Have people who don't believe Evolution even studied it?

Question

theres a lot more than 'People came from monkeys" and it's supported in biology, chemistry, geology.

Answer 1

First, I don't want to say it's a matter of belief. That is an insult to the word. One believes one's friend when he says he returned the book he borrowed. That's rational. Applying "belief" to matters of fact like evolution is to introduce irrationality. I am convinced of evolution. I accept it. But it's true regardless of whether I believe in it or not. Save the belief for uncertain situations, not fundamental principles.

Generally, people who reject evolution have a poor understanding of mathematics and know little of biology outside of some snake oil tract given to them by a preacher. There is a whole cottage industry dedicated to selling convincing (to the uneducated eye) fake information, exploiting public ignorance of scientific principles yet dropping enough five dollar words to make gullible people think they're delving into something both profound and delightfully subversive. People like to think that experts are wrong, largely because experts (in biology as in any science) are good at doing things that are quite difficult. Thus, it becomes easy for an uneducated layman to become convinced that he knows something biologists don't, no matter how childish the logic employed in the creationist literature actually is.

Essentially, people who reject evolution think they are educated, but they really aren't. Most couldn't even explain what evolution is in a way that would satisfy a real expert. That's why you still occasionally hear people saying things about "why are there still monkeys?" or "the second law of thermodyanmics" or something or other about information theory, when these people don't understand thermodynamics at all, don't even know what information theory is, and know nothing about evolution except what they read in a book written by some guy who also knows nothing about it.

That's neither enough to really claim to have studied nor enough to hold a radical opinion while still claiming intellectual honesty.

Answer 2

I pasted this from a response I did several days ago.....

You make a good point. I have read and studied a good bit from the Creationist's perspective and am currently reading and studying the unabridged, unedited version of Darwin's Origin of the Species. My initial comments (at this point still very general) are that both are theories; neither is fully observable, testable and repeatable to be considered scientific facts.

The exception is what some call "micro-evolution", which is evolution and adaptation within "kind," such as changes seen to domesticated animals. Due to short life spans of some creatures, like birds, small variations can be observed over time, and tests can be set up, conducted, and repeated.

The "microbes to man" (macro evolution) scenario appears to have some holes (which Darwin readily admits in his writings).

One thing that I have found interesting, which indicates that people on both sides of the issue seemed to have missed, is that Darwin makes several references in his writings to a Creator (Darwin's words, not mine - and you have to read it in the full context of his writings):

"Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."

"There is a granduer in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;"

I guess the bottom line is that instead of blindly ranting and raving, people's comments can be taken more seriously if they examine both sides of the arguement. After all, part of a scientific inquiry is to examine information from all sources to arrive at a conclusion.

Answer 3

They often times don't even know what biology, chemistry, or geology ARE! Let the simpletons have their creationism. Those of us that are intelligent to accept Evolution will simple move forward, and learn more and more about the true nature of God.

Answer 4

Those who don't believe it are usually those that are pretty devoted religious people. Some refuse to read it, maybe because they are scared that it'll convince them to be skeptical about their own beliefs. Evolution is actually a more logical explanation about how animals are able to adapt over millions of years.

No matter how illogical religious beliefs may be, some refuse to believe otherwise, even if it is widely accepted and understandable.

Thats something I've never understood about religious people. It may be why I've never totally commit myself to my ancestors beliefs.

Answer 5

That is ignorance. There is more to evolution than that. We evolved from apes, we branched out from apes. Evolution means we that we humans went through a process to get to where we are today. If you actually read Darwin's books instead of getting your Pastors thoughts on it, you would know that. Think for yourself, do not let other people think for you.

Answer 6

Short answer, Yes many have, and it is not as strongly supported scientifically as you seem to think. You should do some studying and look at both sides of the debate objectively

Answer 7

Yes I have studied it thoroughly and will once again state the microevolution (adaptation) is well documented but that there is not one case of macroevolution that has ever been documented and held up to scrutiny.

Answer 8

Most are to afraid of it to even take a glance at it. I for one, am very familiar with Evolution, and believe that yes, God uses it as his ongoing means of creation.

Answer 9

Funny thing... Charles Darwin studied it quite a bit and at the end of his life he completely disavowed the theory. I bet he could add some insight to your question... ;-)

Answer 10

Yes I have studied it, and you are right, there is macroevolution (man came from monkeys) and microevolution (viruses adapt to antibodies and that sort of thing).

What is your point?