Thinking that dp is crazy or stupid?

[hotCheeseBURNS]

He doesn't "believe" in evolution.

He's not well educated, having left school before doing his GCSEs, and he doesn't read. But still... I thought that it was only a few mental fundamentalist religious types who believed in creationism? Am I wrong?

I've always thought it was just ignorance (of science in general) on his part but he's disturbingly closed off to the whole concept...

natural selection and evolution are not the same thing. the first makes sense, and can be seen in action. the second is a theory to explain observed phenomenon. its as good a theory as any other, but, simply put, the numbers dont add up. Look at genetics, and how beautifully it all works, and it is difficult to understand how completely random changes brought about such perfection, whilst continuing to produce fertile offspring.
the example of th emonkey bashing away at a typewriter and purely by chance typing up the complete works of shakespeare 37 times is an analogy that works well. evolution, when looked at from the point of view of pure mathematics, is a hard theory to accept.

going back a bit further, what about matter? where did that come from? basic school science tells us that matter can neither be created, nor destroyed, so where did that come from?

i dont believe in evolution. its not a fact, just a theory. and the reason i dont belive in it, is because of the science i have studied at school, and university.

"Look at genetics, and how beautifully it all works, and it is difficult to understand how completely random changes brought about such perfection"

It doesn't work perfectly though, in any way. Frequent mistakes, mutations, accidents, ommissions. One of the great arguments against design is that an omnipotent being would have done a much better job of it...

yes, i've heard that argument too. I'm not argueing for creationism, just against evolution.
pure chance wouldnt have created any sort of systerm, let alone one that works as well as it does. . life alone, the existence of amoebas, is for want of a better word, a miracle, in its own right. without worrying about improving the design

Oh dear! Pure chance couldn't have created life as we know it, but that is not the theory of evolution (or any of them). The second part is survival of the fitest, the idea that life selects against some random combinations. Now some that die out might have been totally viable, but just unlucky. Others that survive might have been very lucky to do so (and then go extinct when a volcano explodes).

Exactly how evolution happens has lots of theories and tweeks. Some of the most bizzare sounding sometimes seem to be the ones that work in computer models. DNA is far more complex than was thought, and is not the only genetic material etc.

However understanding it all requires a lot of maths, just like the mathematical theory which explains why sometimes you are in a traffic jam on the M25 when there are no roadworks or accidents ahead. I don't understand all this, but trust those who are good at maths (yes this is where my "faith" in evolution comes in).

However I have huge problems with people who seem to think you have to choose between "intelligent design" and "evolution". People who believe in intelligent design also believe in evolution, just also that maybe there is a God who decides which of all the possible random routes life goes down.

I also know very educated creationists (probably more educated than most evolutionists); even though I find their beliefs bizarre. (There is a book out claiming that Dinosaurs were Dragons.)

I don't think this would be a deal breaker in a marriage, although you might enjoy watching some DVDs or something to try to understand more where you are both coming from.

Evolution is not just a theory - it's an observable process. It can be seen in populations with a short life cycle, ie insects and viruses.

Exactly. Evolution can be shown to be working, it's Natural Selection that actually relies on more theory; no one outside the most fundamental of religions still argues against evolution!

"pure chance wouldnt have created any sort of systerm, let alone one that works as well as it does. . life alone, the existence of amoebas, is for want of a better word, a miracle, in its own right. without worrying about improving the design"

This is ridiculous. Pure chance can create whatever, its human conciousness that sees ans "system" at work. Its also an incredible arrogant viewpoint, oh what are the chances of everything coming together to create life as we know it that turned out to be wonderful us? Well if one thing was different we might have silicon based life-forms, or intelligent beings who live underwater, or anything else. Its pure arrogance that assumes we are so miraculous and perfect that we must have been designed and created, instead of the notion that anything could have happened and we are just what turned up!

"its not a fact, just a theory. and the reason i dont belive in it, is because of the science i have studied at school, and university."

I find it hard to believe that anyone who doesn't understand what a scientific theory is actually studied any degree level science. Do you refer to gravity being "just a theory" as well, on the grounds that we have "the theory of gravity"?

Ah, but gravity works so neatly! It's almost....... too quiet..........

I'm an evolutionary biologist (and an atheist)and I spend my time testing hypotheses to determine the facts about evolution.

Evolution exists and there is scientific evidence for it. How and why evolution happens and how you go about actually testing it are the main questions that I, as a scientist, believe are the important questions.

Religious beliefs are less common among scientists than among non-scientists, but for many people (including evolutionary biologists) there is no contradiction between accepting evolution and believing in god.

One of the more fun arguments for evolution is the vagus nerve of the giraffe. The vagus nerve connects the brain to the throat and travels through the aortic loop (a loop of a main artery above the heart). In fish, it generally travels in a straight line. As amphibians, reptiles and then mammals evolved, the nerve kept running through that loop, but the path from the brain to the throat now has to run down to the heart first.

In humans, the nerve is more than twice as long as it would need to be if efficiently engineered. In giraffes, the vagus nerve is more than 15 feet long, typically, running from brain, down the neck, through the aortic loop (where it connects to nothing, of course), back up the neck, to the larynx. That's because giraffes evolved from fish and their embryos start off developing in the same way.

"I don't want to take away the 'magical' feeling of wonder at it all. "

That feeling is dwarfed by the feeling of wonder from even a little light reading around the subject - any aspect of it.

I'm slightly taken aback by the attitudes of many posters on this thread, who appear to think evolution (in any sense) is a matter of faith or opinion.

"Please don't jump to conclusions on what people 'appear' to think, as it rarely ends up being correct."

Quite so, and I apologise, since my post wasn't intended to be confrontational. I was expressing my personal experience. FWIW, my experience of science at school didn't convey to me the wonder that I have experienced by revisiting it as an adult.

VictorianIce, I think that in the teaching of evolutionary biology, for example, there is a place for discussing creationism and intelligent design (though this is really a theological topic). The philosophy of science is a good place to start with this kind of subject.

There is sound scientific evidence that conflicts with The Theory of Special Creation (the view of life's history from taking a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis)e.g. age of the earth, homology etc. A lot of this evidence is also consistent with Darwin's theory of descent with modification from a common ancestor. Discussing the different points of view from a scientific perspective is interesting and worth while IMO.

I've decided not to believe in gravity. Its ok though, because it would appear from the fact that I am not now floating in the air, that gravity has decided to keep believing in me.

I can't help thinking though that many people who don't believe in evolution really need to do a little bit more of it, perhaps evolving into a rational human being.

Faith and opinion has it's place in these kind of discussions because these are human ways of expressing yourself and trying to make sense of the world!

I don't believe in god (I do believe in good science) and spend my entire working life studying evolution - I have never lost the 'magical-ness' of it!

"I think that in the teaching of evolutionary biology, for example, there is a place for discussing creationism and intelligent design "

Unfortunately, that's what the nutters want. Because as you say, "There is sound scientific evidence that conflicts with The Theory of Special Creation" but teachers will be forced to pussy foot around that for fear of offending the nutters, and before you know where you are you're in Dover, Pennsylvania. All that happened in Dover was that the nutters wedged in a "well, there are of course different opinions" statement, intimidated teachers into pulling their punches for fear of "causing offence" and reduced the whole town to a laughing stock.

You can be sure that if a teacher points out all the reasons why young-earth creationism (to take a particularly ludicrous example) is wrong, some child is going to appear in the media the following day whining that their deeply held right to be stupid has been infringed on. It's the third rail, which when you step on you die. Creationism is the religion of nutters: no mainstream church holds to it, and belief in creationism immediately positions people on the lunatic fringe of the Abrahamic faiths. There is no debate, no opportunity to teach, just as opening up holocaust denial in a lesson on Germany 1942-45 won't challenge the insane opinions of a (not unrelated) group of nutters. People don't hold counter-factual opinions because they need to have the facts explained to them more clearly, they hold counter-factual opinions because they're beyond reasoning with.

tokyonambu, unfortunately you're post hits the nail on the head. It's one of the most frustrating and infuriating aspects of teaching evolution to students .

I really believe however that it is part of my job as a teacher of students that they see how powerful the evidence is for evolution and how the so-called evidence against it is spurious and can be completely discredited, purely from a scientific perspective.

Changing peoples' beliefs is extremely difficult. I just want my students to see the scientific facts and be able to take them on board and think about them in a reasonable way. That's all you can do.

One of the cleverest, best educated people I know is a staunch Catholic and a creationist. I may not agree with him but I absolutely respect his right to believe what he does.

It makes me when colleagues are forced to censor their teaching material so as not to 'offend' certain groups of people.

I'm lucky that I teach/do research in a country where there is still freedom to teach evolution without any limitations and most of the students are open-minded and interested in hearing the scientific viewpoint, though they may also hold religious beliefs.

Then you need some more friends atmy because you can't be that clever and be a full creationist. The Catholic Church has no problem with evolution.

atmywitssend, I agree that people have a right to believe what they want to as long as it doesn't restrict other people's ability to have access to information or express themselves.