So? If one believes that evolution happened, what difference will it make in your life or mine?

Answer 1

After years of thought-
If evolution is the case, then that would mean that we are mere animals NOT created in God's image. It would mean that the Bible is wrong & that "God" is a figment of our imagination. It would mean, survival of the fittest & that might makes right (which is still the case, even with God-um the mightiest). It would mean that there is no need to keep morals, seeing that morality comes from God. It would mean that human life is not as valuable, seeing that it is as valuable as a dogs, amoebas, ants, deer. Because of this lack of value, it would mean that we could degrade our bodies however we see fit, or that abortion/euthenasia, etc...are acceptable.
IF one decided to come up with a "code of morality" than it could only be enforced through the sword.
However, seeing God does exist, then we are accountable to him. That serves as a great check in the lives of humanity (even to "atheists").

Answer 2

The following argument may have been put forth by a famous historical person. However, I didn't pilfer it from that person:

The point really is, if someone lost their faith in the Bible and became a believer in evolution, what would it gain them? Eternal life, better health, more hope, more happiness? No, it would gain them exactly Zeeeeeeeeeeeroooooooooooo!

If however an evolutionist became a Christian, what would he gain? If Christians are right, eternal life when God's kingdom is installed very soon. Now, it would give them hope, make them happier, and being happier might affect their mental and physical health!

The difference is then life or death. If you argue that the Christian might be wrong, then what negative result will that have? None!

If the evolutionist is wrong, he'll die unnecessarily.

Answer 3

Non acceptance of science isn't on it's own a problem. But it is a symptom. When someone rejects evolution based on ignorance, it is a symptom that the person hasn't been taught properly or hasn't been exposed to enough science. If a person has the science and still rejects it, it is a symptom of a brainwashing.

In both cases they can be dangerous.

Answer 4

Aren't you even a little curious? But that isn't the big thing. If evolution wasn't true, there could be no research using model organisms. Science in the medical area would have moved much slower and you wouldn't live as long.

Answer 5

My believing that earth revolvs around the sun doesn't make any difference either, but does that mean I should start saying the opposit?

Hiding ones head in the sand doesn'tmake the hunter vanish.

Answer 6

It will just mean that you understand the world a lot better ... the world will make more sense.

For example, every year when you go get a flu shot ... you will know *why*.

Let me give a much bigger example. There is a recent lawsuit against the Texas Board of Education about an environmental textbook (not a biology textbook) that was rejected because of lobbying by conservative groups. One of the things they objected to was any mention of the age of the earth as older than 6,000 years old.

How can we have an informed discussion about long-term climate effects (like the pros and cons of global warming), if we can't look at climate change in geological terms? How can we look at evidence of climate 10,000 or 20,000 or 50,000 years ago, if our school textbooks are teaching that the earth itself is only 6,000 years old?!

In other words, the amount of denial of simple scientific facts (like the age of the earth) needed to maintain a hard-line denial of evolution, is *damaging* our ability to discuss things rationally. In a democracy, that is disastrous!

But as for you personally ... it's more about your ability to weigh evidence, and to know who to trust. To maintain a belief *against* evolution, you need to develop a complete and utter mistrust of scientists as being AS A COMMUNITY, both stupid and dishonest ... that tens of thousands of scientists have conspired to pull a hoax on the general public! This leaves you vulnerable to believing politicians and religious leaders over scientists ON MATTERS OF SCIENCE.

As a citizen in a democracy, you need to be able to weigh questions like "Are scientists lying when they are saying that smoking is bad for me?" "Are scientists lying when they they are warning about global warming?", "Is this politician lying when he says that Iraq is buying uranium from Niger?" "Is this politician lying when he says that these white rods are evidence that Iraq is building weapons of mass destruction?" ... etc. All of this is related to whether you decide, as a life choice, to lose the ability to weigh evidence honestly, and to evaluate who is giving you that evidence.

That's why this political debate about evolution (which is not a debate among scientists) is absolutely *huge*. It is not just about evolution. It is about how laypeople learn how to evaluate evidence and who to trust ON MATTERS OF SCIENCE.

(Sorry for the long answer .. it was a good question.)

Answer 7

None. I believe in God And Evolution. That's why I never get Best Answers here!!

Answer 8

If you're speaking of micro-evolution than it has no effect on my life (I can't speak for yours). Micro-evolution is a no brainer. Changes occur within species.

However, you have to take a blind leap of faith to apply the principles of micro-evolution to come up with any theory of macro-evolution (i.e. changes across species). You cannot simply apply micro-evolution principles to macro-evolution when there is no evidence for a "molecules to man" evolution having occured.

So what difference does it make? The difference, to answer your question, is that to assume a macro-evolutionary belief, a person places him/herself on equal intellectual ground with the creationist. Both require a blind leap of faith.

Answer 9

Only the difference of recognizing the difference between myth and proved fact. The ability to know the difference between faith and knowledge. The understanding of what it is that scripture actually says about who we are.

Answer 10

We will have to work harder to fight bacteria, as they are evolving to be resistant to our anti-septics.

We will likely not find a cure for AIDS or other viruses that evolve rapidly.

We will see the average height of humans continue to increase (as we already do).

Lactose intolerance will likely be eliminated inside of a few more generations.

Just to give a few examples.