• Indeed, to "believe in evolution" is contrary to the spirit of the science that produced it as an explanation -- this is not about taking anything on faith or committing oneself to an explanation, it's about making a best-possible assessment of what is more likely to be true, given the information available. That's a long way from the 'belief' of religious commitment.
  • No, no. I believe in evolution, with a desperate, grasping belief because if I don't I will be forced to admit that there really is a god and that god is the judeo-christian one and that means I won't be able to drink the blood of slaughtered goats while rooting unwilling virgins, robbing old ladies of their savings and bashing baby seals just 'cause it is fun because there will be rules like how long my hair must be and how loud I must sing in church and how high my arms must be lifted in praise and more praise and if I don't I will burn in hell....
  • well it really depends on what you mean by the word "believe." Evolution is one of those things which just happens as a consequence of the second law of theromdynamics. Things evolve from one state into another, and do so in predictable ways. The idea here however is that while these ways are predictable, we only really know the chance that things will happen. However, in many situations actually "seeing what happens next" usually increases the chances that it will happen again no matter what the outcome. In these cases, we know what will happen. Otherwise, we don't really and can't say much about it. Evolution is one of those things which just happens. From a very reductionist perspective however, evolution requires the existence of some sort of "beginning recursive sequence" of reactions converting one form of energy into another. The availablility of energy types changes which reactions assume dominance, and a new set of reactions creates a new set of "decay" reactions which 'feed' on the abundance of reactions (as a product moves from the energy source). The question then becomes whether this sequence can become "larger" in value (approaching some sort of size of scale), or if it by nature will remain "small" on subatomic scales.
  • "Believing" in something definitely has a sort of capricious wishy washyness to it. You either know something, which is a certainty, or you do not know it, which is certainty, with reservation. "I believe in something" implies an assumption without proof, naive faith, a hope, a wish whatever. I asked a similar question about ghosts and got ambushed.
  • The reason for the word belief is that it is the THEORY of evolution. As opposed to being a Principle such as Newtonian Principles for example... Theory means it is not proven... lots of holes in that theory ... Everyone is entitled to their opinion though. By the way I am not a christian fundamentalist. Way back when everyone believed religously that outside the atmoshphere lies emptiness, it was in my science book in middle school... then little by little the word void/emptiness was removed because it was not true. Just because religious fundamentalists say something is wrong, it does not make it right.
    • bostjan64
      WTF are you on about? What Newtonian Principles? Like the Theory of Universal Gravitation or the Theory of Kinematics? You realize that those are scientific theories, right? Holes in what theory? Evolution? I recommend you look up a few definitions before you go preaching to people about these topics. I'd be willing to bet that "evolution" doesn't mean what you think it means.
  • I believe you're right.
  • Oh, I totally understand where you're coming from. I've never understood how someone can disregard scientific fact, yet insist something that's a matter of faith is fact. I was brought up in church, and yet I accept the scientific facts I was taught in school. Who's to say God didn't create us to evolve?
    • ReiSan
      Izanami and Izanagi were the creators. 99.54% of my people in Japan do not think God exists.
  • same thing could be said of religion............. your point????????????????
  • It's irrelevant if people don't accept OR "believe" in evolution. It's an established fact.
  • Your question is flawed. A belief is simply an acceptance of something without absolute proof.
  • "Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence. Robert Anton Wilson, in Cosmic Trigger I : Final Secret of the Illuminati (1977)" Source and further information:
  • 7-7-2017 In real life none of those words apply. A student is only required not to object to the concept. Kinda like a farmer does not object to the odor of bull manure.
    • ReiSan
      Evolution is a fact of science. Children know too little to object to it.
  • I understand. beliefs are accepted as true with inadequate evidence, but evolution has much strong supporting evidence. Science does not use beliefs and faith, since they are blind and unreliable.
    • Chromeman
      Hi Reisan, I saw your comment above and was motivated to ask Google if Evolution was a fact. I was surprised to see the article pop up from National Center for Science Education. Titled: Evolution: Fact and Theory; It stated that "It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth" It went on to talk about "Patterns in Nature" Mechanisms of Evolution", then ended with Evidence for Evolution, and its significance in our lives: all in all it is a compelling article that basically said animals/humans have been able to adapt to their environment. Which anyone with an open mind would agree with. But the article made this statement, "While progress has been made in this area, the origin of life remains an interesting, but unanswered, question. Again anyone with an open mind would agree with this statement as well. Both Evolution and the Bible have a starting point, Stephen Hawking also alluded this. The Bible in Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning" NWT What I'm getting to is that both sides agree to a "Big Bang" if you will, But then for me, could everything just be one accident after another. I hope you don't mind, I left you the link to The Origin of Life?—Five Questions Worth Asking. I hope you find it interesting.
  • Based on modern science I have to reject it. This is the 21st century, you need to move beyond the science of the 1800's. If you can prove evolution there is at least a $10 million dollar prize waiting for you.
    • bostjan64
      Good point. Science is willing to adapt itself based on what we learn by researching it. However, I don't think the people who made that site understand what "evolution" is, nor does it seem that they care to know. I could save them all of the trouble, no $10 M necessary - just look up the word in the dictionary and see that the name of the contest has nothing to do with the proof that they are demanding. It's like if I said I'd pay ten million if anyone could prove that the sky is blue, and then defined the contest so that people actually had to prove that we never landed on the moon. Evolution, in case anyone somehow doesn't know this by now, is the process by which gradual changed between different generations of progeny develop different traits than their distant ancestors. The key ideas are 1. that there is development of new traits, and 2. that this development is gradual over the course of many generations. Where is abiogenesis attached at all to this term? It's just purely willful ignorance, coupled with an incredible amount of arrogance, and that's all. Whoever made that site could be 100% proven wrong with whatever they are trying to defend tomorrow, and they'd still refuse to pay.
    • Linus van Pelt
      I guess I'm an idiot for thinking that the supposed evolution of chemicals into life has anything to do with evolution. Call it abiogenesis or whatever you like it still amounts to spontaneous generation. Do not confuse natural selection (or selective breeding in husbandry) with evolution. You can breed for certain traits and breed out certain traits but the information is already there
  • (sigh) - Of course a person can believe in evolution. - That being said: a person doesn't HAVE to either believe or disbelieve. For example: I accept the theory of evolution as the most likely to be correct idea that explains the cause of there being multiple species on Earth. Tomorrow someone might come up with a better idea, one that makes even more sense to me...and if they do, I'll accept THAT idea instead of evolution. BUT...there are in fact many people who do in fact believe in evolution, just as there are in fact many people who do in fact disbelieve in evolution. *** It does not REQUIRE belief or disbelief because there are other real options. But belief and disbelief are ALSO real options.-
    • bostjan64
      Very good. As for evolution itself, we've observed it in real time, first with microorganisms and even with squirrels in the Pacific Northwest USA/Canada. It certainly doesn't mean that all species originated from other species. There are things like crocodiles, which haven't evolved any substantial amount for probably an extremely long time. However, I see no reason whatsoever, that the fact that evolution happens and seems to continue to happen provides any evidence as to whether or not life on Earth started with a blob of goo floating in the ocean. Science itself has very little to say about the ultimate originate of all life on Earth. Maybe someday, scientists in a lab will be able to make a blob of goo come to life in an aquarium or something, and that itself would certainly not disprove the existence of God. Likewise, though, the fact that science does not have an answer for this does not prove the existence of God. Belief in God ultimately comes down to faith - nothing more / nothing less. Trying to prove or disprove God based on the rules of logical debate is only ever going to be 100% futile.
      Yes, biological evolution has been observed in nature and in the laboratory...but all that the theory of evolution proposes has NOT been observed. The origin of life is tangential to the theory of evolution. (That theory does NOT address that subject.) But there are real scientific theories concerning that. It's not true that "science has little to say" about that. *** I would not agree that applying logic in an attempt to prove the existence of God is necessarily futile. Consider Descartes' "A Discourse on the Method", for example.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy