to be surprised when I find an educated person doesn't believe in evolution?

[Bennifer]

I've recently found out that someone I know doesn't believe in evolution. However, they're well educated and work in education. I really struggle to see how intelligent people cannot believe in evolution. I can see how someone might take the view that somehow God inspired the rules or the original divine spark, or something, but to deny evolution seems to be something so bizarre I can't imagine an educated person would do so.

AIBU?

It's not so much the gaps as the gaping chasms.

Snorbs you so lack ambition. As there are thousands I want at very least the top 50.

Also interested in these items of documentation, contemporary to Jesus - though I don't doubt that he existed tbh. Though I'd like some evidence about god creating the world in less than a week?

The difference between creationism and the theory of evolution is that the folks who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis to explain human origins cannot under any circumstances change their belief as admitting that any part of the Bible is not literally true means that their entire premise that the Bible is an infallible document written by God is untrue. This is why, despite accepting "micro-evolution" and dinosaurs, they constantly scramble to fit these facts into their origin myth (and I use the actual definition of myth). Scientists are (usually) willing to change their theories to fit observable facts. Evolution clearly exists- we see it every day; however, the theories of how the earth as we know it came to be, have changed as new evidence emerges. This is intensely unsettling to many people who prefer dogma (albeit wrong) to change and this is why, while most "evolutionists" are pretty "live and let live", Creationists must try to force their belief on others. And if you think I'm wrong about this, come live in the US South for a while.

If cassette can come up with three good, non-Biblical contemporaneous references to Jesus then not only will I apologise, I'll change my mumsnet name to SnorbswaswrongaboutthehistoricalfactofJesus for a whole month and I'll go and buy "The case for Christ".

I don't see where anyone was nasty? We just don't agree with you.

As someone with a biological sciences degree and also a theology degree, I find the whole evolution debate a terrible bore.

The majority of Christians in the UK, and across Europe, are happy to accept evolution. The perception that Christians are anti-evolution stems from the US, where there is a more conservative religious culture which takes a particular approach to scripture, but an approach to scripture which is only one approach that Christians can take. Most UK Christians are not biblical literalists, can see that the Bible is a mix of literary forms, and that it should not be treated as if it were a modern science textbook when it deals with subjects through the form of myth, i.e. truth told through a literary narrative, so not necessarily absolute historical fact, but still articulating important truths about people's experience of life and the world around them.

It depresses me when educated people in the UK assume that all Christians are a homogeneous blob of anti-scientific, creationist, homophobic, biblical literalists. Such Christians are (an admittedly vocal) minority in the UK, yet the broad community of UK Christians frequently has to overcome the assumptions that they share all of the views of their conservative American counterparts. There is tremendous diversity in the Christian community in the UK, all sorts of people from different walks of life, and it is impossible to squeeze them all into a pigeonhole.

Ooh, cross-posted.

So cassette, it bugs you when people post links to wikipedia because apparently it's too much hassle to click on a link, but you are perfectly ok with refusing to back up your own assertions with anything other than "Go and buy the book I read"?

Interesting bit of hypocrisy there.

And "angsty niggles"? I wasn't the one having to remind myself to breath after having a tantrum about your pronouncements not being believed. And I note you have conveniently missed out any mention of your "Darwin recanted" bollocks.

Well done! Keep up the good work!

I have no problem believing that Jesus may have been a real person, and some of what is written about him (hundreds of years after his death), may (or may not) be true.......... but that is a long way from saying there is evidence/proof that he was "the son of God" as some religious sects claim.

cassette I am just as sure God is just a crutch humans use because they don't want to take responsibility for there own actions and like the promise of eternal life - that doesn't make it true though it would be lovely I'm sure.

I firmly believe that religion/spiritual belief systems have been an incredibly destructive force in human history, against the "Other" (other races, tribes, religions), and against women, who have been persecuted even more than men/children in pursuit of the control religious/spiritual belief systems often demand.

We are outgrowing religion IMO, for most people in this country it is an irrelevance.

Why are there two threads about this today?

The historical Jesus thing is very much off track, but I thought that outside of the gospels, there were only a few documents (in sharp contrast to the number about Caesar) that refer to Jesus. I think Josephus refers to Jesus, and a few other sources. I suspect that someone by the name of Jesus did exist, but it's interesting that the Bible seems to present him as very different character than that depicted in Christianity.

There's a part of the brain (can't remember what it's called) that has been linked to religious fervour. Some people don't have this. Seems it may have evolved out.

Was Tacitus writing history when he was 8 then?

Jesus wasn't and isn't a unique name though. Who's to say that the Jesus documented there is the same one?

Ahem. Back to the op .

YANBU. I've only ever met a couple of people who truly don't believe in evolution, but to me they're exactly the same as those who truly, honestly believe that the earth is flat.

Just smile nervously and back away slowly. Don't engage. It's the only way to stop one's brain from exploding.

Cassette, no it was written in 116AD!

Not necessarily, and especially if this was documented way after his death. We have no records of how common names were then really. I'd say it was impossible to say conclusively that it was or wasn't him.

YANBU. Tim Minchin's poem expresses - far better than I can - the contempt I feel for that kind of anti-science non-thinking.

Towards the end of the poem there is a beautiful description of the awe and wonder we should feel at science, and at our 'beautiful, complex, wonderfully unfathomable, natural world'. Took my breath away.

Mmmm. I don't believe I used the word 'bollocks' although I am sure that is only an admnistrative oversight.

I am however intrigued by your phraseology 'whatever the other one is called'.

I am not acting in allegiance with anyone. My views are my own. And my view is that if anyone is 'scared off' by any comment I can make, their faith is indeed a weak and flimsy thing.

Oh, and whether Jesus existed/was documented? Totally different issue.

• One is about whether some historic event happened or not, which no-one can prove one way or another. Since it happened in the past.

• The other is about using a scientific methodology based on peer-reviewed, repeatable experiments as a way to understand the world, instead of just inventing things.