argument off of. As a Christian, my belief is based on faith. And I'm pretty sure you can't find concrete evidence for an emotion.

Though, I guess I believe in creationism seeing how we, as humans, are here. I just can't see where else we could have come from unless it was from an entity such as God. I refuse to believe that humans evolved from some pre-historic ape though, unless provided with concrete evidence.


Even still, as a student, I am open minded and live to learn. So I just wish to be enlighten on your stance in this argument as to see where you are coming from

Please refer to Venom5's video, and also refer to what I said earlier:

If you're not willing to, then you need to remove yourself from reasonable or scientific discussion and instead discuss it in Church.

 

[911 Turbo]

Not a Christian, but I see no logical fallacy with believing both Christianity (or any religious story) and evolution.

The Bible IS pretty much a book full of metaphors and symbolism. That was kinda Jesus' thing, wasn't it? Simplifying complex ideas with stories that the dumb masses could understand and use?

Same idea here, I could imagine. Imagine if the book of Genesis said, "Then God created atoms, which associated into nucleic acids. These nucleic acids, under specific conditions, associated in such a way as to begin reproduction. Thus begins life. New forms of life branched off of this event through small changes and mutations to the genetic code in response to environmental stimuli."

First, that's suck to write on parchment. Second, the people would be all like, "Lolwut?"

Nah. If the whole idea of Christianity is right, then I could totally see the entirety of Genesis being a symbol for what REALLY happened. In fact, if you allow for some creative translational errors, the story of the seven days of creation actually seems to match up pretty closely with the leading theories on how life developed chronologically...

Lol, sounds like you are grasping for at metaphorical straws here. You are twisting what is really true in an attempt to infuse scientific credibility into a book that was written purely on non scientific thinking.

Edit: Of course I can't judge "what is really true" for you...when I say that, its from my perspective.

 

[Blarry]

yumadtho.jpg

lol i don't really see how i came across as mad as i truly don't care what your opinion is on the subject i was just saying to me it would make sense if someone christian believed in both theory's.

 

[theWUbear]

Dear Pre-allo Gods please make this thread die

 

[Blarry]

Dear Pre-allo Gods please make this thread die

then what we would have to talk about?

 

[Onres]

All my posts indicate that I'm talking about the 40% of Americans who are young-earth creationists and reported their beliefs as God creating life in pretty much their current forms within the past 10,000 years.

You can't just choose certain incredibly well-supported scientific findings to reject and claim to still accept the scientific method and the things humans have discovered using it.

The fact that there are people out there who are young earth creationists but probably still claim to accept science does not make that position any more defensible or any less of a logical contradiction.

I agree, but it happens.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

I agree, but it happens.

doesn't mean we should accept it from our future physicians.

 

[Onres]

doesn't mean we should accept it from our future physicians.

I think people can learn to separate personal beliefs and their professional work.

 

[HINKLO]

 

[Amba]

So instead of discovering evidence to answer questions/hypothesis, you will just accept what a book states without evidence to defend its claims? Also one does not believe in evolution, one accepts it because it is a scientific theory. Unless of course you don't believe in the scientific method...

I believe in what the bible says because I have yet to see a contradiction that wasn't the result of someone taking a verse/chapter/book completely out of context. The prophesies are insane if you actually study them. Simply put, if the bible was written for "political control" or any other reason that people suggest, it would make no sense. The content in the bible contradicts the supposed reasons it was written. The new testament gives me enough faith to believe what God put in the old testament is true.

 

[Tin Man]

Lol, sounds like you are grasping for at metaphorical straws here. You are twisting what is really true in an attempt to infuse scientific credibility into a book that was written purely on non scientific thinking.

Edit: Of course I can't judge "what is really true" for you...when I say that, its from my perspective.

Like I said, I'm not a creationist, nor do I feel any particular drive to reconcile religious beliefs with evolution.

But there is no "grasping at straws" here. Like I said, Jesus was the dude when it came to allegories, and allegories are easy stories designed to metaphorically explain some other more complex process.

IF we were to assume that the Christian stories are right, then we KNOW people would have questions about how we came to exist. Explaining evolution would be impossible, but the creation story isn't bad symbolism if we give the Christians the benefit of the doubt.

Since Christians always give themselves the benefit of the doubt (as a matter of faith), then that sort of rationale would simply allow a Christian to say, "Well, God told the story the same way Jesus did."

Frankly, I couldn't care less what a doctor believes, as long as they accept the science that is the foundation of medicine so I don't die when they try to give me a homeopathic remedy for cancer. If it takes this kind of "stretching" to accept evolution without compromising their faith (since most believers WILL reject science before faith when forced to choose), then I'm all for it. It means I won't die.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

I think people can learn to separate personal beliefs and their professional work.

i hope so, but personal beliefs invariably inform your professional ones.

 

[sector9]

😀

 

[BHaus9]

The difference between science and those biblical mythologies that it disproves (99.9999ad infinitum) is that science acknowledges when it's wrong and it acts to correct itself-- the refuted mythologies (most) maintain their claim of infallibility regardless. How exactly is science incompatible with itself when by definition science is a work in progress and it claims no absolutes?

That stance is the product of the evolution of thought 🙂eek🙂 in many religious dogmas. Like the Earth being flat position of The Church, it changed from a position that God created man as is, in his image to God seeding (I was going to use a better term, but alas...) the universe then things took their "natural" course. And, as you previously noted, there's always the question of where this God comes from. There are too many holes to address and not enough time...

Your very first claim directly contradicts your statement in the following paragraph that religious traditions are constantly revising themselves. Do they acknowledge when they're wrong or don't they, and why is science afforded this luxury when is it laughable in a religion? Perhaps religion, too, is a work in progress. It's not just a fable regarding the rise of existence - which, in fact, is all that science really amounts to - but is also a living tradition, an evolving practice whereby people strive to commune themselves with their divine creator. Please demonstrate to me how evolution (of species and/or thought) is incompatible with the existence of God and I will give you a cookie.

Your attempt at devil's advocacy is admirable, but even you can't provide a good enough argument to sway the average thinking person out there.

Well, these views are not my own, and I am merely defending (not promoting) them. The most irksome thing I see in here is this mentality that people need to be "swayed." Of course I don't think people should be creationists. But I also don't see any compelling evidence (presented in this thread, at least) to negate the idea that an omnipotent being created the cosmos. My point is that it JUST MIGHT BE THE CASE that multiple belief systems are defensible. No, not all these beliefs can be correct, but an incorrect belief can still be rationally held if it has not yet been proven to be incorrect.

To quote the glorious show The Boondocks, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Now, that premise is admittedly debatable, and the absence of evidence for God is my reason for being an atheist. But there are no scientific truths I can allude to in order to advance my position, i.e. invalidate the concept of God. The best atheistic arguments I can muster are all purely philosophical (problem of evil, e.g.).

 

[MeowMeowCAT]

then what we would have to talk about?

About whether W's will hurt our applications, admissions stuff, breaking academic policies, and all the usual premed drama. Basically, stuff that we actually know what we are talking about.

 

[45408]

I used to.

 

[Fort]

Never believed in it. Always will believe in the six day creation.

 

[Blarry]

Never believed in it. Always will believe in the six day creation.

so what is your view on natural selection?

 

[NatrixCaelicola]

Ahhhh, okay, I get you guys. I do not know enough about creationism and evolution to base an argument off of. As a Christian, my belief is based on faith. And I'm pretty sure you can't find concrete evidence for an emotion.

Though, I guess I believe in creationism seeing how we, as humans, are here. I just can't see where else we could have come from unless it was from an entity such as God. I refuse to believe that humans evolved from some pre-historic ape though, unless provided with concrete evidence.


Even still, as a student, I am open minded and live to learn. So I just wish to be enlighten on your stance in this argument as to see where you are coming from

Emotions are often wrong... look at any pregnant American that was left after getting that way and then trust her "well I loved him and we were going to spend our lives together." Or a couple where they stay together, despite the horrible state of their relationship, because "I love him."

As for the evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor with modern day apes... take a basic evolution class because it DOES exist 🙂

so what is your view on natural selection?

Obviously the plethora of information supporting evolution and nat. selection is a conspiracy 🙂

And I honestly wonder how humans can't evolve to be but an all-powerful, more complex magical man can...

And to touch the "picking and choosing of science." Modern medicine/biology is based on the theory of evolution, not to mention treatments deal directly with it (e.g. MRSA and super bugs). So is it a wrong approach too?