The only reason why people do not believe that the process of evolution is 'real' and adaptation and survival of the fittest is still considered as 'theory' is because of our extremely short life spans, resulting in terrifyingly fickle attention spans...
Concerned about the source of pixels we fail to realize the bigger picture made up of pixels... or something like that.
Is this something we can agree on?
2007-10-16 22:18:23 · 21 answers · asked by Invisible_Flags 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I don't think this is why people have difficulty accepting Evolution.
Evolution challenges a particular view of God and our place in the universe. And it's very difficult for people who hold those views to give them up.
2007-10-16 22:35:24 · answer #1 · answered by Mr. Bad Day 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it's largely just due to laziness. People don't want to read something bigger than a magazine article. They don't want to have to learn big words like "genetic drift" and "allele frequency". This would also explain why all the arguments I ever hear against evolution are built on bogus misrepresentations of science ("I can't believe in God if I accept evolution", "Evolution is racist", "Evolution says monkies [sic] turn into humans", etc.)
But I do agree that a lot of the misunderstanding comes from the inability to think in terms of time scales that go well beyond the human lifespan. It's like trying to teach somebody that trees grow, and having the response of "Well I stared at it for 24 hours and I saw no change in height, so the tree must not be growing."
Dawkins gave a great analogy of this fallacy in "The Blind Watchmaker". We think, for example, that getting a Royal Flush in poker is amazing. But if we lived to be 500 years old on average, we would in fact see a several of these hands in our lifetime. Likewise, if we were beings who lived for a million years, we'd each probably win the lottery at least once. A LOT can happen a billion years.
2007-10-17 05:24:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
This is your theory on another theory, and in being such, it matters little what i agree with. The idea of proposing a solid theory of your own, is that you do some research and have a convincing argument. If you can attain those things, then there is some credibility to your theory regardless if anyone agrees.
The higher your education, the more pieces of paper you get, that all basically say, this person can come up with an original thought/theory, research it, argue it, and defend it.
2007-10-17 05:25:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This may not be the answer your looking for, so please try to bear with me.....
What is to be ex(plained) is laid out on a plain. In trying to explain to you about something to agree upon lies within the limitation of language and feedback. Therefore limits of language is somewhat linear and limited through our hearing. And through our seeing, your explaining of pixels is likened to perhaps....a piece or pieces of a puzzle....a particular point of view.....a piece of the truth.......
A creationist is LIKE someone believing life is something that is (made) a (construct) and something that is assembled together like a machine (from the outside in)
An evolutionist is LIKE someone believing life is something that (grows) evolves, like a plant, and/or animal (from the inside out)
Creation on the other hand....I think is combination of involution and evolution going on simultaneously consisting different or (seemingly separate entities) So...I suppose destruction is a part of the creation process or something like metamorphosis. I can understand when morals and/or (drama) conflict with the mystery of this process. It is difficult for some (western) religionists and some eastern as well to accept and deal with science which is on most part to do with prophecy. I'll stop there and leave that to the alchemists and astrologers etc.
Sometimes I feel that making a vain attempt to explain some of these matters always leads to a new trap. We never seem to be able to get out.... So...In order to get out of a trap, we set a new one......
Usually the agruement always seems to end up with the advocate and the judge being the same person.
This may be a be(lief) and/or wishful thinking on my part. In expressing these ideas is very difficult to do. It is beyond TIME and beyond SPACE.
Plus ca change
Plus c'est la meme chose
The more that things change
The more they stay the same
AGREE TO DISAGREE ?
I find all of it kinda weird.... amazing...and .....disenchanting.....
2007-10-17 11:17:12 · answer #4 · answered by what it is 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No I do not agree. In my opinion the reason why people who can not or will not accept evolution as factual; are those who are close-minded. They have been conditioned by their religious beliefs to never question their religion and certainly to never question god. They blindly believe in the story of Genesis and accept it as factual.
Also in my opinion they are incapable of accepting that we share a common ancestor with apes. They think that evolving from animals makes them less of a person and therefore will also reject evolution.
Edit:
Also I think that they focus too much on the word theory and use that as their excuse of why evolution is not factual.
2007-10-17 05:28:58 · answer #5 · answered by Imagine No Religion 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I would hope that if people lived longer they'd become wiser...but that's not necessarily the case. I certainly don't think not accepting proven scientific theories can be attributed to short attention spans! Rather, to fear of accepting truths which are outside of your comfort zone.
2007-10-18 01:25:59 · answer #6 · answered by kerriwyn13 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well that's definitely part of it. For the most part, though, it is due to strawmanning, misrepresentation, and outright lying by creationists. Many actually believe that scientists no longer endorse evolution! They are perfectly content with this tripe and never look for a conflicting viewpoint. They are willfully ignorant.
2007-10-17 05:25:29 · answer #7 · answered by Dashes 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nah, people just want to believe in fairy tales that grant them the ability to hope that what they believe is true. Evolution and indeed science in general is a cold, dispassionate mistress and grants no hope to those who understand it and accept it as truth. But it does grant the ability to increase ones understanding of the universe.
2007-10-17 05:31:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I disagree with that being my reason not to believe in evolution as a whole. Evolution creates to many questions and not enough answers. I do believe in psychological evolution as well as social evolution but it is impossible for me to swallow evolution as far as creation is concerned...
2007-10-17 23:30:52 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"believe" evolution? Evolution is a fact; it is to be understood and accepted, not "believed in".
The theory of evolution is a theory - just like gravity theory and atomic theory.
This will help clarify the distinction:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
2007-10-17 05:26:13 · answer #10 · answered by Dreamstuff Entity 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋