Why do people have have such a problem with evolution when the evidence for the theory is overwhelming?

Question

Please ask any issues you may have about the theory in the science section.

Unfortunately the answers I have received have been plagued with a misunderstanding of the word theory.
If I let go of a ball it will fall to the ground, the "theory" of gravity explains why this occurs.

Evidence for evolution. The evolution of an enzyme in a Japanese bacterial strain that allows it to digest nylon, a synthetic substance. The fossil record displaying many transitional fossils. Biostratigraphy. Pesticide resistance in insects. Vestigial structures.

Please ask any questions you have about evolution in the science section and you can gain a better understanding of it.

Answer 1

I think you've gotten some truly excellent answers.

My guess is that, by and large, the people who do not believe in evolution do not understand the theory (or even what "theory" means.) The fact is that these people seem to be disinclined to gain the knowledge needed to understand even basic science.

Why this is, I cannot say. All they can do is repeat the same out-of-context quotes, copy and paste from the same websites, or (and this one makes me cringe) attempt what seems to be a reasonable explanation on their own (this is the source of "why are there still monkeys?".)

It seems to me that a little bit of education (like the kind they offer free to people 18 and under) should be enough to give these people enough of a grounding in the the ideas and terminology of science to allow them to hold an intelligent debate. I'm not saying that a high-school biology class would dispel the myth of creationism for a devout individual, but it should allow them to understand the basic ideas involved in evolution (and put an end to the "y r there monkies?" questions.)

The real problem here is the rigid worldview. It's exactly the same with scizophrenics. A person's view of things has to be malleable enough to conform to new facts. The faithful and the schizophrenic lack this ability and instead try to force reality itself to conform to their ideas of how things are.

The scizophrenic, upon hearing voices, searches for an explanation. The truth is too hard to accept, so he finds something that is reasonable to him instead. He lives near a radio-station. The radio station is using its antenna to beam messages into his brain. This seems perfectly reasonable to him.

Now, to the rest of us he is "that strange guy who lives near the antenna." Whether he is diagnosed or not, we may recognize him as being scizophrenic and in need of therapy and medication. However, the faithful walk around every day with ideas that are more outlandish than a radio-station broadcasting messages into people's brains and they are regarded as being sane, sober, or even President of the United States.

The problem is not with our evidence, or their "counter-evidence," it is with their inability to fit facts into their rigid worldviews.

Excellent question.

Answer 2

Sorry but you are wrong on one account. It is not the 'theory' of Gravity, it is the law. A theory is something that has yet to be proved, a law is a proven point. Secondly, there is not actually overwhelming evidence for evolution. I suggest you look deeper as I have done. Many of the fossil records have been misinterpreted. Take the brontosaurus, doesn't exist. Scientists have now discovered they made a mistake. There is evidence to prove that all the so called 'ape men' including Neanderthal, were actually apes not men. Things to do with the shapes of the bones, the muscles, etc. Scientists today have actually discounted the evolution theory (which is actually the theory of evolution and natural selection). You see, evolution within a species works. Evolution from one species to another doesn't. No amount of rearranging of the evidence will prove this. (Unfortunately that is what Darwin did). Nowadays the scientists do not teach the evolution theory, Only the schools do because the government hasn't caught up yet. So, no evidence, no evolution. Sorry but I can't produce what isn't there. If there was valid evidence I would consider it. (My job involves considering valid evidence to apply law).

Answer 3

Ha ,ha ha..I love the one about all the fossils fitting on a billiard table ! Have that guy and the journalist from the Times who supposedly wrote that never been to a museum ?
Doubters of evidence could do worse than go and check these things out, have a look at a Diplodocus or Tyrannosaurus Rex skeleton. Believe me they don't fit in a house let alone on a billiard table .
But maybe they're just pieces of art left by aliens, fairys or gods.
The point is there is good evidence for evolution of some sort. It could be said that the creation story was a story of seven vast periods of time in which a primeval force created material existence . It could be that there is an intelligence in all existence that directs change intentionally. I have in fact heard that this fits the evidence so far, better than the chance selection of the fittest,as changes occur too fast and too specifically for the latter to work.
For me scientific evidence is a good basis for basing one's current ideas on, but these things change, and science cannot see the seer ,at which point we must use a more subtle approach to the mystery of all this....

Answer 4

The problem is that the evidence for evolution is NOT overwhelming. I was a really good student in the Fifties when I was in school. I learned all the details of evolution, and all the proof supporting evolution. I believed it as well as if I had been there and watched it happen.

Alas, all the evidence we were taught in those days has been proved false**. So, as they have done since Darwin made his original mistake (confusing a loss of genetic material with an increase in genetic material) , they simply dig up new alleged "proofs".

To date, there is not one molecule anywhere of evidence that any species has ever changed to another species. If you wish to believe it is all true, you can do that. But, don't mock the rest of us who are somewhat offended at having been misled by a bunch of atheists who are equally offended at the suggestion there is anything in the Universe superior to themselves.

** We were shown drawings of a fossil fish. While I am usually a good speller, I cannot ever remember how to spell that name, something like coelecanth, that was proof of the existence of ancient creatures that later evolved into something else. AS WE WRITE, that fish is being eaten in certain parts of the world, it never evolved into anything. Yet we had our noses rubbed in it as absolute proof of evolution. That's all the evolutionists ever present, bogus stuff they choose to believe proves a species can change into another one. And, for over 150 years, sooner or later their evidence falls apart.

Yet we are called names for not accepting their nonsense.

Let me make it clear. Evolution might be true; I wasn't there. What I am saying is the evolutionists have absolutely no evidence to support it.

Answer 5

Most lay people do not understand the scientific use of the word 'theory', which apparently permits them to dismiss all scientific inquiry out of hand.

Lay people use 'theory' to mean ' that something is true without proof, but scientists use 'theory' to mean 'hypothesis' or a belief used as a basis for further action and learning. The two meanings are totally opposite, which adds to the hostility.

If you want evidence of evolution in action, consider the flu, or certain bacteria. They both rapidly evolve in order to evade our antivirus and antibiotic medications. In fact, bacteria are so adept at this evolution that many antibiotics are now ineffective, and 'superbugs' that cannot be cured are popping up.

I do not think that science and religious faith should be at odds. But it appears that there are people who are doing their best- people on the religious side- to make science and religion enemies, and to actively suppress and even destroy scientific inquiry. The question should be why are they doing this?

Another misperception by religious people is that science says that we 'came from apes'. This is a deliberately divisive distortion and misread of scientific fact: we did not descend from apes, we are -related to- them. Big, big difference. We are different species with superficial things in common, but are very different genetically. The mistaken belief that we are descended from apes really seems to anger religious people- I watched Ted Haggerty scream at Richard Dawkins about 'my children aren't animals'. Technically, we are, but on a different branch than the apes.

Answer 6

The evidence is not overwhelming.
It is quite underwhelming.
I note you put forth no evidence, no proof. Just opinion.
Science magazine stated, regarding all the supposed evidence toward evolution:
"The evidence is a pitifully small array of bones."
The New York Times said:
"the known fossil remains would fit on a billiard table."
That is not overwhelming.
Science Digest stated:
"The majority of artist's conceptions are based on IMAGINATION."
The book Biology of Race:
"The flesh and hair on such reconstructions are filled in with IMAGINATION."
That's not opinion.
That's quotes from people in the know.
Check it out.

Answer 7

Becuase the evidence is seriously under-whelming rather than over-whelming...

There is no evidence that proves Atheistic MacroEvolution (without Intelligent Design)...

I used to believe in Evolution. However, over a period of time I have grown skeptical of the claims of Macro*Evolution... this is largely due to the weakness of the evidence for Macro*Evolution, and the fact that the evidence, rationally interpreted does not support the overarching claims made by Macro*Evolutionists...

For scientific and intellectual critiques of evolution, see http://www.godsci.org/gsi/apol/evo/00.html .

Cordially,
John

Answer 8

because some people just either get it or don't accept it. me and a couple of friens were talking about it the other day and i said something to the effect of life being both religious and scientific. she didn't think it was evolution at all and she mentioned people adopting to the environment that's why some people are dark or light, etc. and i said, that's evolution, that's science. she even said it, but she turned around and said no it's not science. *shakes head*

Answer 9

I agree with JT. It has been my experience that "bible-bashers" or whatever you want to call them go defensive as soon as you even mention evolution. Perhaps it's because religion has been drilled into them from such an early age, they are unable to even consider theories or possibilities which would appear to contradict what they have been taught.

Answer 10

1. They believe in the Bible's (or Koran/ Torah/ other religious teachings for that matter) version of the creation story.
2. They don't want to be associated with a bunch of chimps, no matter how long ago that was.
3. They are skeptics because they are afraid to commit to one opinion in fear of being proven wrong, just like skeptics in religion, politics, sports etc.