Evolution - trust but verify?

Question

55% of Americans don't believe in evolution.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

That doesn't bother me much, because I know that at least 55% of Americans are ignorant on most subjects, but they know enough to do their jobs and manage their own lives.

I'm more worried about the 45% who claim to believe in evolution. I wonder what percentage of them are just taking the word of authorities. How many of them have approached the subject with proper scientific scepticism? For instance, in high school biology, we were taught about carbon-14 dating, but when I asked why carbon-14 didn't decrease in the atmosphere, the teacher didn't know. (Answer: Cosmic rays continuously replenish it by converting nitrogen to C-14). Without that additional explanation, the whole theory of C-14 dating is nonsense. Evolution is sometimes taught more like religion than science.

The theory of evolution does not say women & blacks are less evolved than men. They are all the same species & so they're at exactly the same "stage" of evolution, although the theory does not attach value judgements to any species. Did Darwin himself say something about blacks & women? Please cite your source.

Answer 1

Apparently our schools don't have time to teach actual science as a way of thought, due to the number of other important subjects like "Heather Has Two Mommies" that have been forced into the schedule. Instead they just teach a series of facts without understanding. And you're right - that is more like religious teachings.

Kudos to you for having the perception to ask a logical question, and finding the answer as well. Many of the arguments against evolution are based on ignorance; but no theory is beyond question. Keep asking!

(Incidentally, Carbon-14 dating has relatively little to do with evolution, because the time scale over which it is useful is generally too short. It is, however, the most familiar example of radiodating, which is one method used to estimate the age of rocks.)

Answer 2

The Catholic Church does not take the stories of creation in the Bible literally. Catholics believe the book of Genesis tells religious truth and not necessarily historical fact.

One of the religious truths is that God created everything and declared all was good.

Catholics can believe in the theory of evolution. Or not. The Church does not require belief in evolution.

On August 12, 1950 Pope Pius XII said in his encyclical Humani generis:

The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

Here is the complete encyclical: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

The Church supports science in the discovery of God's creation. At this time, the theory of evolution is the most logical scientific explanation. However tomorrow someone may come up with a better idea.

As long as we believe that God started the whole thing, both the Bible and modern science can live in harmony.

With love in Christ.

Answer 3

Science does not hinge on whether any one person, science teacher or not, can answer a technically specific question. Regarding your example, it does not surprise me that a biology teacher (or even a professional biologist) is not an expert in atmospheric physics. And, as I am sure you know, atmospheric dispersion is a tougher question than the replacement issue, anyway.

However, that is all beside the point. I question whether those who do not believe in evolution are competent, especially as their lives impact others. I suspect that they voted overwhelmingly for George Bush, and that a higher proportion of them continue to support his Administration and its failed Iraq policy (in fact, I will bet the farm on the fact that those who do not believe in evolution also know less about the history and geo-politics of the Middle East [and every other place on earth] that do their pro-science counterparts).

Specifically regarding you own experience, there are significant differences in how your dilemma could be resolved compared to those who rely on a faith-based, non-empirical epistemology. There are numerous and voluminous independent sources that provide information on what is known about C-14, or evolution, or science in general.

An as a matter of information for the general reader, evolution is both fact and ‘scientific’ theory. The fact that species evolve from one form into another was well known, and generally accepted, even before Darwin. The ‘theory’ Darwin provided concerned the mechanism that drove the evolutionary process.

Further, every life science (including medical science) and every science with disciplines that link to biological science is meaningful only if the theory of evolution is correct. Without evolution, every life science collapses and the knowledge they provide is no different than Voodoo or the magic practiced by Witch Doctors.

Evolution is the most powerful general explanatory model (theory) in all of science. Physics has nothing like it. It is comparable to the unifying theory that physicists seek. If evolution is false, then everything we think that we know about life, nature, and the physical universe gets (at best) called into question, but more likely is wrong. This would destroy the integrity of the scientific method itself and leave us in the position of not only being ignorant of the world, but of having no objective means of ever learning about the processes that drive the known and knowable universe.

Answer 4

I don't let what anyone else believes bother me.
I have studied evolution intensely, and there is too much logic and evidence behind it to dispute it.
If others want to deny those facts, that is their problem.
If others want to use those facts in lame attempts to disprove God (God can't be proven, either), then that is also their problem.
I just worry about me, and that I have really looked at everything rationally.

Answer 5

I have to disagree for a number of reasons.
(1) First, we have to separate "human evolution" from "evolution" itself (Darwinian natural selection and genetic mutation). "Evolution" is observable - Tsetse flies will "evolve" in the course of a few thousand generations (whcih can be accomplished in a lab) to adapt to their surroundings (heat, cold, darkness, etc). It's observable in plants as well. Thus, anyone who doesn't "believe" in "evoluation" is simply irrational (unless you don't "believe in" your computer sitting in front of you, or in the food you eat... which is a whole other philosophic argument about reality that we have to ignore for these purposes). Human evolution, while a natural outgrowth of that process, is still misunderstood (for example, humans didn't "evolve" from monkeys, they evolved from a common ancestor of apes and humans...). Whether our "consciousness" and self awareness are unique in the world or just were the naturally selected positive traits from certain ape-like species, we can debate that forever.

(2) To answer your question more particularly, there is a difference between "scientific faith," and religious faith. Religion demands that you accept things that are not proveable, cannot be proved, and are accepted because they cannot be proved. They assume the answer. While certainly it's healthy to be skeptical of scientific answers (that, after all, is what the scientific method is all about), the difference is that there IS an answer, or explanation, or equasion, for the conclusions being taught. They are within reach and can be researched. There is evidence to support the conclusions. But humans simply do not have the time (nor do some of them have the aptitude) to research and comprehend the science behind the solutions. But just because we teach "shortcuts" so people can better understand the world around them doesn't mean that we're asking students to take these solutions "on faith."
How do we know that Pi is 3.14159265358...? We could spend one year with students and have them measure thousands of circles, and compare the diameter of its circle to its circumfrance (sometimes teachers do spend a day doing this), but there's no physical instrument an 11 year old could use to calculate Pi to even the few decimal places I have listed. So we have to say "see, you've measured it at a little more than three, and in math we estimate it to be 3.14, but there are sophisticated formulae and instruments to calculate it much more carefully". But we have to get on with math class (followed by social studies, followed by reading...) so we say "Pi is 3.14."
This can be true with theories extrapolated from observable data. How do we know the universe is billions of years old? Well, we don't, but the observable data show an expanding unverse that's been accellerating. Using observation (including the elongating of light waves, redshifting) we can use mathematics to see how long the universe has been doing this, and we can arive at an estimate. Can the average 12 year old calculate the degree of observable redshift and perform the calculus to determine rate of expansion? Simply, no. But he can understand that the universe is expanding, started out as gas, and continues to do so. Based upon these observations and our understanding of how the unverse is expanding and how gas cools, the universe is ____ billion years old.

So, to your point, ALL of science requires some degree of acceptance, not "faith," or "religion" simply because there's too much knowledge for one person to acquire during his finite life. Evolution is just one particular area that is questioned the most because it appears to be in direct contradiction to the Bible's "history" of the world and it's uncomforting for most "sentient" humans to believe that it was just luck that made them self-aware, and we're no different from other forms of life. This same debate occurred a few hundred years ago, when the heliocentric universe was first postulated. It seemed to contradict the "science" in the Bible, and it made people uncomfortable because Earth was no longer "special," it was just another body floating around. With the heliocentric unverse, we were fortunate enough to develop technology to directly observe how the planets moved and where the sun is in relation to us, and with something taking as long as Human evolution, we cannot do that (unless Einstein wasn't right and time travel becomes somehow possible).

So 45% of people don't "believe" in evolution. They accept that the majority of scientists have determined that the observable features of natural selection have occurred within the human species as well. They accept the fact that the scientific community is nearly unanimous in this understanding (regardless of whether scientists believe there is a "designer" who set everything into motion, or made slight changes, or who intervenes in the world here or there).

We simply cannot veryify every scientific fact. And falling on "God did it," is, sadly, much more destructive intellectual laziness.

Answer 6

Evolution is false. God will punish those who denie his hand in what has been created.

Get the facts here:

www.evolutiondeceit.com

Answer 7

If you read Darwins theory, Blacks and women are not as evolved as white men. (Trust me, It cannot be true.)

Answer 8

Good question.
Prepare for abuse from the faithful who resent any questions regarding the religion of evolution.

Answer 9

Evolution is so not true. Christians can prove that its not.