Do you think it is illogical Not to believe in evolution?

Question

I do just because there is so much evidents.

Answer 1

There are two separate questions. First the issues of logic and evidence should be kept separate ... and second the question of whether evolution is "fact" or "theory" depends on what you mean by the word "evolution" (as people mean one of two things).

When people just say the word "evolution", this is a shorthand for either the *process* of evolution, or the *theory* of evolution.

The *process* of evolution is a fact. The *theory* of evolution is (obviously) a theory ... but a theory in the *scientific* meaning of the word 'theory', meaning a body of statements that *explains* a set of phenomena (not some completely unsubtantiated guess).

This is the point that confuses people when they argue over whether evolution is a "fact" or a "theory". It is *both* ... depending on what you mean by the word "evolution" ... and few people having this argument stop to ask each other which meaning of the word they are using.

The *process* of evolution just means "change in inherited traits over generations." That's it. (The more technical definition is "change in allele frequencies in a population", but that is just another way to say the same thing.) That *process* of evolution is an undeniable fact. We can see it in organisms in nature, we can induce it in the lab ... heck, if you breed cocker spaniels, or quarter horses, or champion orchids you are relying on "change in inherited traits over generations" ... they are relying on the process of evolution.

It is indeed illogical (in fact irrational) to deny that that process of evolution occurs. (Even creationists accept it ... although they try to use the term "microevolution" for that process to avoid conceding "evolution" outright ... but this is a bogus misuse of the word "microevolution" ... see my P.S. below.)

The *theory* of evolution is the explanation for (1) *how* that process of evolution occurs in nature (namely, natural selection); and (2) how that same process can explain all the species of organisms in the world in terms of common ancestry tracing all the way back to the first life forms.

It is in fact illogical to reject the theory of evolution if you don't understand the logic behind it (many creationists insist they *do* undertand the logic while simultaneously claiming it is illogical to them ... go figure!).

But the reason to *believe* evolution (or more correctly, "accept" it as the best alternative), is not logic ... but EVIDENCE. Science lives and dies not by sheer logic (as mathematics does), but by EVIDENCE. In the case of the theory of evolution, the evidence is in the DNA, in the genes, in the physical structures of all living organisms, including the extinct ones that we can find evidence of in the fossil record ... and that is just the tip of the iceberg as far as EVIDENCE.

But there is no point on even talking about evidence until you understand the *logic* of the theory first .. the unbelievably simple logic behind the theory of Natural Selection, and the simple explanations for how a species can *branch* into two or more species (which I'll not get into here, as this is already too long).

...

P.S. people who bring up the distinction between MICRO-evolution and MACRO-evolution usually have no idea what they're talking about. They are repeating the bad misunderstanding of these terms that creationist web sites love to spread ... in other words, 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' are legitimate science terms ... but they are equivalent to the words 'microgrowth' and 'macrogrowth' of organisms ... just a difference in focus in the way we *study* evolution ... not differences in *nature.* Just as microgrowth in a tree's cells causes macrogrowth in the tree itself ... microevolution within a species causes macroevolution of many species, genera, orders, families, etc. There is no "line" in nature that separates the *process* of microevolution from the *process* of macroevolution.

Sorry this got so long ... but most of my answer is just clearing up misinformation spread by creationists ... a great illustration of why creationists make the teaching of science three times harder than it should be. It is hard to teach something as simple and logical as evolution, when creationists spend *huge* amounts of energy trying to make it sound complicated, or misusing terms (like microevolution, macroevolution ... or even the word 'theory' Whenever you see someone trying to emphasize the 'theory' aspect of evolution, either by using the ridiculous phrase "just a theory", or by putting THEORY in all-caps ... run like heck. The fact that they apply this specifically to *evolution*, and not to all of science, shows that they don't understand *science itself*, much less enough about evolution to explain it to you.)

This is why I despise creationism ... it is exhausting to have to battle the *constant* barrage of misinformation that emanates from creationist leaders who have almost no understanding of science.

Answer 2

I don't know if I think it illogical not to accept the theory of evolution. It is, after all, only a theory.

But I do think it narrow-minded, bigoted, dogmatic, and outright idiotic to condemn a theory with so much scientific evidence and accept a theory for which there is little or none.

I do think it hypocritical to demand evidence of one theory opposing ones own, and condemning those who ask proof or ones own.

And I do think it's illogical to presume for the inability to prove one theory beyond question logically proves another theory. A => ~B and ~A => B are not equivalent.

One grows as long as one searches for answers. Growth is an indication of life.

Answer 3

matthew stewart < you have not evolved, nor adapted, your coloured skin anywhere is normal and USUAL skin reaction called sun tanning - pigmentation. it did not bring nothing new into your genome /besides the few skin cancer cells/

I think many people just do not like the idea "of being raised from apes" ...tragical tabloid miscomprehension of evolutionary theory.

btw it is illogical to believe in any PROVEN theory, you do not need to believe the fact, you can only deny or acknowledge it, right?
where there are proves, there is no need of believing.
I do not believe in evolution, because evolution is a fact. I agree with "theory" explaining this fact.

Answer 4

Evolution is happening all the time. Mutations occur in DNA and give rise to new genes. Other genes get rarer and are eventually bred out of the population.

Whether you believe we're all the result of evolution or are the creations of a higher being are irrelevant - no matter how we started out, we're evolving anyway.

Answer 5

Yes, it's illogical not to believe in evolution. Creationists lack proper education. They aren't able to discern for themselves. The "microevolution" crap is an excuse made up by Christians that fails miserably.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EyjufVuQZ48&mode=related&search=

Answer 6

Yes I do. There is plenty of evidence that the speculation of evolution is right -- albeit it is going to nonetheless be referred to as a thought as proofs and legislation simplest exist in arithmetic , you can not honestly PROVE evolution, simplest uncover so much proof that SUPPORTS it . Have a seem on Wikipidia , and you are going to see that each one arguments in opposition to Evolution were commonly disproved or observed invalid ( Like the better intelligence ) Everything is evolving , we all know plenty extra now than we did 2000 years in the past, but faith forces us ideologies obsolete , via the identical humans who believed in witches and fairies. Religion is instrument to manipulate humans, to deliver them underneath your vigor for his or her possess egocentric purpose. We have to use our brains -- after which we can all see how faith is one huge hoax . Unfortunately humans like to comply with - majority are blind sheep , and have no idea any bigger . They will kill for his or her faith , similar to hundreds of thousands killed for Hitler , they finally believed they're doing the correct factor.

Answer 7

Maybe God put the evidence there just to trick you....

I doubt it but maybe....okay I really doubt it but I woke up in a contrary mood today

Answer 8

Yes, MICRO (small scale) evolution exists. There is evidence that life forms, whether animal or plant, elvolve to a minor degree to adapt to their environment. The skin on my forearms has gradually darkened to resist sunburn as I spend a lot of time in the sun. I have evolved to fit my environment.

However, MACRO (alrge-scale) evolution to the degree that smaile evolved into fish, which learned to walk, which eventually evolved into monkey and then humans... is extremely flawed. If you have read the news[a[er in the last few weeks, you will know that new evidence has formed proving that the supposed chain of links that was being used can not connect in the weay that was thought. There are all kinds of hoiles and gaps in this theory. As it can neither be conclusively proved nor conclusively disproved, it is called a THEORY and not a LAW.

From Encarta:
"Theory, an assumption or system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure based on limited information or knowledge, devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena; abstract reasoning."

Thje key words there are ASSUMPTIONS and LIMITED KNOWLEDGE.

There is a reason why it is called the evolutionary theory and not the law of evolution.

Answer 9

There is overwhelming "evidents" that you are more ignorant than you are willing to believe.