Why some people reject evolution

[Danmark]

[you can skip the intro and go right to the last paragraph]

Growing up, I was seldom interested in math. At first it seemed tedious and boring. I invented my own shortcuts to make it easier. Later it required discipline when it got too difficult to do in my head. So, i loved geometry, but lost interest after trig, which I didn't even try to understand. I've been thinking of trying to teach myself calculus, just to see if, at 69 I can do it. So, I looked for a free online course of study and found this:

As Henry Ford said, " Nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs ". Too much of the world is complicated by layers of evolution. If you understand how each layer is put down then you can begin to understand the complex systems that govern our world. Charles Darwin wrote in 1859 in his On The Origin of Species,

"When we no longer look at an organic being as a savage looks at a ship, as at something wholly beyond his comprehension; when we regard every production of nature as one which had a history; when we contemplate every complex structure and instinct as the summing up of many contrivances, each useful to the possessor, nearly in the same as when we look at any great mechanical invention as the summing of the labour, the experience, the reason, and even the blunders of numerous workmen; when we thus view each organic being, how far more interesting, I speak from experience, will the study of natural history become! " http://www.understandingcalculus.com/

So here's the question, do people not believe in evolution just because the Bible tells them so? Or is there another factor; that rather than try to understand it in small steps, one tiny transition at a time, since the entirety of the process ("microbe to man") seems impossible to them, do they reject it out of hand without looking at it step by step?

[Peter]

[Replying to post 20 by paarsurrey1]

If you assume someone "kicked it off" you get an infinite regression which isn't helpful.

[William]

[Replying to post 21 by Peter]

If you assume someone "kicked it off" you get an infinite regression which isn't helpful.

infinite regression not an issue if the idea of that which "kicked it off" is eternal - having no beginning or end.

[Wyvern]

[Replying to post 21 by Peter]

If you assume someone "kicked it off" you get an infinite regression which isn't helpful.

infinite regression not an issue if the idea of that which "kicked it off" is eternal - having no beginning or end.

The issue changes to one of special pleading with this assumption.

[benchwarmer]

Why some people reject evolution?

I believe that humans did evolve.

Actually, we are still evolving. Every living thing is every time it reproduces.

But I have a little question, please.
What existed before the "evolution" and who kicked it off, please?
Regards

I'll answer that if you tell me who gave rise to the who that kicked off evolution. See where this is going if you are looking for a who?

[William]

[Replying to post 23 by Wyvern]

Not at all. Special pleading could just as easily be seen as claiming biological evolution arises from a mindless process (magical thinking) while ignoring the idea of eternal consciousness.

I have not ignored the argument of infinite regression in favor of the argument of eternal consciousness. I have simply said that there is a way to settle the question of infinite regression.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 25 by William]

Considering the great lengths that we've gone to show that evolution is a process that happens according to the laws of chemistry, and is not shown to be overtly controlled by any intelligent forces, it is downright disingenuous for you to strawman the position that natural selection is a mindless (though non-random) process, and assert it is magical thinking. Don't try me on this one, mate, you're well out of your league if you want to disparage the theory of evolution by making claims about it when you demonstrate no understanding of it.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 20 by paarsurrey1]

Evolution is simply a description of a process that living things undergo as a result of genetic variation in subsequent generations. So what existed before an active process of genetic variation was a non active process of genetic variation.

Put simply you have a car that is on(evolving) what existed before it was on? The car was off(no evolutionary process).

The chemicals that currently exist in your body that comprise your being existed before your life was evolving. Before they got arranged into self replicating molecules they existed. You may have heard,"that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed from one form to another."

As to what kicked it off? Who knows I have yet to see a compelling definitive argument and will keep my mind open to that question.

[H.sapiens]

Why some people reject evolution?

I believe that humans did evolve.
But I have a little question, please.
What existed before the "evolution" and who kicked it off, please?
Regards

What existed was a proto-organism that did not evolve. One discovered how to, and ate everyones' lunch (so to speak).

[Peter]

[Replying to post 21 by Peter]

If you assume someone "kicked it off" you get an infinite regression which isn't helpful.

infinite regression not an issue if the idea of that which "kicked it off" is eternal - having no beginning or end.

Then let's just say that life is eternal and be done with gods creating it.

[William]

[Replying to post 21 by Peter]

If you assume someone "kicked it off" you get an infinite regression which isn't helpful.

infinite regression not an issue if the idea of that which "kicked it off" is eternal - having no beginning or end.

Then let's just say that life is eternal and be done with gods creating it.

If only.

But more to the point, what exactly are you referring to when you say 'life'?