Opposition to evolution?

Question

I have recently started reading Richard Dawkins' work, and I find his books very thought provoking. I must say that I have always believed in evolution as opposed to religion, even whilst still in primary school. I am, however, incredibly suprised at how many religious people dismiss evolution as some kind of scientific propaganda, despite all the evidence. What are your thoughts on these views? How do you feel about evolution or religion?

Answer 1

Oh really. Believe in evolution as opposed to religion. I'd say you are confused. Evolution is a study within biology, it's science. Not an opposing type of religion. Many people are religious and except evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive. That seems to be a problem with these extremest that insist that evolution is contrary to Christian principles. They believe science is a war with their religion. When indeed science has never and will never attempt to do anything to disprove Christianity or the existence of God.

Ica? Not everyone believes there is evil in the world. Evil is another concept conjured up by Christainlty. It helps keep the sheep in the flock. Yes, there are indeed bad people. Bad people that are religious as well.

Answer 2

Dawkins is an amazing man. I've read God Delusion and some papers. Many religions don't have a problem with biology and evolution. It seems that the Christian Fundamentalists do, though I cant tell you why. I am thinking it's some kind of paranoia. They respond with the idea of Intelligent Design which Dawkins rips to shreds. There is an interesting movie called a A Flock of Dodo's, in which interviews are conducted with both Biologists and pro-Intelligent Design people (the same groups as a lot of fundamentalists). It attempts to keep an unbiased approach to the whole thing.

Answer 3

I have never found my profession as a molecular biologist to have any impact on my views about religion, the two are independent.
I find Dawkins, & Trivers interesting but not the best writers in the field of sociobiology. I prefer Trivers & EO Wilson to Dawkin. Melvin Konner wrote 'Why the Reckless Survive' & his best 'The Tangled Wing' has just been reedited in 2003. Another person with provocative books is Jared Diamond.

Writers covering evolutionary biology are worth looking into also. 'Beak of the Finch' won Jonathon Weiner a well deserved pulitzer for nonfiction. Anything written by David Quammen. He is an extraordinary science journalist. In botany Michael Pollan's 'Botany of Desire' covers coevolution of man and the domestic plants. I liked his tittle 'A Room of One's Own', a lovely tribute to Woolf's famous essay.

Answer 4

Evolution is not a "faith" to be believed in or not believed in, it's the central core of modern biology. It's science. One can THINK it is or is not true, but you've got to study EMIPIRICAL EVIDENCE to make such a judgement...at which point it's not belief any more. It's an opinion or conclusion based on observation....science.

And unless one's holy book describes in graphic and specific detail the exact mechanisms of a particular natural process or structure, well, then, no, science in no way contradicts or threatens any particular religious belief.

Classic examples in Christianity:
WE ARE AT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE, AND TO SUGGEST WE ARE NOT IS HERESY -- ....no....no, we're not at the center of anything. No, the stars do not revolve around the Earth on great glass spheres....but yet somehow the Church in Galileo's time imagined that the layout of the stars could threaten their dogma, or threaten people's faith in a benevolent and omnipotent God.

THE EARTH IS ONLY SIX THOUSAND YEARS OLD....um...again, no, not the case. In the mid 1980's I was attending a Baptist church. This church was the center of a small community, and was attended by families that I still to this day consider to be the finest people I know. Some of them go back in their association with my family for GENERATIONS.....but anyway, we had a "CREATIONIST" video sent to us to show the Youth Group. One of their 'supporting arguments' was that DR. KELVIN SAID THE SUN COULD NOT BE MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND YEARS OLD...well....what EXACTLY did Kelvin know about nuclear fusion? Not much. Kelvin was a brilliant man, but in his time (late 19th century) the sun was assumed to be made of coal, not hydrogen. Again, somehow Christianity survived.

Similarly, at least as I can tell, there is absolutely nothing in or about the Holy Bible (and I use those words with the utmost of reverence and respect for it, its Author, and its believers) that contradicts Darwin's notion of how species originate and adapt to the world around them. If anything, the gist of Genesis I is pretty much spot-on with current Western scientific consensus -- there was a void, then there was a world, then there were creatures, and then there was Man.

The only way the "war" between Science and Faith will ever be resolved is to realize there is no war. Science describes the ticking and clicking and moving of this amazing machine called the Universe, and with each new discovery we are awed by its infinite complexity and its elegance. If anything, it brings us more into wonder at the mastery of its Creator.

But Science cannot, nor would it ever even attempt to, explain away or negate the profoundness of religion or its teachings about Man, about our role in the universe and with one another. Religion and faith are so much bigger than that, and so much more important to Mankind.

My advice to those of faith....

...have faith.


Science cannot even touch the hem of the garment of God, much less challenge Him.

----EDIT SUMMORE-----THIS IS ADDED 10 OR SO HOURS LATER----

A great quote on Mr. Dawkins' site, and I regret I cannot remember its citation---

Without religion, good people will do good things, and evil people will do evil things. It takes religion to make good people do evil things.

Please, someone add the proper citation and/or correction. Thank you.

Answer 5

I do not oppose conspiracy theories precisely, it might be naive to expect no person in vigor has ever advised a lie, however the conspiracy idea that Creationists reward is simply essentially the most ridiculous ever obvious. Every unmarried scientist is out to get them, so all psychically come to the identical end, supplying an close to perfect reason behind evolution with a view to maintain folks clear of their 'religion'/willful lack of know-how and went approximately planting those false fossils? The conspiracy will get a hell of plenty extra tricky than that, however that is the regular jist of it. Scientists desire to uncover the tips. They serve no rationale rather than discovering tips. The proposal that each and every unmarried scientist goes to come to a decision to "bash theists" on behalf of atheism (even the religous ones, bizarrely) alternatively of learning technology is, really conveniently, moronic. If Creationists suppose technology opposes their 'religion' then that says plenty approximately how they relatively consider approximately that nonsense. Someone who real believed it might suppose technology might aid it. Perhaps there is a moderate spark of normal feel flaring up underneath all that indoctrination? Think how popular and revered Darwin is for his idea. Many components of it have been flawed or a minimum of unsuitable (gradualism, for instance) and he wasn't even the primary to recommend evolution. Despite that he is one of the revered minds and intellects the sector has ever obvious. Now, think if you happen to would overturn this idea. You would raise technology out of this lack of know-how and placed us on a brand new course toward the truly reality. Just suppose what number of awards you'll win, how much cash you'll have, how you would be immortalised in historical past books for ever, how you would be the daddy of cutting-edge technology (good, long run technology from our viewpoint, however you notice my factor). If the proof for Creationism is so blatant and the proof for evolution is all a lie, why hasn't one unmarried scientist ever been tempted to say this effortless prize? "If you are pronouncing, "But that might be retarded! The international might pass down the bathroom if we did that!" Guess what, for you, that is simply your morality gene speaking. Your objection is simply headquartered on a genetic disposition in the direction of social conduct, and may also be neglected with the correct genetic alterations." I even have genes for a center. Should I put off them simply seeing that they are able to be neglected with correct genetic alterations? No, that might be moronic. Like morality, it is imperative for existence. If we eliminated morality existence might be extemely darkish - a hell of plenty of affliction might arise. That is not my genes talkin, it is simpe function reality. It developed for a motive, you recognize. The reality it is in our genes is wholly beside the point. If you suppose your weird Creationist fantasy is wanted for morality then you're each ignorant and smug. The morality advised within the Bible is incredibly unsuitable besides; females are estate, being black/disabled is a punchment, you must kill youngsters for guffawing at bald folks? No, I do not suppose so. I a lot decide on the atheistic proposal of morality headquartered upon proper and flawed, no longer the hunt for gift.

Answer 6

Pure ignorance drives about 99% of those who don't accept evolution. There are people so ignorance to the science of evolution, their arguments against evolution are completely off base with reality. For example: If we evolved from mokeys, why are there still monkeys? Of course, we didn't evolve from monkeys, we share a common ancestor.

Answer 7

look...Im a full on Christian but im not one of those people that will jugde you..im completely open minded. now i do believe in evolution, however not the way he says it. Darwin says that evolution happened and it is possible because we have evidence, how ever I believe that god made us. God made everything and so through out time we began to change and evolution occurred. so he may be right but that doesnt mean there werent other parts to the story 2.

Answer 8

The scientific evidence behind evolution is too complex for non-scientists to understand, which makes the entire discussion pointless.

Answer 9

* Dearest ica chic:

how can anyone possibly think that a world so beautiful as this could be created by mere chance.
who said anything about chance? It's cause and effect.

Everyone believes that there is evil in this world.
have you interviewed EVERYONE???

If there is evil then there has to be good.
where is this written?


If there is good then there has to be moral law.
non-religious people can't be moral?


If there is moral law then there has to be a moral law maker.
man makes his own laws. then he creates a god to control people.

Who is this moral law maker?
We are.

Answer 10

It seems to me that people who hold onto fundamentalist religious ideas suffer from terminal stupidity. It's like they have intellectual rabies. Sure, education is the countermeasure but like with actual rabies, the vaccine must be applied early or the disease will already be too well established to cure. Many fundies are too far gone and will die stupid.

Harsh words I know, but I've been following the lies and underhanded tactics of these "loving Christians" for far too long to be remotely charitable towards them. That, and I spent too long reading quotes from http://www.fstdt.com/ . It's put me in quite a foul mood.

Any argument against evolution is almost guaranteed to be an argument based in ignorance or at least, misinformation. It is the very best, and most proved theory we have to describe the fact that life has changed over long periods of time and continues to change.

On Dawkins, I haven't heard any statement attributed to him that I disagree with. You might also like PZ Myers. Check out his blog on Scienceblogs.com

Edit: Just thought I'd add a little something about the "morality needs religion" farce... Let's apply a little evolution to morality...

Once upon a time, two societies of ancient apes lived in a valley. One society had inherited traits that disposed them towards cooperative behavior. Behavior that threatened the cohesiveness of the group was not tolerated. Sure, they squabbled and chased each other and had fits, that was okay, but when one member upset the others by being too violent or trying to kill rivals, the group chased him out. Or when another hoarded resources and wouldn't share, the others refused to be social with him until he relented. Through natural selection, positive group behaviors were reinforced. This enhanced the group's survival. They worked together to collect food and watch for predators.

Across the valley from them lived a group in a constant state of anarchy. They were not predisposed to cooperative behavior. Violent individuals ran rampant and kept everybody on edge. A thief always stole the food from others and never went gathering for himself. Because their behavior lacked cooperation, they were easy targets for predators, and when food was scarce, the food thief got fat off the finds of others, who starved and died, and with nobody to steal from, the food thief also died.

One group went extinct. The other survived to pass their cooperative behavior on to their offspring. Over millions of generations, some of their descendants continued to live in social groups. The naturally selected cooperative behaviors allowed the chimpanzees to coordinate hunts, the bonobos to settle disputes with sex, and humans to give this evolved behavior fancy names like ethics and morality.

Sure, this is a just so story I made up, but I wanted to point out that evolution works on every aspect of biology, including behavior. Humans are social animals, so of course we evolved social behaviors and social awareness: things like cooperation and compromise, empathy and sympathy. Societies formalize these behaviors into rules and laws. Again, all with the intent of preserving the peace which is key to survival. Bees, ants, wolves, meerkats, etc don't live in societies with rules, accepted behaviors, and punishments for wrongdoings because the beegod, antgod, wolfgod, or meercatgod dropped a stone tablet of "thou shalt nots" on them. They evolved that way because being good to the neighbors/relatives was a successful survival strategy.