Our shared 'belief in evolution'

[thereaderrabbit]

Please try out the poll!

After reading both sides of the debate on "The First Republican Debate: Three Of Them Don't Believe In Evolution!" I'm as confused as ever. It seems like most people here 'believe' in evolution. This freaks me out.

I'm a scientist, and the only theories I would say I 'believe' in are the ones I'm pitching to the community (ie. you have to believe in an idea, even if you're about to disprove it, because that spark of belief drives you to investigation).

What I believe is that evolution is the best explanation I know of for how man and many other creatures came to be in their present forms. I do not believe in evolution itself. Beliefs are fixed and should not be easily swayed. I will accept any theory over evolution when it presents a better case. Does this make me nuts?

Do you believe the the theory of gravity or do you just accept it? I would think most people cannot explain the theory of gravity in any real detail, so believing in it seems dangerous.

I guess this is a two way street. Do you believe in what's written in a holy book without having read it from cover to cover? If you haven't read it how can you say you really know what you believe?

-Reader

 

[Arcex]

I see your point, the error of believing something as truth just because it is widely accepted as the truth. I suppose that would be believing in something for the wrong reasons, even if what you believe in is correct.

While I'm no expert I know enough about evolution and genetics to believe evolution is an accurate way of describing how our current species came to be what we are, and how other species have developed or died off, accordingly.

I'm not as sure about your analogy about gravity, I understand the principles of gravity and general relativity but at that I'm taking what others have said and accepting them as truth (mostly), but up to a point. Even if I didn't know about the work Newton, Einstein, and Hawking amongst others have done on this subject I'd still have enough of an understanding of gravity to proclaim it as fact, if I drop a ball it falls. That in and of itself proves gravity (simplistic I know, I like simple answers).

It's a bit harder to apply that line of reasoning to evolution but it can be done, it's all about cause and effect.

 

[homercles337]

There is no "belief" in science. The fact that you call yourself a "scientist" is scary.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Science has its fair share of dogma, leaps of faith and beliefs...however, where science deviates from religion is a systematic process for proving theories...the scientific method of providing evidence to back up ideas.

Religion is largely faith based, although one could argue that there is credible evidence to suggest the existance of a divine or spiritual being.

As an engineer, I believe in evolution, but I also believe in a higher being. What evolution fails to account for is the origin of the universe...are we to believe that the entire solar system, this planet, and its ability to sustain life, are all just random occurrances...or is there a higher power that provided the origin from which our very fabric of reality flows.

I do not necessarily subscribe to the religious interpretation of the divine, but religion is a human construct, and one should not confuse the religious preachings of man with spirituality.

I think it is possible to remain scientific, rational and spiritual without subscribing to religiion.

 

[Enig101]

The first poll is worded strangely. Evolution is most definitely a fact, it is the mechanism that remains to be entirely understood. I am "open to other ideas" in the sense that science is constantly revising our knowledge of the universe, but I do not mean to suggest I have any doubt of evolution's validity.

 

[zinfamous]

third poll choice makes no sense. Option 3 says that if I don't believe in the Bible, I am therefore unable to read at all, or don't trust books?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Enig101
The first poll is worded strangely. Evolution is most definitely a fact, it is the mechanism that remains to be entirely understood. I am "open to other ideas" in the sense that science is constantly revising our knowledge of the universe, but I do not mean to suggest I have any doubt of evolution's validity.

I think you're a second option voter...which is pretty much how the average scientist would vote. The first option is worded strangely--no one "believes" in evolution. Science works on the principle of it's fallibility. Therefore, if we accept evolution as fact, based on the countless evidence to support its soundness, we also have to accept the possiblity that some of the explanations currently accepted within the paradigm to be disproven. This hasn't really happened yet, but the scientifc method is only valid when we accept this possibility.

 

[dphantom]

Belief and scientific thought are two different philosophies IMO. I beleive in God, but accept as current fact evolution. I see no contradiction and expect that the Theory of Evolution will change as new facts arise that change or add to its premise.

Belief in God is just that, a belief. We infer God from all that is around us, the old question of where did we come from (and I am not talking about apes, but something much more fundamental) plays to that.

In the end, I think belief and science are not mutually exclusive; each has its role in human endevours.

 

[Arcex]

I've always loved this quote, "Science is evidence without proof. Creationism is proof without evidence."

I believe in evolution right back to the Big Bang, the question arises as to what caused the Big Bang. As it currently stands I'm leaning more towards the random occurance stance as opposed to the higher power stance.

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Originally posted by: homercles337
There is no "belief" in science. The fact that you call yourself a "scientist" is scary.

There is quite a bit of belief in science. You must believe in your ideas if you wish to contribute to the community. Believing in you ideas is not a bad thing, but refusing to give them up when they have been disproven is dangerous.

Accepting other peoples ideas as fact is reasonable too, but believing in them is dangerous. For real belief I feel there must be a very deep investment in understanding. This understanding might come from being the first to discover something or coming to the same conclusions independently.

I do not believe in Evolution or Gravity, but I accept them as true. I've never really proven evolution (not even in my backyard), nor have I played with the varied gravitational pulls exerted by bodies of different mass.

-Reader

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Belief and scientific thought are two different philosophies IMO. I beleive in God, but accept as current fact evolution. I see no contradiction and expect that the Theory of Evolution will change as new facts arise that change or add to its premise.

Belief in God is just that, a belief. We infer God from all that is around us, the old question of where did we come from (and I am not talking about apes, but something much more fundamental) plays to that.

In the end, I think belief and science are not mutually exclusive; each has its role in human endevours.

Much agreed

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Enig101
The first poll is worded strangely. Evolution is most definitely a fact, it is the mechanism that remains to be entirely understood. I am "open to other ideas" in the sense that science is constantly revising our knowledge of the universe, but I do not mean to suggest I have any doubt of evolution's validity.

I think you're a second option voter...which is pretty much how the average scientist would vote. The first option is worded strangely--no one "believes" in evolution. Science works on the principle of it's fallibility. Therefore, if we accept evolution as fact, based on the countless evidence to support its soundness, we also have to accept the possiblity that some of the explanations currently accepted within the paradigm to be disproven. This hasn't really happened yet, but the scientifc method is only valid when we accept this possibility.

Yes, zinfamous, that's exactly what I'm getting at. I wasn't sure how to write that and still keep things short and simple.

-Reader

 

[nageov3t]

I don't believe that the bible is a 100% historical text, though I respect it as a moral text. yes, there are parts of it that can be read as a historical text and generally are, but I don't think the judeo-christian creation myth is a completely true story.

I believe that the basic premise evolution is a theory in the same vein as saying that the sun will rise tomorrow is a theory. there could be arguments made against some of the specifics, but I don't think "intelligent design" is among them.

I also don't see why some people insist that evolution and christianity are completely inseparable. I went to a catholic high school and between biology and religion classes, mostly taught by jesuits, we were taught that evolution explains how things happened once they existed while god explains how things existed in the first place.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I don't believe that the bible is a 100% historical text, though I respect it as a moral text. yes, there are parts of it that can be read as a historical text and generally are, but I don't think the judeo-christian creation myth is a completely true story.

I believe that the basic premise evolution is a theory in the same vein as saying that the sun will rise tomorrow is a theory. there could be arguments made against some of the specifics, but I don't think "intelligent design" is among them.

I also don't see why some people insist that evolution and christianity are completely inseparable. I went to a catholic high school and between biology and religion classes, mostly taught by jesuits, we were taught that evolution explains how things happened once they existed while god explains how things existed in the first place.

Well put. While I did not go to Catholic school, I had friends who did and they said the same. There are those who believe in the Bible as literal truth and while I disagree with a literal interpretation in certain areas, respect their beliefs. I guess that's why we have many sects within Christianity, not everyone believes identically.

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I don't believe that the bible is a 100% historical text, though I respect it as a moral text. yes, there are parts of it that can be read as a historical text and generally are, but I don't think the judeo-christian creation myth is a completely true story.

I believe that the basic premise evolution is a theory in the same vein as saying that the sun will rise tomorrow is a theory. there could be arguments made against some of the specifics, but I don't think "intelligent design" is among them.

I also don't see why some people insist that evolution and christianity are completely inseparable. I went to a catholic high school and between biology and religion classes, mostly taught by jesuits, we were taught that evolution explains how things happened once they existed while god explains how things existed in the first place.

I can accept this line of thought much easier than the "all or nothing, die hard, this is how it is any anything else even remotely different is a lie" line of thinking.

I guess my main problem with most organized religions is a case of trying to apply my own sense of morals onto god (in whatever form). For example, I have trouble believing there exists an all-powerful being who is so one-sided in his thinking that if you believe in anything other than him you are going to hell; not what I'd call benevolent. I have the same problem with things like the 10 Commandments, stealing a loaf of bread equals an eternity in hell? that better be some damn good bread! I'd like to think whatever higher power that exists looks into the intent of an action at least as much as the action itself.

I'm starting to ramble, must be quitting time...

 

[Gigantopithecus]

I don't believe in evolution, much like I don't believe that the sky is blue, or that what goes up must come down. These are simply facts about the observable natural world.

As has been pointed out, evolution - genetic composition of groups of organisms changing over time - is not open to debate. This has been shown repeatedly in the lab & in the real world.

What scientists like myself seek to understand are the mechanisms that make evolution happen. In this regard, Darwin's theory of natural selection is an extremely well-tested theory that has stood the test of over 100 years of observation, experimental verification & debate. However, there are other mechanisms that also play a role in evolution, like genetic drift, mutation, & migration. Any of these four mechanisms cause evolution to occur.

I agree that science & religion can coexist peacefully & that each has its role in human existence. Many (probably most) religious people have no problem with evolution, provided they have a functional comprehension of it. The only people who claim evolution is a lie, or do not accept that the four mechanisms above are solid scientific theories, are simply unreasonable.

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I don't believe that the bible is a 100% historical text, though I respect it as a moral text. yes, there are parts of it that can be read as a historical text and generally are, but I don't think the judeo-christian creation myth is a completely true story.

I believe that the basic premise evolution is a theory in the same vein as saying that the sun will rise tomorrow is a theory. there could be arguments made against some of the specifics, but I don't think "intelligent design" is among them.

I also don't see why some people insist that evolution and christianity are completely inseparable. I went to a catholic high school and between biology and religion classes, mostly taught by jesuits, we were taught that evolution explains how things happened once they existed while god explains how things existed in the first place.

Loki,

I'm also the product of a Jesuit high school education too. We were taught that Genesis established a framework/history that can help a Christian understand their place in the world. We were not told that it was all fact, but rather it was a background and context for much of the 'old testament'. The Jesuit's taught us that truth was for us to find and not to be forced upon us- unless it had to do with morals

-Reader

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
snip
Religion is largely faith based, although one could argue that there is credible evidence to suggest the existance of a divine or spiritual being.
snip

I feel like I'm watching that skit the news anchors do on SNL called "Really?!?"

Credible evidence? Really? What? And don't gimme a sunset at the grand canyon shows you the hand of god, McCain. How are today's religions more "credible" than Greek mythology? Because more people believe in them?

 

[Strk]

The funny part about a scientific theory is that it essentially ecourages to disprove it (I.e. must go through peer review).

 

[RightIsWrong]

The Family Guy's take on the subject

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: sirjonkHow are today's religions more "credible" than Greek mythology? Because more people believe in them?

Well, that's the difference between a cult & a religion.

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Originally posted by: Strk
The funny part about a scientific theory is that it essentially ecourages to disprove it (I.e. must go through peer review).

This is one of my favorite parts about science. When you have a good idea you have the opportunity to play King of the Mountain with it once it's shared. While this game can be draining at times, it's fun while you're winning converts over to your side of the fence. When you loose it can provide even greater hunger for future success.

 

[piasabird]

First Define Evolution!

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Originally posted by: piasabird
First Define Evolution!

On the same train of thought- perhaps I should define belief too?

I know I left some wiggle room, but if I define everything in detail nobody will read it. What are the differences in understanding you wish to illuminate as far as the term 'evolution' goes?

-Reader

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit

Originally posted by: piasabird
First Define Evolution!

On the same train of thought- perhaps I should define belief too?

I know I left some wiggle room, but if I define everything in detail nobody will read it. What are the differences in understanding you wish to illuminate as far as the term 'evolution' goes?

-Reader

This is something I've asked on a couple evolution threads. If you don't buy god creating man in his current form, and you don't buy that we evolved from a lower species, what's left? Man just appeared one day tens of thousands of years ago? What middle ground or other hypothesis can be posed? And what's my appendix for?