not to get all political in oppo but...

"Joe_Limon" (Joe_Limon) 12/31/2013 at 00:39 • Filed to: None

1

32

http://blink.htcsense.com/Web/ArticleMob…

Has there ever been a non religious/sane reason why someone would refuse to believe in evolution?

Ian Duer (320b) > Joe_Limon 12/31/2013 at 00:45

7

To get financial or political backing from those who don't believe in it.

Krieger (@FSKrieger22) > Joe_Limon 12/31/2013 at 00:48

0

Since On the Origins of Species and On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection have been out for a very long time, no. And I don't even want to make an American stereotype joke.

Joe_Limon > Ian Duer (320b) 12/31/2013 at 00:48

0

Hmmmm... Yep, I too have a price, unfortunately I fear that is not the case for many of the people surveyed.

GhostZ > Joe_Limon 12/31/2013 at 00:49

0

At the elementary school where I grew up (early 2000s) it was considered a 'theory', yet unproven, and that it was scientifically irresponsible to teach it as truth.

That's not to say they wouldn't accept it because it conflicted with their religious beliefs, but the entire region, even the less religious people, generally accepted that it just wasn't scientifically rigorous yet and was still sort of a theory. They treated it the same way that someone might treat a class on extraterrestrial communication, string theory, or time travel. That is to say "plausible" but "pretty unlikely".

Zipppy, Mazdurp builder, Probeski owner and former ricerboy > Joe_Limon 12/31/2013 at 00:51

0

Because "God is the creator".

seriously though, none at all.

Joe_Limon > GhostZ 12/31/2013 at 00:56

0

I see, so basically it stems from the misunderstanding of what it means to be a scientific law vs theory?

Ian Duer (320b) > Joe_Limon 12/31/2013 at 00:57

0

I really really shouldn't go there but I feel like being stupid. My take on the current political climate in the US is this: many people have done a good job at making "liberal" a dirty word, and therefor being "conservative" is what people should be. I feel like the whole thing is orchestrated as a way to get uneducated people to conform to certain standards that those pulling the strings feel will make them more obedient, dumber over time, and better consumers.

What irritates me is that there are certain actual conservative views I hold: such as not creating needless legislation. I also agree with not interfering in people's personal lives. But those are just words to some people, they use them as code to push their agendas. Also people's definition of "needless" and "interfering" seem vary widely and be inconsistant.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > Joe_Limon 12/31/2013 at 01:08

0

But the Bible says that Earf was createded in only 6 days! They even have the museum to prove it. It's da truthf.

Science is the devil!

Nevermind that God gave us the ability to reason, and if he didn't want us to figure shit out we wouldn't have the capability to do so. Also, I grew up in the Church. I'm not sold on the idea that Man decends from Apes. I will support that species adapt to their environment.

I have to agree that all this "anti-science" propaganda is a result of someone getting very, very rich.

I also am really rather tired of "The Church/Religion" trying to be politcal. I'd much rather see it go back to helping the poor, sick, and elderly at a community/local level and leave the politics alone. This is not a theocracy, and I do not agree with the doctrine or theology of the highly vocal few who would turn the country into one.

Ignorance of NASCAR is a Jalopnik Trophy > Joe_Limon 12/31/2013 at 01:09

0

Faith is not science, it is the opposite thereof. Faith is the belief in something in the absence of proof. Science is the absence of faith. Having faith in science is no different then having faith in a god. Science is a process, iterative, that reveals provable truths over time. Human nature requires faith because all truths are unknowable by an individual, and many remain undiscovered to science. Media fills the gaps, providing certainty, where there is none, and revealing the ever changing nature of the process. Yesterdays truths are today's debunked theories - Darwin's theory predates the discovery of DNA by over a century.

In the face of information overload, a certain degree of skepticism is healthy. That being said, yeah - these folks are idiots - but not necessarily insane, and the religious impulse is strong on either side. Remember there was a time not long ago, relatively speaking, where none of these theories existed, and those who promulgated them were deemed insane.

Ignorance of NASCAR is a Jalopnik Trophy > Ian Duer (320b) 12/31/2013 at 01:13

0

And a libertarian you shall be ...

LappingLuke > Joe_Limon 12/31/2013 at 01:17

0

An increasing number of bizarre thinking religious folks are convincing otherwise normal thinking religious folks that religion and the theory of evolution are mutually exclusive. I for one am religious and do not believe that my ancestors were grunting knuckle dragging apes, but I certainly believe that over millions or billions of years all species have changed by adapting to their environment.

Ian Duer (320b) > Ignorance of NASCAR is a Jalopnik Trophy 12/31/2013 at 01:17

0

Hahaha. No. I found much of the same there as well. Good words with some nasty hidden meanings. I prefer to think and act on my own rather than help those with pretty words. No political alignment I've found seems free of at least some degree of double-speak, at least as soon as it turns into an organized thing. There are assholes everywhere and they will twist even the most well intentioned viewpoint into something for perceived personal gain in the future.

Joe_Limon > Ignorance of NASCAR is a Jalopnik Trophy 12/31/2013 at 01:25

1

Having taken a few logic courses and having a fairly good grasp at concepts of realism, etc. Your post isn't entirely alien to myself.

It is common knowlege that scientific theories throughout history have been disproven time and again throughout history, but is it sane to believe that theories can't be correct because they were proven wrong in the past? That statement/thought in itself seems hypocritical.

I don't believe the people who used to believe in past theories were unsane, because given the available options for them to choose from, there was no correct answer, but there were answers that clearly made more sense to themselves. As such, they would have had their own justifications for beliefs in theories outside of god.

Similarily, with evolution, I will admit that it could be tiny magic elves that could have been proving this theory all along, hence why it is still called a theory, but to discredit it entirely due to the fact that it could be wrong is again... Hypocritical, especially when we reintroduce the god argument.

Ignorance of NASCAR is a Jalopnik Trophy > Ian Duer (320b) 12/31/2013 at 01:30

0

I used the small "l" - the big "L" seems to be the flotsam and jetsam of the world - those that want to be involved but without really taking a stand, politically untenable, and rather odd to boot (wanna buy some gold, weed or guns?). Party on! (or don't, as is your wont ...) Ha ha.

Joe_Limon > LappingLuke 12/31/2013 at 01:30

0

Alright, where do your beliefs lie in regard to the origin of life? To me, the modern day ape is probably much different to our common ancestor, as different as we are to apes... Or maybe half so?

Joe_Limon > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) 12/31/2013 at 01:32

0

I agree that man did not decend from apes... More likely a common ancestor that was neither man nor ape... But what are your beliefs regarding the origin of life?

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > Joe_Limon 12/31/2013 at 01:38

0

Not really sure. Having been raised Church, I'm want to go with it being created. However, I will have to concede that "Let There Be Light." could also mean "BANG!" on the scale large enough to form an entire universe.

Unless you were there before it all began, who is to know what cause The Big Bang that is the current tested theory? I'm of the belief that life wasn't some random accident. It's far too complicated, and also perfectly functional for that. But what Science says started it all can still be evidence of God's hand in creation.

Ignorance of NASCAR is a Jalopnik Trophy > Joe_Limon 12/31/2013 at 01:39

0

Agreed - I'm saying be skeptical of certainty, on either side, but that is human nature to rely on faith and not necessarily insane.

My real point is that religion and science are completely separate (and not mutually exclusive) things, and we shouldn't mix up the two. Those that say here that people's faiths are being exploited by others to advance their political agenda are totally correct - although I believe that is being done on both sides.

Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection > Joe_Limon 12/31/2013 at 01:42

0

It all comes down to some Texas preachers who decided that the bible was a literal word of God, and created the Southern Baptist Convention. Now, these people are known for wearing the mantle of Christian despite Behaving in a manner exactly opposite to the teachings of Christ

Ian Duer (320b) > Ignorance of NASCAR is a Jalopnik Trophy 12/31/2013 at 01:46

0

Fair enough. I wasn't making a distinction based on capitalization.

duurtlang > GhostZ 12/31/2013 at 06:31

2

As someone with a masters degree in biology this makes me cringe and causes my hairs to stand up. As a Western European I'm quite foreign to this concept of religious disinformation as well.

Although I understand people know very little about lots of subjects, myself included, I think it's frustrating people don't understand that denying the basic premisses of evolution is discarding most of modern biology and lots of modern medicine. And with modern I mean of the last 100+ years.

I do understand that many people don't *want* to accept it, as it can go counter to certain religious principles. Yet even the Vatican has accepted it. Still I hope people can rationally understand that there is no conspiracy under the 99.9% of relevant scientists, who all accept it. The theory of evolution, which is an explanation of the observable process of evolution, is one of the best founded, researched and sturdy scientific fields.

Someone who says it's 'just a theory' is either ignorant of and the definition of the word theory in the scientific sense and of biology in general, or is being disingenuous.

GhostZ > duurtlang 12/31/2013 at 06:44

0

I look at it in terms of incentive.

What would learning about Evolution, or believing in it, actually gain someone? For many people, understanding it can help improve their life, but for a lot of people, it's just knowledge for knowledge's sake and offers no emotional, logistic, or social benefit to their lives. I don't agree with that sentiment, but I can understand it.

Really, religion has nothing to do with it. Yes, people cite religion as a reason why they don't believe, but deep down they're willing to give up a lot of other religious beliefs when something new benefits them. So 'religious disinformation' isn't accurate, the groups out there trying to convince people against evolution are crazy, far-right-wing zealots and aren't often taken seriously outside of their group. Most the people I've met who don't believe in evolution simply don't out of convenience, and they don't find it distasteful or evil.

duurtlang > GhostZ 12/31/2013 at 07:03

2

I think I understand what you're saying. People have been taught in certain way, it has no impact on their lives, so they don't care. Fair enough.

What frustrates me, partly because of my background, is how kids today, in certain areas, are educated about the subject. No biology teacher worthy of the name would teach it like you mentioned. What's equally painful are politicians actively falling for this when asked about the subject. I know it has little relevance in politics, but I see it as a litmus test. A politician denying evolution is unfit for the job. Period. The answer 'I don't know' is fine though. Denying it as a politician means you're either disingenuous, not accepting what experts say or ignorant about a subject without willing to admit it. I consider all these traits unwelcome in a politician.

IDROVEAPICKUPTRUCK > Ian Duer (320b) 12/31/2013 at 07:17

1

My entire take on the Republican party is that it is a clever device for rich people to get poor people to vote against their own self interest by leveraging social and religious issues. The real power brokers in the party could care less about Abortion or Gay Marriage or Evolution; what they do care about are low capital gains and estate taxes but they know that they can use the social issues I just listed their to get lower class individuals to vote in legislators who will keep taxes low and business unregulated.

However it's falling apart at the seams because the traditional fiscally conservative power brokers got into bed with the tea party a little too willingly and are losing control of the party. As issues like immigration and gay marriage become more and more polarizing the Republican party is cutting themselves off from huge sections of the population, namely Hispanics and young people. If current demographic trends continue Texas will be a blue state by 2020 which will make the presidency impossible for the Republican party from a Electoral college perspective. There needs to be a shift in the way the Republican party presents itself to the public or they will continue to lose support as their older members continue to die off, however that will only happen if the traditional fiscal conservatives can take back power from the tea party, which will be a very interesting battle indeed.

Wow that got very long very fast. Sorry this is something I've spent some time thinking about, how the Republican party handles the next 8 years are going to be fascinating.

Joe_Limon > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) 12/31/2013 at 09:48

0

I was raised going to Catholic schools etc as well. However, my education taught me that the bible was written over a thousand hears ago and that it is best not taken literally. My schools taught the big bang/evolution. As far as the religious connection goes, they went as far as teaching that god loved us enough to give us independent thought, and allowed us to make our own mistakes. He created the universe with his infinite perfection and hasn't needed to touch the universe ever since as he already knew how all of history would turn out. All of the good and bad, and decided that the big bang, abd how it happened was the best start for the universe.

Joe_Limon > Ignorance of NASCAR is a Jalopnik Trophy 12/31/2013 at 09:56

0

I agree as well. The two are polar opposites. Faith itself is an act that requires no proof. Even if it was possible to prove the existance of god, then all that would change is that there would be the elimination of faith in religion. Which I personally believe is a terrible thing as faith is one of the cornerstone principles of any religion.

Joe_Limon > Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection 12/31/2013 at 09:59

0

But why on earth would people knowingly say that they don't believe specifically in evolution on such a wide scale? This isn't simply a survey of religions and assigning the belief to everyone who says they are christian.

Joe_Limon > duurtlang 12/31/2013 at 10:18

1

This is the best argument. Saying that you don't know if a theory is true is different then saying that the theory is false. The latter implies you have proof as to why it is false beyond reasons of faith or skepticism.

Ian Duer (320b) > IDROVEAPICKUPTRUCK 12/31/2013 at 12:50

0

I think some people spend lots of time thinking about it, but that number is still too low.

Your take seems to match up with my observation of the Republican Party's strategy as of late. I can see why some may have though it was a good idea to appeal to people baser insecurities but the cost/effect of making the strategy sustainable does not seem wise.

All I can think of is the ancient Chinese curse (which is neither ancient or Chinese) "May you live in interesting times"

MountainCommand > Joe_Limon 12/31/2013 at 21:32

0

Trying to keep a religious pov out of it, id say there has to be a reason why our brains/minds are the most complex 'phenomena' out of every other species in this known universe.

There is so much debate with how brain development occurs. Do we have this potential in our brain at birth? Or does it evolve over time? We live one life, and our DNA is transferred to offspring. Is that 'potential' in their dna now? Or must they learn it all from scratch?

How does that correlate with evolution? Wouldnt one think we'd have one or more 'species' of 'human' (that doesnt sound right haha) by now? How come ape brains are not as complex? If we evolved from apes, why are they still here, and why are they not evolved?

In a more ignorant statement, why cant i say cats evolved from dogs? They are pretty much the same thing. Teeth, brain, similar muscle structure...etc.. Right? But they arent are they.

Simply put we are our own animal. We are a human (at least thats the label we have been given). An ape may be similar on paper. (like a camaro and a mustang for example). But when you really look at each one, you would be stupid to say one evolved from the other. (Chevy and ford wouldnt be happy about that statement either). Humans evolve as humans, apes continue to evolve as apes. Im not denying evolution, its proven by facts (selective genetics/breeding iirc). But evolution of the ape to human thing. Nope. Call me ignorant if you must but i dont believe that part.

Faith aside, the human mind is the part that sells me on us not coming from apes. I keep taking psychology classes, and im only just barely rubbing the surface our the human mind in a psychological realm. Let alone a biological or other. The human mind is so advance, its yet to figure itself out yet. How come were are the only animals able to ponder this question? How come no other animal developed a fraction of what we have. Dolphins, they are amazing, but last i read our mind is still the most complex. (encephalization quotient, EQ, Humans have eq of 7. Dolphins 4.3, and great apes/chimpanzees 1.8-2.3) Lasty, we are the only animal to study other animals in the way we do.

I guess you get my point by now. so my final comments... I have faith, and know its all to coincidental we managed to somehow survive a 'freak explosion' and now live on a small blue planet in the middle of the expanding universe of no where. Because if i had no faith, life to me would be meaningless. You live you die. Thats it. You are only here for a snap of a finger. And youre gone. To make it worse, my ancestors were dirty apes? How could life get any worse... riiiightt... I believe there is someone. we were created. Just like everything else. Its just too peculiar for all of this to simply be chalked up to coincidence. Im not against learning, or theories of science. But somethings just cannot be explained. And now ive added a few more questions to my million question list is probably will never find an answer to in my life..

phew. sorry about the lengthy post. I felt compelled to reply for some reason.

Joe_Limon > MountainCommand 12/31/2013 at 22:33

1

According to some research studies, the real initial spark of human intelligence came from our ancestors in africa, when above average brain complexities (compared to other animals... Meaning animals able to use simple tools like rocks and sticks to solve problems) combined with a fish food source, supplying them with the omega 3 fatty acids to make the next giant leap forward in our evolution. Allowing us to finally grasp how to communicate thoughts greater then simple basic needs and emotions.

Since then, our history for thousands of years has progressed (i.e. ancient egypt) and recessed (i.e. the dark ages). And only within the past few hundred years have we actually been able to develop communication abilities necessary to start industrializing/etc the world. Abilities meaning things like the printing press, telephones, and yes the internet itself. Each advance in communication yields tremendous leaps forward in technology in general.

It is not so much that we have been gifted these abilities suddenly, it is more so we are finally able to tap into our dorment potential, and build on our ancestors work before us. If we were to clone dna samples from our ancient african ancestors, they should be able to adapt and independently live in our modern world.

Further, I would like to clarify that science doesn't teach us that we evolve from apes, we evolved from a common ancestor who bears as much resemblence to us as it would to apes.

As far as canine and feline lineages go, if you trace far enough back they will share a common ancestor that was neither dog nor cat, but a unique species that would eventually diverge its evolution based on geographical and predatory reasons.

Further, only recently have we ever expanded our deffinition of what intelligence is. There are plenty of species that are more intelligent then us in other manners. For example a dog, you can't begin to imagine the subtle complexities dogs are able to communicate via smells. We simply aren't wired that way, much how dogs can't fathom any of our communication or ideas. To a dog they simply aren't wired to care about how to make things or communicate ideas beyond simple needs and wants.

To a dog, their lack of making intelligence is replaced by an extremely keen emotional response and smell intelligence. They can tell when you have cancer or something is emotionally wrong with your life before the most well taught doctor or psychologist.

duurtlang > MountainCommand 01/01/2014 at 13:12

0

I'll address a few of your questions, but first let me explain that evolution doesn't have a goal. It's a pathway to increase fitness into an environment. It doesn't strive for increased complexity, moreover sometimes reduced complexity is a beneficial trait.
"Wouldnt one think we'd have one or more 'species' of 'human'"
Not necessarily, populations of humans interbreed too often. We obviously are now, but we did in the past as well. You need a whole lot of generations (many thousands of not more) and preferably different selection environments for one species to branch out into several. One example: dogs. All dogs belong to the same species, from Great Danes to Chihuahuas. The branching is too recent for them to be considered different species.

"How come ape brains are not as complex?"
How come ape feet are more advanced than ours? Complex brains have both advantages and disadvantages. You'll understand the advantages, but I'll sketch a few of the disadvantages; extra energy consumption (higher food requirements), bigger skull needed (birth canal difficulties). There are more disadvantages. For most species the advantages of having more complex brains don't outweigh the disadvantages, so there's no selective pressure on increased intelligence. Just like the complex hand-like feet many apes have wouldn't benefit us at all, we only need stable platforms to walk on.

"If we evolved from apes, why are they still here, and why are they not evolved?"
If Americans mostly came from Europeans and Africans, why are there still Europeans and Africans? Besides, current apes and man have a common ancestor. So both current apes and man have evolved from a common ancestor. A common ancestor that isn't around anymore, just like the great-great-great-(...)-great-grandfather we both share isn't around anymore either.

"why cant i say cats evolved from dogs? They are pretty much the same thing."
Because they haven't and they aren't. We have fossil records, DNA evidence. Are you familiar with the branching structure of evolution? See the picture (full size link) I've added.

"But evolution of the ape to human thing. Nope. Call me ignorant if you must but i dont believe that part."
I wouldn't call you ignorant, although I do believe your knowledge of the subject isn't, well, optimal. Look at all the evidence, the fossil record, the DNA record, taxonomy, you name it. You're free to believe what you want, but any respected biologist would disagree with you here.