I think it's important in understanding what exactly I mean by taking a step away from science for a moment and focusing more upon the sociology of the changing views with regard to evolution.
When we get down to it, the crux of the conflict over time regarding evolution really boils down to one main focus: the account in Genesis. Since its conception, the idea of evolution has been a very hotly controversial subject due to the perceived threat to scriptural canon by its plausibility. Due to the young understandings of both science and religion (which I would argue still exists today, on both fronts) the issue of evolution had a false dichotomy surrounding its core, in that evolution and creationism must certainly be mutually exclusive. Needless to say that because of this, there has been, is, and likely always will be, very impassioned beliefs on either side because of the very nature in which people find this to relate to their existence and worldviews.
The controversy of evolution then transcended science as the core of the conflict was more about theism vs. atheism (and unrightfully so). The religious feelings of the day, which also exist today (which I will get to later), felt that to believe in man's descent from another species was to infer infallibility of the canon, which is nothing less than heresy. On the other hand, atheistic proponents now had greater strength in being able to nullify the claims of their theistic opponents, thanks in part to an all-or-nothing mind-set regarding religion in the mind of theists, as well as an all-or-nothing mind-set regarding developing science in the mind of atheists and agnostics.
Then, just as today, opinions on theism are deeply seeded in which side of the line you are on (much as most democrats are liberal and most republicans are conservative), with exceptions, of course. Fortunately, we've come to see over very recent history that the black-and-white thinking regarding the religious implications of evolution has started to fade. The false assumption that the debate was inextricably tied to religious debate has gradually started to leave as society's scientific mind has sharpened by realizing that the existence of human evolution, whether true or not, could neither dismiss nor support any religious or atheistic hypotheses. There has been a great deal of crossing over in such that as religion in various forms has become more liberal in its approach in interpretation of the canon that they will reconcile what they feel science has found with their belief system.
As I mentioned before, evolution is a very broad term that encompasses many different things. Will an environment exert a selective pressure upon the organisms within it, enough to alter that population significantly over time? Of course. I think we've fallen into the trap of having an all-or-nothing approach to evolution insomuch that when it is heard that somebody does not believe in human evolution that the assumption is that they don't believe in natural selection, that they don't believe evolution has been demonstrated in the laboratory, or that they don't believe the evolutionary model serves a valuable scientific service.
I don't feel evolutionary theory (again, regarding human evolution) has been held to the same standards of scientific rigor in accepting its specific conclusions. Any good scientist knows the limitations of their studies and is cautious in making broad generalizations about their findings. Most biomedical research comes from animal research, yet despite the amazing progresses made we still understand the limitations with an animal model in making generalized conclusions about human populations. Even with human subjects we still exhibit caution in making conclusions about larger populations based upon a sample population. There are many things that are fascinating about conducting research that takes much skill in being able to interpret and analyze results. I remember, as I'm sure many of you can probably relate, before having any experience with research methodology how impressionable (I use this term relatively) I could be to drawing poor conclusions from a small amount of data (not necessarily referring to science, per se) but as you continue to learn more about a given field, or about variables and confounds, you gain a much greater appreciation for being able to not rush to conclusion, though the conclusion may 'seem to make sense' or be 'common sense' to a lay population. I have a very difficult time with this because of how human evolutionary theory has been inherited in scientific culture due to what I believe was a political hijacking of a young science.
I can't remember who said it, but the quote is something along the lines of 'smart people hold opinions that they developed before they were smart'. I feel that before science really started to refine itself that it had already accepted human evolution as hard fact, and thus it was never initially scrutinized the way new theories today would be. As such, any institution of learning you will enter has you start from the assumption that the evolutionary model is in fact a reality and that to disbelieve it or offer alternatives is scientific heresy (sounds much similar to the religious zealots rejecting evolution). From this notion, everything is then viewed from this lens. As a brief example, I have a neuroscience book that is showing the dermatomal chart but says (with an accompanying illustration) "The organization of the dermatomes is best revealed when one bends over to stand on both hands and feet. This organization presumably reflects our distant quadripedal ancestry." I will admit that this is a very small detail and acknowledge that they're not using this as 'proof', but the point I am trying to illustrate is that this philosophy has become so dogmatic that it's actually distracting from objective observation. What the significance of the dermatomal pattern being representing hunched over means, I haven't a clue. Perhaps that neural development is related to a creature's mature stationary stance, so that the nerves will be oriented parallel to gravity?
I don't mind people believing in human evolution, nor am I opposed to it. My personal reasons for not believing in human evolution have little to do with religion, as it's certainly not opposing or challenging to what I know to be true. My problem lies with the assumption that since one does not believe in human evolution that they must not be a thinker, which I think is a horribly false notion. When people are shocked that I could have learned so much without believing in human evolution, it's as if I'm denying miles of evidence that unequivocally states that evolution is the only way that man was derived and that science has proved that there is absolutely no room for exception or error.
But you are specifically arguing that humans were not the result of evolution?
No. I'm arguing that while there may be evidence to suggest it, that it is not a foregone conclusion that eliminates all other possibilities.
Is that correct? Because again, that's what I spent years of my life focused on, and will again when I am not working 80h a week.
I cannot simply acquiesce because you have spent years focusing on it anymore than you would submit to any of my knowledge that I have gained in other avenues, if that is what you are suggesting.
