Evolution?

Question

Do you believe in evolution? Why or why not?

And also, what religion do you follow?

Just wondering...

Answer 1

No, I don't hold to evolutionary teachings. Mainly, because they defy so much of what we know about science and the laws that govern it.

Intelligent design makes a lot more sense scientifically.

I've been a Christian for 15 years...but I've never believed evolution ever made any sense.

Answer 2

I believe that evolution is true. I believe this because scientists have collected and displayed fossils that indicate gradual change. For instance, there are places where old layers of rock contain fossils of animals and above that is newer rock with slightly different animals, indicating evolution. In addition, it makes sense because of the similar anatomies of different organisms. For instance, all mammals have the same types of arm bones, even though some mammals fly and others swim. This is no coincidence. Rather, all mammals must have evolved from an ancestor with these arm bones.
Furthermore, evolution also includes microevolution, which means change in gene concentrations within a population. (In other words, for example, if a population of plants started growing a higher average height because of their DNA, that would qualitfy as microevolution.) This phenomenon has been observed.
In addition, evolution makes sense to me because of abiogenesis, the process by which life was formed. This concept was supported by the Urey-Miller experiment. (If you don't know about this experiment, just look it up on wikipedia.)

Another reason why I believe in evolution is that the other explanations don't make sense to me. First of all, creationism often uses the Bible to support it. The only problem is that the Bible is to be taken on faith. Science is based on evidence, observations, and calculations: the exact opposite. In addition, creationism deals with a supernatural entity, God. Science, by definition, deals with observable characteristics of the natural world. Also, both creationism and intelligent design involve the intervention of a highly complex being that had the power to affect speciation. However, the arguments used against evolution involve the idea that such complexity could not develop itself in a few billion years. That's hypocritical if ID and creationism require a belief in a highly complex entity capable of influencing speciation that existed at the beginning of the universe.

Please note that just because I say that I believe in evolution, I do not mean that we have all the answers right now. Rather, scientists are still collecting information, so there's more to be learned. Decades from now, we will have a much clearer understanding of how evolution occured.

By the way, I'm Jewish. If you want to know my exact denomination, I'm a Conservative Jew. (If you don't want to know, that's still my religion.) However, although I'm a member of this religious group, I don't exactly believe in all of my religions teachings/beliefs.

Answer 3

Belief implies there is no evidence for something. Not the case for evolution. The theory of evolution is one of the best (if not the best) supported theories in all of science as provided for by the evidence.

The theory of evolution relies on the fact that organisms can reproduce, that mutations occur, and that natural selection acts on these mutations and can cause speciation, all of which are very well documented, both in the lab and the real world.

And there is the process of evolution, which, by definition, is just a change in a population over a long enough period of time. Again, no belief is required, because the evidence is staggering.

Answer 4

Dear one, evolution really isn't a part of a 'belief' system like a religion. By now, over 150 years since Charles Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' was published, reputable scientists pretty well know its good points and its 'flaws.' And science in this regard hasn't been static--research goes on. And so does evolution. The problem for some folks is that they seem not to realize that evolution in most cases isn't a speed-demon. And that it crosses the spectrum of the species and not only human.

Answer 5

What I reject about evolution is also rejected by many other evolutionists or scientists. My position has nothing to do with religion. It is related to what should be good science. Here are the two main claims that I reject.

Claim 1- There are only a few missing transitional links and micro evolution is the same thing as macro evolution.

These are myths. Paleontologists got frustrated because they could not find the gradual change in fossils that was predicted by gradualism in evolution. The generally accepted theory in evolution is now punctuated equilibrium. The mechanisms of evolution act differently within species than for creating new species. The "gradual change" between species occur so fast (at a geological scale) that we have little record of it. So, in that sense, we have a lot of missing transitional links. See http://www.powells.com/authors/gould.html

Claim 2- The theory of evolution can in principle be reduced to the known laws of elementary particle physics (in the standard model) and any form of intelligent design view on evolution is only acceptable in the religious domain.

This is not really a claim that we hear often, but it is implicit behind the thinking of some evolutionists. When you ask some of them, they support it. It is wrong.

It is important to understand that a reduction is a mathematical statement. For example, the reduction of temperature to kinetic energy per particle (and the associated derivation of macroscopic laws) is a mathematical statement. As for any other mathematical statement, a reduction cannot be accepted without a proof. A reduction without a proof, a greedy reduction, arbitrarily restricts the possible interpretations and future developments of the reduced theory.

The common mistake is to confuse the observed fact that a complex system is built from known basic constituents with a reduction. This vague relationship between a system and its constituents, including its use to explain some aspects of the laws for the system, is important, but it is not as strict and significant as a reduction, which would explain the totality of the laws. It is important to make this clear distinction.

The more the theory is close to practical life or rapidly unfolding, the more this becomes relevant. It is somehow relevant in the case of evolution. If the reduction was proved, it would establish that there is no more intelligence behind the known mechanisms of evolution than what we can find in the standard model of physics. An intelligent design interpretation is the opposite of this reduction. It is acceptable within the range of science because this reduction is not proved. Even if it was proved (for the known mechanisms of evolution), it would not say anything about mechanisms that have not yet been observed, but that's obvious and is not so significant. The point here is that it has not been proved for the known mechanisms.

There are still plenty of room for an intelligent design interpretation in science. The complexity of the evolution process is an evidence for such an interpretation. Of course, it is not a proof. This is the kind of things that we cannot prove in science. However, this interpretation might eventually be further corroborated by the discovery of new mechanisms at some fundamental level that would provide some new light on the known mechanisms. None of this would be true or possible if the reduction was proved, but it is not proved.

I especially reject this kind of greedy reduction in the fields of sociology, psychology, health, economics, etc, not particularly in the case of evolution. This may answer your question with regard to my motivation. If we accept bad science somewhere, it will spread everywhere. The consequence is bad: an arbitrary and unsupported restriction on the possible interpretations of science which may have negative effects on our direction of research. It may also create an unnecessary conflict between religion and science as paths toward truth, but that is not my main concern.

Answer 6

OK, one Christian's perspective.

The Bible teaches us that we are a special creation of God, and that for reasons that certainly escape me, He cares about us.

While some folks may take the creation stories in Genesis to be a step-by-step literal description of how God made us, I believe that the stories are allegory, designed to teach us the lesson noted above.

Let's face it, that list of "begats" would get very long if we needed to go back to "and Paramecium 84729 begat Paramecium 84730, who then divided into Paramecia 84731 and 84732..." and while I might (and do, actually) find the stories of how that cloud of dust coalesced into a solar system, that's rather tough stuff to explain to a bunch of early bronze age nomads.

I also have some difficulty with the "Intelligent Design" folks that have God intervening constantly to get us to where we are today. They seem to be worshiping a God that couldn't get it right the first time.

So, to finally get around to your actual question, yes, I believe that evolution is part of creation, and that it has followed the rules laid down by God at the moment of creation to bring us to where we are today.

And I think that is pretty awesome.

Answer 7

Evolution is a scientific theory - just like gravitation. Do you believe in gravitation?

There is plenty of evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution.

I am an atheist.

Answer 8

There are a few important things to know about biological 'evolution'...

* DNA does NOT evolve... it experiences mutations (random).

* Organisms DO NOT evolve. Organisms are essentially the 'proxies' for altered DNA, playing out the 'game' of survival/procreation in 'meat space' (NOT random). DNA whose proxy organisms manage to procreate get to move on to the next round... kind of like Jeopardy.

* It is the genetic makeup of POPULATIONS of organisms (the 'gene pool') that 'evolves' (changes, over time).

Science does not 'prove' things. 'Proof' is for mathematicians, coin collectors and distillers of alcoholic beverages. Proof in science is applicable only in the 'negative' sense... i.e., hypotheses and theories must be 'falsifiable'. When scientists do experiments (to validate 'predicted' results), they are NOT trying to 'prove' they are RIGHT... they are trying to FIND OUT if they're WRONG. NOT being wrong simply builds confidence that one is on the right track... it 'proves' nothing.

Evolution is not a matter of 'belief'. I keep reading in here that "... evolution is just a theory... not a fact." That, as it turns out, is true... although the word 'just' is inappropriate, and misleading... and it indicates that people just don't understand what a scientific theory is; they seem to think that a theory is just an 'idea'. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In science, 'theories' occupy a higher level of importance than mere 'facts'... theories EXPLAIN facts. The Theory of Evolution provides an explanatory framework for the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over time (evolves). The theory identifies two (2) mechanisms which account for such changes:

** Genetic drift... statistical variations in allele frequency within a local population, over time.

** Natural selection... the non-random replication of randomly varying replicators.

There may be OTHER mechanisms in play which have not yet been identified and accounted for, and various scientists continue to quibble about that... but NONE of what I have described above is in dispute within the scientific community. Claims to the contrary by creationists are nothing more than a red herring, designed to bamboozle their scientifically-ignorant constituency... which is VERY easy to do. That's what happens when your 'trusted' sources are professional liars whose livlihood depends on keeping their 'flock' (sheeple) steeped in gullibility, self-delusion, ignorance and irrationality.
.

Answer 9

Do you "believe in" gravity? Or that the earth has an atmosphere? One doesn't "believe in" FACTS. They simply *are* facts, and evolution is no different. The proof of it **abounds** worldwide.

My religion? SENSIBLE Christian. Not to be confused with the loony, deluded, and bigoted PSEUDO Christians of the "Religious" Radical Right -- the RRR Cult. MOST actual Christians don't question or attempt to deny the very obvious process of evolution.

Answer 10

Yes, I do. It's a scientific paradigm, no one who has researched it (without being funded by a religious group) disagrees with it. I'm not a scientist, I'm a history major, and I'm going to have to trust them on this one. I think it only refutes the idea of God if you're a fundy who takes the Bible literally, which is why they're so opposed to it.

Presbytarian

Answer 11

Do you believe in atomic energy or electricity? Just wondering...

Church of the Sub Genius