Do you "believe in" evolution?

Question

Or is that a fundamentally meaningless question?
Does anyone believe in Newtonian physics? Or do we just accept as fact that objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force?

Does believing IN something imply more than merely agreeing that it is true? If so, then to compare "believing in" God with "agreeing with" evolution is kind of an apples vs oranges proposition. One is about having faith in a fundamentally unverifiable entity, and the other is about evaluating an overwhelming body of scientific data and deciding, intellectually, whether or not it is valid.

You can evaluate the data on whether or not God exists, just as you can evaluate the claim that species evolve through survival of the fittest. However, to "evaluate God" is nonsensical - a misuse of the English language.

If you can't evaluate a spiritual entity or believe in a scientific claim, then why do people keep trying to compare the two?

Answer 1

Well, religious people don't get that, because their brains are wired differently. Also, I have taken note that they are not able to distinguish nuances of meaning on the basis of context. For example, they seem to think that the meaning and the implications of the word 'faith' are identical in the following sentences:

"I have faith that this chair will not collapse when I sit in it."

I have faith that the Lord Jesus will grant me eternal salvation."

They see no qualitative difference between those two assertions.

Further, there are some subtleties at work, which seem to escape the notice of most people. They have to do with the nature of 'belief'.

A rational person might say "I believe in the Big Bang." A religious person might say "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis." But these statements are not even remotely similar, with respect to what is meant by the word 'believe'.

For the rational person, the statement of 'belief' in the Big Bang means that they understand that the concept provides a scientifically and mathematically consistent explanation, congruent with the evidence, which accounts for the evolution of the universe from a fraction of a second after the initiating event, up until the present. When the 'inflationary model' came to the fore, rational people said "Well, good... that clears up a few questions and makes things even more coherent." NOBODY threw up their arms and wailed "Oh, no... oh, no... ain't so... ain't so... the Big Bang is the inerrant truth... not this ridiculous, atheistic 'inflationary' model."

See... when we say "I believe in the Big Bang", we don't really mean the same thing as the religious person means when he says "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis," or "I believe in God." Our 'belief' in the Big Bang (or anything else) isn't really a 'belief'... it is more properly a 'paradigm'... a useful way of looking at something, or thinking about something. If additional information is uncovered that adds to the conceptual model, that is a good thing... not a disaster. If part of the conceptual model is discovered to be incorrect, and must be tossed in the trash and replaced with something completely different... that is also a good thing... not the end of the world as we know it. And often, no matter how highly confident we may be of the accuracy or completeness of a particular paradigm, we may have reason to apply a DIFFERENT paradigm to the same thing, in an effort to tease out new insights; for example, we might want to contemplate the potential implications of a change to a theory from the perspective of the Tao Te Ching, the Gaia hypothesis, or ecological homeostasis. We KNOW that all theories are approximations... and that is OK. We KNOW that we don't have all the answers... and that is OK, too. There is nothing wrong with saying "We don't know... yet; but we're working on it."

But these modes of thinking, perceiving, contemplating and understanding are utterly alien to the 'religious' mind. For the religious mind, a 'belief' is not a paradigm... not a useful way of thinking about something... it is an internalized conviction that one knows the absolute 'truth' pertaining to some aspect of existence and/or fundamental reality. 'Beliefs' are one of the key interpretive component filters of the religious person's 'self-description'... a part of what DEFINES them as a person... the very thing that creates their world-view... an underpinning of their 'subjective reality'. Any challenge to one of these internalized 'beliefs' is perceived and interpreted as a vital threat... an attack upon the 'self-description'... and an assault upon their subjective reality.

And here is the key difference: When there is a change in one of the paradigms dealing with a scientific concept, or a new insight into the workings of the universe, to the 'rational' person it merely constitutes an interesting new piece of knowledge and understanding... a new insight. However, if that same new insight, or piece of information (a feature of the universe, for example) seems to threaten a tenet of Christianity, everybody goes to battle stations, goes into 'damage control' mode, for fear that the whole edifice will come crashing down... and ultimately, it will.

So, when a fundie disparages evolution, for example, it really has nothing to do with a genuine, intellectual dispute regarding scientific details... they are generally scientifically illiterate, anyway. Any 'scientific' arguments that they present are inevitably not even understood... they are just lifted from the pre-packaged lies, misrepresentations and pseudo-science that are found on dozens of 'Liars for Jesus' (LFJ) web sites, and parroted. They are in a battle. They are trying to sink science before science sinks them. They are desperate... and science is (mostly, and unfortunately) oblivious to the fact that they are even in a fight, and that somebody is trying to sink them. They are just blithely bopping along, doing what science does... figuring out how nature works.

No... none of this has anything to do with a mere disagreement pertaining to evidence and understanding. It has to do with minds that deal with fundamental issues in an entirely different way. It has to do with a flexible, open-minded (willing to honestly consider alternative possibilities), intellectually honest (willing to question and doubt one's own presumptions) curiosity about the universe, contending with a rigid, unyielding world-view that depends from a conviction that certain delusional faith-based (willful ignorance and magical, wishful thinking) 'beliefs' represent the absolute 'truth' of reality.

We might as well be talking to an alien species, from a distant planet.

When the religious enter a venue like this one, they are (generally) NOT seeking answers, or new information... these might cause them to QUESTION their beliefs, or might put their beliefs at risk. No... they are closed-minded, seeking only VALIDATION of their beliefs... and hence, of their self-description.

*****************

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." ~ Robert M. Pirsig

Answer 2

From the viewpoint of epistemology, I believe it. It's a belief based on evidence and backed up by rational argument. It's not an article of faith What we call knowledge is never provable to be true or false. There is simply a body of evidence and a series of hypotheses that we use to try to make sense of that evidence. The object of science is to disprove these hypotheses, not to prove them. Evolution hasn't been disproved yet. True and false are terms reserved for boolean operations. The last attribute of an argument is whether it conforms to Occam's razor. Where you have two competing arguments, the simplest has always been shown to be correct. The simplest argument is the one that incorporates all the evidence at face value without having to invent anything to bolster its claim. In this instance the theory of evolution, even though it is complex, takes into account all of the evidence and is the simplest explanation. It doesn't require the sophistic addition of a deity with untestable supernatural powers. Good question: star for you.

Answer 3

Lets put one thing straight first.
PURE Science and PURE Religion do not contradict each other
Evolution is a Scientific THEORY it is NOT Pure Science.
God has Created Rules and follows them.
God is Logical he does not contradict himself.
There is only ONE True Religion.

Evolution is a theory that all living creatures evolved from some a common evolutionary ancestor.
Evolution also states that this creature evolved from rocks and rain. the reverse steps are
animals and plants - single celled organism - prehistoric cell and mitocondria and chloroplasts - ooze that contains building blocks of life - rocks and acid rain - lava and gases from volcanoes.
that is what unpure-science claims you evolved from
Evolutionary Theory also is missing too many pieces to make a detailed map or picture. like making a puzzle with only 0.1% to 1% of the pieces. doesn't work period.

and since religion gives the only other alternative i'll have to go with the belief that we ARE created by God.
after all how does a quatinary biological programing language (DNA) that works actually come into existance by accident.
there is too much order in the universe for it to have just happened.

Answer 4

Yes I firmly do..And all the laws of Physics..Although, if I didn't maybe I'd finally get to light candles under water, or float away...

I had a friend back in high school, and we went to the Museum of Natural History here in NY. We got the evolution exhibit and she wouldn't go in stating " I'm Christian and believe God created everything". I got upset, since if that was the case, why did she accompany me to a MUSEUM?! So I dragged her along with me. I don't mind her believing such things, and we're still good friends, but I wanted her to see the other side of the argument first, and then decide what she believes....Oh, and that intelligent design stuff is just as stupid.

Answer 5

You're right about apples and oranges. Relativism is not valid if one idea is quantifiably more true than the other. Those who accept evolution never ask people to 'choose' between it and God. Many who believe in God (and have a vested interest in others doing so) oblige people to choose between the two of them.

It's very very sad, but it's been overwhelmingly successful in the USA. I'm happy that the law of nature doesn't bend to public opinion in the USA.

Answer 6

I believe that the existence of evolution is self evident, in that species evolve over the course of several generations to adapt to environmental changes. The existence of creation is self evident as well, for without an original creative force, how could everything simply have come into being by itself?

Answer 7

I do not believe in Newtonian Physics. I believe it is a close approximation to reality, but it has been proved to contain errors. As a model, it is extremely useful.

I feel the same way about evolution. It is a close approximation to what is true, but we do not yet completely understand how it works.

In my mind, it is completely independent of the existence of God. One of three things can be true:

1. There is no God and evolution explains how we came to be. In this case, our being here is random.

2. There is a God who got things started & then did not interfere. Evolution explains how we came to be. In this case our being here is random.

3. There is a God who used evolution as a tool to allow us to be here.

I don't see any other realistic alternatives.

Answer 8

Belief in something means to be under the impression that it that the idea is true. However, the word's usage, especially relating to religion, often means to have faith in something.

People compare these two different uses of the word because they do not understand that the English language has some aspects about it that are unclear. They run out of logical arguments and try to take advantage of when someone words their response incorrectly. I can't blame them for trying to make their point any way possible, but sometimes, you have to look at the idea that's trying to be expressed, not only the way it is expressed.

Answer 9

evelotuion is evelotion and faith is faith cause u can belive in both because the book of genesis isnt true at all its just to explain a way how the person is made because lets see in example cain killed abel when he did he whent to another town a town has ppl when did dose ppl come from see evolution and genesis or god are diferent thing faith and laws of science

Answer 10

Religion and science need to be looked at separately. They each have value to society but how much value is subjective to the individual. I have seen the scientific studies and accept what I have seen but that doesn't make it my religion.