What is it about the Theory of Evolution.....?

Question

What is it about Darwin's theory that engenders such violent reactions...verbal and otherwise? Creationists spit venom, evolutionists refuse to admit that "theory" is just that, theory, and spit an equal amount of venom.
I ran across this question...(in biology)
"Why isn't evolution true?"
Additional Details
"I have to find reasons it isn't true then I have to prove the argument. For class."
I invite you all to take a look at the answers, before you answer this question......and no, I am not looking for approbation for my answer to it.

Don...this is not a class assignment...and I understand the theory quite well, thank you. In a nutshell, recent DNA evidence does suggest that mutation in the sequence is the genetic marker of the evolution of man, since chimpanzees show no extra chromosomal arrangement as is found in man. A divergence, I believe they call it, that is reposnible for preserving genetic differences within the species. Also, my use of "Darwin's Theory" was with a specific purpose in mind...which is why I left the definition of "theory" open to speculation as to its most proper use.

Answer 1

I think it's simple:

We evolutionists are, in the opinions of those we tend to anger, challenging the direct words of the creator of the universe, and looking down upon anyone who can believe that such a being even exists - when they think it is the most important thing in life to learn and follow.
At the very least, we're tacitly challenging the fitness of mind
of anyone who can buy that creation myth, which is only *so* far above the ones it itself looks down on.

People in nearly every society on Earth are raised monotheists one one brand or another, inheriting their religions rather than choosing them. It's easy for me to choose English as my mother tongue if I grew up English.

But people then invest themselves very deeply into the ideas they are given - of what it means to be good, of what the purpose of life is, or whether we can know it at all, or will there be ultimate justice, true death or not, etc. These are all beliefs that lay at the very core of us - we all want to know the answers to these things. So, to give up your answers, even store-bought brand-name answers, is a painful, kicking, screaming process, and people will instinctively get defensive and challenge you, if you challenge their evidence or lack thereof.

Theists believe that science is working to exclude their reality from the prevailing human model of reality. That would upset me too if I was a theist.

They react, and evolutionists jump to the conclusion that these people are generally blind or pig-headed, and get irate themselves, often to the detriment of their argument.

Stephen Jay Gould argued science and religion were non-overlapping - that the kinds of questions they seek to answer are entirely different. But theists think that a question like "how was the Earth formed," is a religious question instead of a scientific one, so for now, we have conflict.

Friction!...

Also, about theory -
We defend mere "theory" because theory is a word used by anti-evolutionists as a suggestion that the idea is somehow possibly wrong (and it no doubt needs more completion, as our expanding knowledge shows us, but they argue fundamentally wrong - and not even from a scientific standpoint), when statistically speaking, that's merely a mathematical possibility now (I mean something ridiculously low, like a number that is not zero, but close.
Theory of course is not supposed to ever graduate into some higher grade of knowledge - no matter how proven something is, it is still a theory, because it is still a set of related inferences.

Answer 2

Okay, I'll go easy on you since you're only thirteen. First of all, there's a big bang theory, and there's an evolution theory. The two are completely unrelated, except that the first is necessary for the second to occur. Can't hardly have things evolving if the universe never banged, right? Second, it's >possible< that some 'god', for lack of a better term, started everything off, and then just stepped aside to let things take their course. Possible, but not necessary. Just sayin'. Third, there is no proof that any god exists, nor is there any disproof, and there never will be any. The bible doesn't prove anything, except that a long time ago some guys wrote down some stuff and it got collected into one book that some people take as scripture. Lastly, science CAN be trusted. If you know the scientific method, it is self evident that it is infallible when properly used, and when improperly used, the error is soon discovered by rival scientists. However, no part of ANY scientific theory says "....and therefore, no god exists." Science deals only with the natural world, and the supernatural is left to religionists to argue about. One thing more - thanks SO much for caring about correct spelling and grammar. That's a very rare quality these days (just take a look at some of the posts in this site), and many of us do appreciate it.

Answer 3

Evolution is not "just a theory," if by "theory" you mean it in the following manner:

"I have a theory that the Yankees will win the world series."

A scientific theory is very different from a theory bandied about in a bar. Although this fact has been made very clear, many many times, creationists refuse to accept it, or ignore it, or don't understand it.

A theory, in scientific terms, is a framework used to describe events and predict new ones. It is in flux, in that new information that comes to light will require an update to the theory, but unless facts come to light that make the theory impossible, it grows stronger and more reliable over time. The theory of evolution explains the observable facts of evolution. There is no doubt about this, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.

So if you want to confuse a scientific theory with a plain English theory, which one of the following are you?

1. Ignorant of basic scientific terms.
2. Aware of these terms but a liar.
3. Not clever enough to tell the difference.

Cheers.

Answer 4

Evolution's critics point out, as if theory meant lack of knowledge, some kind of guess. Scientists, however, use the word theory in a very different sense than the general public does. Theories are the solid ground of science, that of which we are most certain. Few of us doubt the theory of gravity because it is "just a theory."

I don't spit venon, how can you argue or debate against faith and creationism, in general, since they're remarkably impervious to reason, so why bother..... It's just a waste of time.

Answer 5

Evolution is a gradual process that some people claim can be proven by replicating viruses. Every time a virus infects someone it becomes a new virus.

People are not descendants of monkeys. People evolved from the same ancestor monkeys and other primates evolved from. We are on the same evolutionary tree, but not from apes into humans.

Evolution does not cause the extinction of one organism in favor of another, sometimes these organisms coexist with each other. Homo sapiens at one time shared the earth with at least six other humanoid species. Today, only homo sapiens survive. Certain organisms seem selected for extinction over time. Dinosaurs did not die off over night, though they died out quickly, giving a chance of survival to mammals. Some people believe even communication evolved over time. I however believe man has always had the abillity to communicate with someone else and not with the grunting and crap you see on television. Civilization, religion, and conquest takes communication in order to maintain control and organization. Eventually humans evolved enough to take over the planet, mostly due to shear numbers. Lucky us ...

Creationists point to a religion that believes a girl was given a magic fruit from a magic tree, in a magic garden, by a talking snake which resulted in the ruination of humanity because their god had a transcendental breakdown. Their bible is written so terribly, it contradicts itself over and over from the Old Testament throught the New Testament. The authorship of the bible is not even proveable, yet christians insist their wacked out beliefs is prood of how the universe was created.

Evolutionists and other respected scientists and astronomers and common laymen who do not believe in revealed religions, preferring reason and common sense over 'faith', believe evolution has the better theory over creationism. Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism is based on faith according to a mthological fantasy which is laid exposed by its own absurd notions. The difference is also that evolutionist change their opinions whenever scientific evidence is discovered that points out a theory is true or false. So far nothing has shown evolution is false in theory or conception but there is great evidence indicating that people who believe in talking snakes are quite dellusional and do not make good witnesses.

Answer 6

Wy couldn't both coexist? If you take biblical teaching literally then there probably can't be compromise, but if you loosely interpret the Bible, then I don't see any reason why we adopt both view points.

If you believe that Adam and Eve were literally fully evolved humans for instance, then that goes counter to Evolution, but if you instead interpret Adam and Eve as the first of human ancestors that most closely resemble humans, then whichever it may be - Cro Magnon, Neanderthal ,etc. that's where evolved from. Maybe Eden is just this place on Earth that is now not existence because it's been exploited by our human ancestors and thus has been "banished" and had to go look for another place to live, where the land was not as fertile and needed hard labor (work the land) to yield food.

Answer 7

Evolution has been proven beyond a doubt by the DNA sequencing. We are 98% chimpanzee. They don't brag about it because the religious people would riot. Even though it is proven it is still a theory. Gravity is proven and it is still a theory too. They simply don't understand what the word "theory" means. And that's good, it's better for them.

Answer 8

Creationists are violently opposed to it for good reason. If evolution is "true," then the bible cannot be literally true. If the bible is not literally true, then it is obviously up to us to determine which parts to take as literally true and which to take as metaphorically true. Of course there is a lot of other proof that the bible cannot be literally true, but creationists have invested themselves in this battle.

I think everybody with a good understanding of science acknowledges that evolution is a theory. But people with a less strong grasp of science take the word "theory" to be in opposition with the word "fact." Of course evolution is a "theory." Just like gravity, heliocentrism, atomic theory, or any other ordered conglomeration of facts. People will latch on to the word "theory" out of ignorance, thinking that this shows that evolution is not "yet" fact. A fact is a single observation (such that given the atmospheric pressure at the earth's surface, water will freeze at 0 C.) Even if we saw one species change in to another species, this fact would not be enough to make the "theory" of evolution a fact, although it would provide more evidence in favor of the theory. The theory makes general claims about the laws that govern all organisms.

A theory is an ordered grouping of facts. It is the facts themselves which we are able to observe and call facts and make in to a theory. A theory cannot ever be conclusively proven, it can only be supported or falsified (if the predictions it makes turn out to be regularly false, or the "facts" supporting it turn out to have been wrong.) But we do not see this as any reason to jettison any of our other theories (like germ theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory)

Do some people invest as much of a dogmatic belief in evolution as fundamentalists do in religion? Undoubtedly. But even people who have a sober and serious interest in finding out the truth should object to the way the term "theory" is abused in this debate. At the end of the day, I think you will find that while there may be dogmatism in some people on both sides, the vast majority of dogmatics are on the creationist side.

oceanane... : Actually it is possible to prove a negative. This is what scientific progress rests on, according to the most popular (among scientists) philosopher of science, Karl Popper. In fact, when it comes to theories, it is ONLY negatives that can be proven. This is why theory is at a different level than fact. No matter how much evidence you obtain, you will never be able to conclusively prove that microorganisms cause disease. You will only be able to conclusively prove that they don't (if in fact they do not.) Additionally whether Darwin "recanted" at his death bed or not is utterly irrelevant to discussions of the truth of his theory. The truth of falsity of evolution does not depend on what words Darwin uttered. If Newton had come out later and said gravity does not exist, that would not make it so. In fact this is a popular myth among creationists. The fact that some people seem to find it to be evidence against evolutionary theory only shows what a weak grasp on science they have.

Finally, your own view is that order needs to be accounted for. (I realize this is your personal opinion, but this is the philosophy section, where opinions come to be analyzed.) If it is true that order needs to be explained, what could explain it? More order? This is the solution you propose with your divine intelligence. But it is obvious that if you think order needs to be explained, an ordered being (which an intelligence would be) would itself have to be explained.

Answer 9

I don't think one can definitively prove evolution to be false. It is said that it is impossible to prove a negative.However, there are many discrepancies in the fossil records, and it is now believed that CroMagnon and Neanderthal were contemporaries. The fabled missing link has never been "found" and each new discovery only engenders more questions. I have read that Darwin himself disavowed his theory before he died. (Truth or urban myth- I don't know). My personal theory- which I realize doesn't help you - is that some divine intelligence with a plan fired a cosmic cue ball into the primordial ooze to set things in motion. Everything in the universe is too mathematical and precise to be totally random.

Answer 10

for the Creationishiphs that "theory" wich has very strong scientific credentials in its favors is guilty for the demolition of their spirtual supremacy and pephaps for the end of their theocratic dreams....