Why do people 'believe' in evolution (or not)? It's science. It's like saying "I believe in mathematics."

Question

I don't believe in evolution, because that's the wrong word. I never say I believe in the fundamental theorem of algebra, for example. I'd sound like an idiot. Because mathematics is just a science based on strong axioms (i.e. a+b=b+a is not a theorem).

What's the correct word that I should use when someone asks me? Evolution is a scientific theory backed up by evidence, just like all other science?

Just a note, a+b=b+a is not the fundamental theroem of algebra. It's just one of its axioms.

Answer 1

There IS a certain element of belief in it. This comes from the fact that some theories support and explain the facts but are not directly, empirically testable, for any number of reasons. For instance, in the case of evolution, the long timelines prevent empirical testing, so we look for less compelling proofs of the theory. M-theory / string theory in physics is another example. Many of the predictions of M theory regard regions of tightly curved space whose dimension is on the order of the so-called Planck length, which is marks the lower limit of physical measurability due to consequences of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Theories of sociology or politometrics are testable in reasonable time but involved stochastic (statistical) elements that prevent the exact determination of consequences.

This does not make any of the above theories invalid, but it does allow sufficient uncertainty to leak into them that they necessarily involve an element of incompletely justified academic confidence, if not outright belief.

Thomas Kuhn's book, "The Structure of Scientific Inquiry" shows just how much belief goes into science. That said, science's redemption is its general ability to connect theories to consequences with the fewest and least elaborate steps in between. Systems of pure belief generally involve many MANY more assusmptions and outside influences on the phenomenological world than should be necessary to explain what we see, most of which beg further explanation.

Answer 2

Evolution is defined as change over time. It can manifest over a population, over a genomic sequence or even how ideas come and go during the development of a culture.
Biological Evolution by any means (natural selection or others ) as a cientific discipline is one of the most backuped theories of alll history.
Once yo have detected a change over time in a specific system, then it is time to explain the cause of it (the best you can do without being very complicated), sometimes randomness explains change, sometimes it doesnt, so then the concept of natural selection wheigts as one of the most powerful and fascinating ideas to explain certain phenomena.
For example, you cant explain the aparition of AZT resistant HIV strains and theis mainteinance in patients undergoing antiviral therapy because they all mutated just by chance to that phenotype (because it is near 0 probability). It is more feasible tha a naturally ocurring AZT resistant variant in a low frecuency in a infected individual became more numerous respect to the "normal" population of virus, as the antiviral therapy started, just by mutation and selective pressure against the normal type. IF you want to convince others just dont base your ideas on non testeable domains (like supernatural or spiritual)
The virus world is the fastest system in wich you can apreciate the evolutionary forces. Actually we are evolving as a sum of populations, but as a much slower rate and in a incredibly impredecible way. Additional evidence can be seen in the fossil register, wich is real and you can see some examples how real evolution was, is and will be.

Answer 3

That question even got asked at the Republican presidential candidate debate last week. Unbelievable. Even more unbelievable, 3 of the candidates said they "don't believe in evolution."

The only thing we can all do is speak out and say "belief" is when we take something on faith without proof or evidence. When people ask me, I simply say evolution is not a belief system. It is based on evidence and facts.

This is another way relgious fundamentalism tries to discredit science: using their terms to try to describe something they don't (and don't want to) understand.

We all have to speak out when we hear this stuff face-to-face. Otherwise, the religionists continue to win.

Answer 4

they could't; while you evaluate it quite is a scientific fact they could the two settle for or reject it. as an occasion, no person is going around asserting they suspect or disbelieve in gravity. Edit: indoors fort: "Survival of the fittest" isn't the suitable way think of roughly evolution. Darwin himself did not use the word interior the 1st version of foundation of Species. What Darwin mentioned is that heritable adjustments bring about differential reproductive success. that is not around or tautologous. it quite is a prediction which would be, and has been, experimentally examined.

Answer 5

There is just as much evidence, or more, to prove evolution is wrong. Theory, would not be theory, if it was backed up by real evidence. It's still just theory, backed up by theory as it's own evidence. Christian science has been able to come up with proof that disproves evolution. Also, if it was fact, why wouldn't things still be changing like that now days, and if we evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys around today. Wouldn't they have evolved and not be here at all? You can go to Christianbooks.com and find books that talk about evolution. There is one entitled Evolution? Fact or Fiction. The name may not be that exactly. It has some interesting theories about the proof they present to us these days.

Answer 6

People used to believe that electron used to be suspended in a jelly-like goop around a proton nucleus in an atom. By the way there were no such thing as Neutrons either.

Science is constantly changing, and 99% of it is ultimately wrong. Heck, after 400 years, even Einstein proved the great Newton wrong!

Science is NOT anything like mathematics. We will always know that 2+2 = 4.

Answer 7

I absolutely agree with you and I mentioned exactly the same point in another question about "belieiveing in evolution". We scientists do not "believe" in scientific facts, but test hypothesis to know whether they are true. And this is what researcher have done with Darwin´s theory, which was proven to be (more or less) correct.
So, we don´t "believe" in evolution, we know that evolution happens and happened.

Answer 8

I have heard people say because it is just a "Theory"
Many people don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and a conspiracy theory.....

We all have no problem believing "in" the theory of gravity.. (I think..).

Answer 9

I answer by saying:

"I ACCEPT evolution based on the evidence presented."

Answer 10

i agree, the word believe implies emotion and weakness. just say i accept or recognize evolution. And other people don't accept it.