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?

[Kenisaw]

Repeatability in this case does not confirm the validity of evolution. Rather, each time eye evolution occurs independently, an explanation needs to be provided each time it occurs. So each time it occurs only compounds the problem. A single eye evolution is hard enough to explain. But for it to occur more than 50 times independently only exacerbates the problem.

Evolution (the theory) is an explanation of a process. If the process is shown to be repeatable, then it seems the theory holds up to scrutiny.

In science, repeatability refers to independent researchers being able to reproduce the the findings of another scientist.

"Reproducibility is the ability to get the same research results using the raw data and computer programs provided by the researchers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility

Eye evolution being reproduced multiple times independently by nature does not fall under this. Now, however, if scientists can replicate the evolution of eyes in the lab, that would be evidence of evolution.

Completely incorrect. This is a standard misconception of science, that things have to be repeated "in a lab" in order for it to be validated and verified. Reproducing the results means talking the same empirical data and performing a thorough and detailed examination of it, arriving at a conclusion, and seeing if that conclusion can be falsified in any way. One need not see eyes evolving in a lab over tens of thousands of years in order to understand the process of light sensitive cells evolving into eyes, anymore than we need to take limestone and put it under immense pressure for a long time to see that it turns into marble.

It is relates specifically to eyes, there are many species today that display various intermediate stages of eye formation that can be studied to ascertain how the process generally happens.

I'm pretty sure most of the recent research focuses on genetics not fossils. The fact that both fields agree (albeit with the fossil record missing pieces of course - we don't have every single specimen that ever lived), is a huge indicator that the theory of evolution is correct.

If the fields agree, that would be strong evidence. But, the fields do not agree.

The fields agree the eyes evolved. The particulars of the matter may not completely line up, but that doesn't mean anyone things eyes did NOT evolve...

Out of curiosity, how do you think the fields disagree?

What exactly stops this process from resulting in large changes over long time periods?

My burden is not to show what would stop this (though I can get into this). The burden is on evolutionists to show how micro can result in macro.[/quote]

It's already been shown, time and again. You can take horses, and claim micro changes caused the various species of horses. You can claim micro changes then created the different asses, donkeys, and zebras that are basically horses. You can claim little changes to that group of horses/asses/donkeys/zebras is what caused rhinos that are basically equines to exist. Then all the odd-toed ungulates with simple stomachs that digest fiberous material in their intestines are basically related, including tapirs...Etc etc etc.

Genetic tests show how close these animals are related. Study of their physical structures show how closely these animals are related. The less they have in common, the further back the point of separation.

The same processes of mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection are responsible for all of it. It's only the scope of the change that we are talking about.

[otseng]

I agree your arguments have been secular/scientific; however, is it incorrect to say that the usual motivation for creationism and for opposing evolution is to support a religious claim?

I think it's a combination of many reasons, theological motivation being one of them. But I'll add that just because there is a theological motivation does not automatically discount it as a valid reason to reject an idea.

How many do you know who oppose TOE (in general rather than critique a specific point; evolutionary scientists that)? I have seen NO arguments from you or anyone that are based on scientific observation, that remotely suggest to me "evolution is not very convincing." The more I study it, the more convincing and obvious evolution becomes.

Well, the more I study it, the less convincing it is for me. For example, you brought up the placement of the nostrils as evidence of the evolution of whales. I've never studied that before, but after looking deeper at it, it is contradictory and contrary to common sense. And this is just the first of a series of posts where I show the evidence for evolution is underwhelming.

I think it involves a false assumption to imply those who accept evolution have not studied it, tho' certainly there are various depths of study.

Sitting in a high school classroom learning about evolution is not enough for one to determine the validity of evolution, even if they pay attention in class. I'm not even sure a college education is sufficient. Primarily because they do not engage in critically looking at evolutionary theory. Why should someone believe something just because a science teacher says it's true or a book author says it's true?

I accept what the experts tell me based not on faith, but on both the track record science has built with me, AND because what I DO understand to some degree.

When I refer to faith, I'm not saying blind faith. I'm saying there is a degree of trust that bridges the gap between knowledge and belief. And that trust is based on what authorities say.

However, slowly, as I learned more about the natural world AND about the Bible, the religious claims made less and less sense. Those claims (not just the supernatural ones) contradicted either each other or my sense of logic, or facts about nature, or any and all of those factors.

Unfortunately, the church does an awful job of presenting a harmony of theology and science.

Therefore, I claim religious 'faith' is of an entirely different order than is acceptance of science.

There is too much to unpack in this. Pretty much I had to get a Master's degree in science and religion to even start to unravel this. But I'll say this, people have many misconceptions of religion and of science. Are there discrepancies between the two? Sure. Are there things that mutually support each other? There actually are. So, I do not view religious faith and science to be entirely incompatible - and that includes evolution.

[otseng]

In science, repeatability refers to independent researchers being able to reproduce the the findings of another scientist.

"Reproducibility is the ability to get the same research results using the raw data and computer programs provided by the researchers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility

Eye evolution being reproduced multiple times independently by nature does not fall under this.

Why not? The only difference is that nature, rather than a scientist, demonstrated numerous times that the complex eye develops from light sensitive tissue. This is exactly what evolution predicted. In a very real way evolution is both repeatable and predictable. All we have to do is observe.

All we are observing is that fact that animals have eyes. We are not observing the process of eye evolution. There is no eye evolution occurring that we are currently observing. So, there is nothing to observe.

And what are you claiming that evolution predicted? That eyes would evolve?

The theory predicted we would find evidence of primates that looked similar to both men and other apes.

Human descent from primates have many problems. We've debated it many years ago in another long thread.

The new data and methods paint a more upbeat picture of predictability in evolution, albeit on shorter time scales. They reveal that evolutionary processes show repeatable features: different pathogen populations evolve similar resistance to a given antibiotic, immune systems of different hosts evolve similar receptors against the same pathogen, and cancers are marked across patients by mutations in specific oncogenes.[/i][/size]
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0077

The article defines predictability, "Here we use the term prediction in a specific sense: a testable hypothesis about an evolutionary process that extends into the future. This distinguishes evolutionary predictions from the broader usage of the term prediction (of a model, that can be tested by experiment) and excludes processes with solely metabolic or ecological dynamics."

Processes that have occurred in the past does not qualify as being predictable. The article bring up antibiotic resistance as evidence of evolution. Again, this is contradicted by the study that bacteria already had antibiotic resistance thousands of years ago and so it does not demonstrate predictability.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 281 by otseng]

Why should someone believe something just because a science teacher says it's true or a book author says it's true?

When I refer to faith, I'm not saying blind faith. I'm saying there is a degree of trust that bridges the gap between knowledge and belief. And that trust is based on what authorities say.

Religious belief is based on nothing else but a preacher saying it's true or a book author saying it's true. Trust based on what so-called religious authorities say is blind faith. The faith that people accept is more dependent on geography than any compelling evidence that what they believe must be the truth.
[/quote]

[nolidad]

[Replying to post 6 by Peter]

Actually I found the opposite to be true!

People are lazy and the indoctrination most people get is not creation but evolution.

[101G]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

not saying that you're right or wrong, but consider this. what would you say if MAN was here on earth before the animals. that would put evolution in a jam. well that's exactly what the bible tells us. man was made/formed on day three, just after "dry" land was brought forth. as a matter of fact according to the Bible, man was here before the plants, trees, and the grass.

so according to the bible "evolution" is a incorrect teaching.



My motto: "Where there is Knowledge, stay not ignorant".

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 284 by 101G]

... as a matter of fact according to the Bible, man was here before the plants, trees, and the grass.

"according to the Bible" does not equate to "a matter of fact", especially in this section of the website. We do know, for a fact, that man was not present on Earth before plants, trees, and grass. We know this from science and the ability to date things, the fossil record, geology, and many other subfields. Modern homo sapiens only appeared about 300,000 years ago, while the first plants appeared some 470 million years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... _of_plants

These are vastly different time frames, and when the first land plants appeared no mammals had yet appeared, much less anything resembling a modern human:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals

Yes ... these are links to Wikipedia articles, but those have many additional references to investigate if you really want to see how things actually did develop over time. You don't seem to be following your motto ""Where there is Knowledge, stay not ignorant" ... but just the opposite.

[101G]

[Replying to post 285 by DrNoGods]

Not saying that you're right or wrong, but who do you base your finding on... science?

carbon dating?


well all those have been proven wrong before.

second, I believe man been here way longer than 300, 000 years ago, let say possibly in the billions. of years range

to me according to science it is not a matter of "FACTS".

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 286 by 101G]

Not saying that you're right or wrong, but who do you base your finding on... science?

carbon dating?

Carbon dating is only good to about 50,000 years ago because of the short half life of carbon-14 (~5,700 years). After about 10 half lives there is too little left to see, but there are plenty of other isotope combinations that can be, and are, used to date things (Sr-Rb, K-Ar, U-Pb, etc.) in the millions and billions of years time frames.

well all those have been proven wrong before.

Wrong. None of these radiometric dating methods have ever been shown to be false. There have been plenty of claims by creationists in an effort to show that radiometric dating methods don't work (because they destroy the young earth claim), but not one of these has survived scrutiny. Radiometric dating methods do work when applied properly (like any other measurement or analysis technique), and I challenge you to produce ANY reference to a peer-reviewed scientiic article that shows that radiometric dating methods are invalid. It has never been done. To the contrary, these methods have repeatedly been shown to be accurate, and are based on fundamental principles of chemistry and physics that have been well understood for more than 100 years.

second, I believe man been here way longer than 300, 000 years ago, let say possibly in the billions. of years range

to me according to science it is not a matter of "FACTS".

And you base that belief on what? Is it something that you believe simply because you believe it, without any facts to support it? You obviously are not a young earth creationist if you believe that anything on Earth is billions of years old, but you can't produce a shred of evidence to support your belief that homo sapiens (modern humans) are billions of years old. That is because the physical evidence that does exist shows that the proper time range is several hundred thousand years ... the earliest finds to date are the Moroccan fossils dated to about 300,000 years (prior to that find the Omo remains dating to about 195,000 years were the earliest evidence of modern humans).

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/scie ... rocco.html

There is zero evidence to support anything in the billion years range for the existence of modern humans.

[101G]

[Replying to post 287 by DrNoGods]

I'm aware of other methods, from organic DNA to Thermoluminescence. bottom line Not all scientists accept the accuracy of these tests, but that's nothing new in archaeology.

and two, I accept true science, only to a point, for even the bible states that, 1 Timothy 6:20 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called".

I'm aware of false science when they take a quess at something. but on the other hand, If the earth is only 6,000 years old, question, "how can we see stars more than 6,000 light years away?". even taking in a time shift, it still don't add up. and Light is a consent.

observing light at different speed do affect time, but if our speed on this planet is also consent then out event in time should always be at a consent rate.

so putting stock in all science is a no, no for me. and now with the latest discoveries in quantum physic, especially with the double slit experiment, nothing is not sure anymore.

so I'll stick with what is definite until proven without a doubt in science.