Happy Atheist Forum

In my experience, I haven't met too many believers (religious & non-religious) who accept evolution. Granted there are a number of theists who do, most don't. (In America at least). On the other hand, they concede other scientific theories, or branches of science such as: biology, chemistry, the atomic theory, etc.


What is more horrifying is that I know friends in COLLEGE who refuse to accept evolution as fact & scientific theory (which baffles the hell out of me).
My question is, why does evolution seem to be a special case? Why is it hard for most of these people to accept evolution, yet they acknowledge all other scientific discoveries/theories?

I'm not exactly sure, but I'm sure if enough and/or loud enough people thought that the theory of gravity showed how god isn't required to keep things on the Earth, then there would be religious people against that as well.

Maybe it's just because I'm in a field that tends to weed out idiots, but most of the theists I know don't have a problem with accepting evolution and those that have raised concern about it did so because they simply hadn't looked into the evidence and were trusting what their church told them.

For Christians (having formerly been one) I will just cite the most obvious reason: because it directly contradicts many, many pronouncements in the bible.  I also think they somehow feel that it undermines the idea of a moral universe, and this threatens them.

Quote from: "Cite134"My question is, why does evolution seem to be a special case? Why is it hard for most of these people to accept evolution, yet they acknowledge all other scientific discoveries/theories?

Because evolution removes our special place in Creation.  We are no longer the purposeful creation of a "loving" god, but rather, another species, doomed to extinction.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Cite134"My question is, why does evolution seem to be a special case? Why is it hard for most of these people to accept evolution, yet they acknowledge all other scientific discoveries/theories?

Because evolution removes our special place in Creation.  We are no longer the poruposeful creation of a "loving" god, but rather, another species, doomed to extinction.

Exactly.  Science is all well and good when it produces an iphone or helps with fuel efficiency in a car or predicts the weather, but when the EXACT SAME PROCESS that produces those things also says that people shared a common ancestor with the 'lowly' chimp - kill the pig, eat it's flesh, rabble rabble rabble.

May every single evolution denier out there be cursed with a life without science.  No, I shouldn't say that.  Their rotting teeth alone would wipe them out before I'm old enough to retire.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Cite134"My question is, why does evolution seem to be a special case? Why is it hard for most of these people to accept evolution, yet they acknowledge all other scientific discoveries/theories?

Because evolution removes our special place in Creation.  We are no longer the poruposeful creation of a "loving" god, but rather, another species, doomed to extinction.

Ahh, even though it is a fact...such facts do not make them feel good, so they disregard it altogether. A common trait I see in believers. This makes sense though.

I wrote a little editorial on this a while back for my What Evolution Isn't (http://www.squidoo.com/What-Evolution-Isn-t) page - Why I Think Christian Fundamentalists Hate the Theory of Evolution but Not Other Scientific Facts (http://www.squidoo.com/What-Evolution-Isn-t#module17048102).

In Europe it doesn't seem to be a problem for the most part. At least it's not as bad as it is here.
For whatever reason Americans don't want to lose the literal interpretation of Genesis. In my experience, Americans are tought, by themselves, not only that evolution is false, but that scientists (or at least the ground breaking ones) are trying to play God. They like to make themselves think they have superior knowledge to scientists.

Quote from: "Cite134"In my experience, I haven't met too many believers (religious & non-religious) who accept evolution. Granted there are a number of theists who do, most don't. (In America at least). On the other hand, they concede other scientific theories, or branches of science such as: biology, chemistry, the atomic theory, etc.


What is more horrifying is that I know friends in COLLEGE who refuse to accept evolution as fact & scientific theory (which baffles the hell out of me).
My question is, why does evolution seem to be a special case? Why is it hard for most of these people to accept evolution, yet they acknowledge all other scientific discoveries/theories?

Evolution is the explanation of our existance that kills God stone dead. Many religious world view shoe horn God into the creation myth. Undermine the creation myth and you undermine the majority of Gods and thus faiths. All other sciences simply explain Gods creation. Biology and in particular evolution through natural selection is the absolute antithesis of a creation myth, it is a watertight explanation of why there is no need for an interventionist deity.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"I wrote a little editorial on this a while back for my What Evolution Isn't (http://www.squidoo.com/What-Evolution-Isn-t) page - Why I Think Christian Fundamentalists Hate the Theory of Evolution but Not Other Scientific Facts (http://www.squidoo.com/What-Evolution-Isn-t#module17048102).

Very cool stuff.  I've never taken a real look at this site and I might have even asked this before but, what exactly is Squidoo?

I also took a look at some of the comments there and I see one of the major reasons which lead people to reject evolutionary theory aside from personal ideology - ignorance.  However, I don't use ignorance in a condescending manner but in the sense that many people lack knowledge of the theory or hold distorted or inaccurate knowledge of the theory.  For example, in response to the question, "Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory as to why so many varied species of life exist on earth?" one person commented:

QuoteNo, evolution isn't the origin of the variety - it's a description of the process of change. Natural selection is obviously a fact, but the question is: where does the new come from? Where does the variety come from? the word 'evolution' is not an explanation of how that has happened.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about.  Natural selection and the emergence of novel traits are both part of evolution.  The variety comes from the raw material of mutation for the most part (there's also things like genetic migration).  This raw material is acted upon by natural selection through the interaction of organisms with their environment which affects the allele frequencies within a population all leading to what we call evolutionary change.

However, people such as this think that their knowledge is accurate and never bother to correct these misunderstandings by educating themselves about what they are so critical of.

In my opinion and experience, religious people who reject evolution do so out of fear, because it actually makes a lot of sense and their 'faith' is already so compromised and weak; they fear if they don't actively shield themselves from reason they'll be convinced it's true and all their prescious, fragile illusions will be shattered, along with their sense of humanity and morality, and then they'll have ceded their last defense against becoming raving, godless heathens who eat babies. Like, you know, us.  

Quote from: "elliebean"In my opinion and experience, religious people who reject evolution do so out of fear, because it actually makes a lot of sense and their 'faith' is already so compromised and weak; they fear if they don't actively shield themselves from reason they'll be convinced it's true and all their prescious, fragile illusions will be shattered, along with their sense of humanity and morality, and then they'll have ceded their last defense against becoming raving, godless heathens who eat babies. Like, you know, us.  

Fried or boiled?

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "elliebean"In my opinion and experience, religious people who reject evolution do so out of fear, because it actually makes a lot of sense and their 'faith' is already so compromised and weak; they fear if they don't actively shield themselves from reason they'll be convinced it's true and all their prescious, fragile illusions will be shattered, along with their sense of humanity and morality, and then they'll have ceded their last defense against becoming raving, godless heathens who eat babies. Like, you know, us.  :D

But on a serious note, I guess you guys pretty much summed the answers to my question. Some people do not have the ability to deal with the truth =/

Quote from: "Cite134"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "elliebean"In my opinion and experience, religious people who reject evolution do so out of fear, because it actually makes a lot of sense and their 'faith' is already so compromised and weak; they fear if they don't actively shield themselves from reason they'll be convinced it's true and all their prescious, fragile illusions will be shattered, along with their sense of humanity and morality, and then they'll have ceded their last defense against becoming raving, godless heathens who eat babies. Like, you know, us.  :D

But on a serious note, I guess you guys pretty much summed the answers to my question. Some people do not have the ability to deal with the truth =/

This is almost definitely true, but to not be able to deal with the truth one would have to accept evolution as the truth in the first place. Many evolution deniers don't see it as the truth so they are not in the position of not dealing with it as 'truth', it's a lie from their perspective. Let's face it, if a person is delusional enough to accept the existance of the supernatural realm, and that part of that realm is a sentient entity, and that entity created humans, and then gave them free will, and then gets snotty that humans had the audacity to use that free will to enjoy themselves. If one can convince oneself of that chain of events one can easily convince oneself that evolution isn't true or that it is guided by said supernatural entity.

Quote from: "Tank"Evolution is the explanation of our existance that kills God stone dead. Many religious world view shoe horn God into the creation myth. Undermine the creation myth and you undermine the majority of Gods and thus faiths. All other sciences simply explain Gods creation. Biology and in particular evolution through natural selection is the absolute antithesis of a creation myth, it is a watertight explanation of why there is no need for an interventionist deity.

I think tank hits the nail on the head here. With evolution, god is no longer necessary.

Another issue is that evolution, psychology and neuroscience undermine the whole idea of an immaterial soul with libertarian free will. Science points towards minds being physically instantiated in physical systems (the brain, mainly), and cognition being subject to all sorts of limitations, bottlenecks and biases. These are the products of our evolutionary history- the particular way in which the physiological substrate of cognition has developed.

Quote from: "Caecilian"

Quote from: "Tank"Evolution is the explanation of our existance that kills God stone dead. Many religious world view shoe horn God into the creation myth. Undermine the creation myth and you undermine the majority of Gods and thus faiths. All other sciences simply explain Gods creation. Biology and in particular evolution through natural selection is the absolute antithesis of a creation myth, it is a watertight explanation of why there is no need for an interventionist deity.

I think tank hits the nail on the head here. With evolution, god is no longer necessary.

Another issue is that evolution, psychology and neuroscience undermine the whole idea of an immaterial soul with libertarian free will. Science points towards minds being physically instantiated in physical systems (the brain, mainly), and cognition being subject to all sorts of limitations, bottlenecks and biases. These are the products of our evolutionary history- the particular way in which the physiological substrate of cognition has developed.

+1

In Galileo's day, what happened if someone said something against doctrine?
If they were a person of worth they would be pressured to recant.
Otherwise they would be tortured and killed.
By Darwin’s day what was happening?
Darwin a rich man of good family a believer, felt compelled to hide his discovery.
I think the church had a greater share of intelligent thinkers in Darwin’s day.
When Darwin’s theory was presented the clever Christians just subsumed the evolutionary process as god’s tool.
As far as I know the pope still accepts evolutionary theory.
I don't know what to make of people who make the pope look like a progressive free thinker.

[/quote]
This is almost definitely true, but to not be able to deal with the truth one would have to accept evolution as the truth in the first place. Many evolution deniers don't see it as the truth so they are not in the position of not dealing with it as 'truth', it's a lie from their perspective. Let's face it, if a person is delusional enough to accept the existance of the supernatural realm, and that part of that realm is a sentient entity, and that entity created humans, and then gave them free will, and then gets snotty that humans had the audacity to use that free will to enjoy themselves. If one can convince oneself of that chain of events one can easily convince oneself that evolution isn't true or that it is guided by said supernatural entity.[/quote]


I see what you mean...but: "Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored"-Aldous Huxley.
On the other hand, I know what you mean. Unfortunately delusion is very powerful.  

Quote from: "Squid"Very cool stuff.  I've never taken a real look at this site and I might have even asked this before but, what exactly is Squidoo?

Squidoo is a content site.  Squidoo allows users to post whatever rated G content they own rights to and Squidoo puts some ads on the page.  In return, Squidoo distributes half of their advertising income to the writers of the pages that averaged in the top 85,000 for that month.  The top 2,000 get round about $20 per page per month, the next 8,000 take in between $2-$6 per page per month, and the next 75,000 get about $0.08 per page per month.  

Additionally, one may put up Amazon, eBay, Zazzle, Etsy, or other such modules and earn a percentage of sales made through your page.  These commissions are not put into a common pool but go directly to the writer of the page.  

I first joined Squidoo to create funnel pages to lead to my Associated Content pages.  But I started earning a few dollars from the link funnels - more than from the pages they were funneling to.  

I now supplement my freelance writing income with Squidoo and I've almost given up on Associated Content other than as a place to put backlinks to my Squidoo lenses.  I get a zero effort residual income from my Squidoo lenses of about $150 per month.  It pops up much higher than that during the winter holidays as that's when people suddenly become interested in homelessness issues, which is a niche I write about quite a bit.  It isn't a fortune but it is dependable.

Squidoo also serves as a free platform for me to use to provide information on homelessness and to shed light on that issue.  I've also used it to put up editorials on atheism to try to help spread understanding and tolerance.

If you are interested in joining Squidoo, I'd be pleased if you used my referral link.  The referrer gets $5 once the referred earns $15 or more. (http://www.squidoo.com/lensmaster/referral/Kylyssa)

I looked it over a couple of days ago and decided to go ahead and sign up, I started a Psychology and Neuroscience (http://www.squidoo.com/psychology-and-neuroscience) one but I'm thinking about breaking in down into different ones about neuropharmacology and biopsychology of mental illness.  That way I don't have so much stuff under just one lens.  Although I think my stuff may be a bit too academic and I need to go back and loosen the technical writing a bit.  I'm also thinking about starting one about evolution but I want to be a bit more specific than just that wide reaching topic such as looking at dating methods or something.