Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to wonder how people can not believe in Evolution .......

283 replies

cookielove · 19/02/2012 21:41

After a discussion at work which actually started about a childs' dress (day nursery) leading onto the duggars and then religion, it came clear to me that several of my work colleagues do not believe in evolution and not only that but also dinosaurs not existing Shock

Now i can understand the more religious people not believing as Evolution and adam and eve clash, but for those who were not religious how can you not believe in Evolution. Its proven.

I mean really how can people not believe in Evolution or dinosaurs.

I quote one of my work colleagues 'well there's lots of dinosaur toys so they must have been real' .... WTAF?

Please tell MN that you believe in Evolution, and dinosaurs ......

OP posts:
noblegiraffe · 21/02/2012 22:28

"Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin?only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons. "

catholic.com

For clarity's sake you understand. The difference between fallen nature and original sin is theological however given that the original post referred to original sin I think someone may be taking my rather flippant comment too seriously Hmm

noblegiraffe · 21/02/2012 22:31

Math, your rather long post bemoaning my sweeping statements and shaking your head at lack of history knowledge isn't really engaging with any arguments put forward is it?

If religious notions of good and evil are so important in formulating laws, why do Christians disagree today and historically on what those laws should be?

noblegiraffe · 21/02/2012 22:37

"empathy is not the same as reason, it is not rational; "

You don't need to actually experience what someone else feels to imagine what you would feel in a given situation and thus project those feelings onto someone else.

mathanxiety · 21/02/2012 23:38

That's a question that assumes no-one has the capacity to reason or be different in their reasoning even within a certain framework. If you like analogies, how about diversity in nature as an example of how even within the same species there can be subtle differences?

Imagination and projection are not rational.

Pornyissue · 21/02/2012 23:48

Didn't realise evolution had created some people with giant sticks up their arse.

OkayGrrl · 21/02/2012 23:51

I knew a boy who didn't believe dinosaurs existed I was shocked , we were both 12 at the time.

Lueji · 22/02/2012 00:36

Didn't realise evolution had created some people with giant sticks up their arse.

Evolution loves diversity and experimenting. :o

noblegiraffe · 22/02/2012 07:16

mathanxiety, if despite a supposed absolute morality (good and evil) presided over by an eternal God, Christians can come to very different conclusions about what is right and wrong and the (vast) majority opinion can change over time from one view to the opposing one (hardly subtle differences!), often coinciding with the non-religious inspired ethics of the day rather than being a morality obviously inspired by God then what is the difference between people who are supposedly guided by God in their decision making and those who aren't?

And why the hell are the religious allowed a privileged position in law-making to the extend that it is guaranteed seats in the Houses of Lords when a divine inspiration is so clearly lacking?

Lueji · 22/02/2012 08:22

Noblegirafe

Because in the uk the CoE is a state religion, created to reinforce the king's power. Nothing to do with god.

Unfortunately, often, people, and worse states and even the clergy, use religion to justify their actions.
Or are misguided.
In fact science can actually help religion in some aspects. Science has shown that "races" don't exist and that all humans have the same value.

GrimmaTheNome · 22/02/2012 08:49

I found an interesting piece (by a vicar) relating to the abolition of the slave trade (and other issues) here but I'll just snip one quote:

'When William Wilberforce tried to push through his first bill to abolish the Slave Trade in 1791 the Church of England bishops were unanimous ? unanimous - in opposing his bill in the House of Lords. '

Even Bishops do evolve their ethics, sometimes a step or two after society at large:

'During the February 2006 meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England, bishops voted unanimously to apologise to the descendants of slaves for the church's involvement in the slave trade.'

Better late than never?

noblegiraffe · 22/02/2012 09:18

Mathanxiety, I think your definition of reason is somewhat limited. Reasoned arguments can be based on personal experience. How do we reason our own existence? As Descartes says 'I think therefore I am'. You can certainly reason that someone else feels pain by observing your own response to pain stimulus and comparing it to others.

So personal morality can be reasoned and without resorting to a god. I don't believe in an absolute morality and therefore it is unsurprising to me that there seem to be shades of grey surrounding moral issues rather than clear cut answers as there should be if good and evil exist.

PopcornBiscuit · 22/02/2012 09:38

"clear cut answers as there should be if good and evil exist"

Why should there be clear cut answers? The thing about us humans is that we don't know it all, nor should we claim to.

noblegiraffe · 22/02/2012 09:51

But God is supposed to know it all and hold all the answers, no? If he does, then it seems clear that he's either not sharing or deliberately misleading. Which then makes it odd given that he's supposed to ultimately judge us on our actions!

Anyway, this is quite far removed from the evolution debate.

PopcornBiscuit · 22/02/2012 10:14

The things which matter are clear enough, I think - love God and your neighbour. What particular answers are you looking for?

garlicfrother · 22/02/2012 11:00

the religious allowed a privileged position in law-making to the extent that it is guaranteed seats in the House of Lords

Two months ago, giraffe, I would have agreed with you. But was vastly impressed by the Bishops standing up for decency and compassion against a government with so little of either. Alongside the 'expert Lords', they proved the value of a second House imo.

garlicfrother · 22/02/2012 11:01

Sorry, that wasn't really about evolution (well, until our govt implements the eradication of the economically inactive ...)

GrimmaTheNome · 22/02/2012 11:13

garlic - but the voting record of the Bishops is far from uniformly good.

If they didn't have automatic seats (which are allocated by seniority not any particular merit) then they would still individually still have as much right to be appointed/elected in whatever way we end up with when the House of Lords gets reformed as anyone else. If they have something valuable to contribute, that woud still be possible - just they'd get the position more fairly not by mere anachronistic, discriminatory privelige.

garlicfrother · 22/02/2012 11:15

I agree with your post above, Grimma, except that I doubt the existence of non-discriminatory privilege at present :(

GrimmaTheNome · 22/02/2012 11:18

sorry, bit tautological!

Lueji · 22/02/2012 11:20

The discussions about religion matter regarding why some people refuse to accept evolution, often because it seems to (some people claim that it) contradict the idea of god.

At its very core, Christianism has very good values in my opinion. Love and forgiveness, which go beyond the biological drive of standing by those we share genes with, or that simply reciprocate.

Lueji · 22/02/2012 11:24

Interestingly, evolution sheds some light into the constant conflicts of men and women.

It is not by chance that men are usually more physically aggressive, and stray more from the marital home.
Nor that men like to show their physical prowess whereas women try to be beautiful.

Nothing on the bible (that I know) justifies these differences.

garlicfrother · 22/02/2012 11:35

It is not by chance that men are usually more physically aggressive, and stray more from the marital home.

Sounds like you're buying into some evolutionary theories propounded by sexist Victorians.

Lueji · 22/02/2012 11:43

Not at all, garlicfrother.

But in all animal societies where males have to compete for females, they are larger and more aggressive.

In the same way, it pays from an evolutionary point of view for men to spread their genes as much as possible, because they invest less than women in their offspring. That's why men leave their children more easily than women.
Women do stray, but tend to stay with their mate and try to convince him that he is the father.

This is all recent research.

But, just because it can be understood from a biological point of view doesn't make it "right". Our society has evolved a little bit more than our biology, but we are still conditioned by biology.

noblegiraffe · 22/02/2012 12:54

Garlic, you can't approve of them when they agree with you and disapprove when you don't! It's a matter of principle.

noblegiraffe · 22/02/2012 13:00

There has been plenty of research into the evolution of altruism and various equations for this. Altruism may cause a loss of fitness to yourself but gives increased fitness to those who benefit, who, in small societies likely to be related to you and thus share some of the same genes. So if altruism is caused by a gene or sequence of genes it could persist and spread.