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?

Ps casette, it may be hot and maybe be thick but 2 of the docs you cite were written after Jesus was killed? I thought you had thousands written whilst he was still alive? That is what I was curious about because I have always understood NO contemporaneous record exists of Jesus - quite unlike the various Caesars for eg.

Tacitus:
a) Tacitus didn't name Jesus, he named "Christus". Note my previous point about names vs job descriptions.
b) Jesus, and the apostles, were all long dead before Tacitus wrote this. Jesus was likely crucified before Tacitus was even born.

Flavius Josephus:
a) The Testomonium Flavinium is widely believed to be a later addition to Josephus's work. If you have done the theology research you suggest I should undertake, you'd know this. And considering I did know this but you apparently do not, maybe you should be the one doing the research.
b) Jesus was crucified before Flavius Josephus was even born.

Babylonian Talmud
a) This was compiled long after Jesus died.
b) It differs in many significant ways from the stories of Jesus in the Bible. Not least that it says that Jesus was hanged, not crucified, and that he only had five disciples rather than 12. These kinds of major differences casts doubt over whether it was the same person being talked about or if the Talmud's stories (or the New Testament's) are concretions of stories of the exploits of more than one prophet. Which, again, if you have researched theology and the Babylonian Talmudic references to Jesus, you'd know all this.

Maybe what we have here is a misunderstanding of the phrase "contemporaneous" when referring to Jesus. I take it to mean "at the same time he was alive". You seem to think it means "decades after he died".

Where those the three best you had?

Fizzwhirl Ok I will just go and cancel my next fact finding hearing in court as nothing that happened in then past can ever be proved?? eh?

Darwin didn't recant. Only read the first page, but I had to post immediately because that really pisses me off.

Josephus isn't a very good source - there are a lot of inaccuracies in his work due to him being backed by the Romans as well as a lot of other issues he had. The Talmud details a man being hung, who had 5 followers and was an enticer (by Torah definition), who is believed to be the historical Jesus. They aren't complimentary about him at all and of all the failed Messiahs (claiming to be the Messiah is not a crime or sin, it is believed there may be a few in each generation who are not able to live up to that potential for various reasons and during the Roman occupation there were dozens of people who claimed or more often had others claim for them as people were so desperate), his claim is shown to be one of the weakest as the rules for being the Messiah are very strict. There were also several Jesus's that made history at time and place, since it was a common name (basically Joshua) so it is hard to tell.

Back to the OP, while I agree with you, I also find it odd when an educated person says they 'believe' in science or that science has explained everything. It show a real lack of understanding of what science is. We can't even explain the mechanics of gravity very well yet, there is still much more to explore and learn, and something new could change everything. The fake debate between religion and science has completely warped a lot of the discussion and understanding of both subjects which makes topics like this quite frustrating.

I wish I could be more surprised. I don't actually blame religion, I blame education.

I was talking to six colleagues the other day - all university graduates. They didn't know that Jesus lived at the same historical period as the Roman Empire. None of them knew this. They were all from vaguely Christian backgrounds (but not churchgoing). When I pointed out that surely they knew that the Romans ordered the crucifixion one of them said 'I thought it was the Jews that killed Jesus' and another said 'No, I thought it was the Muslims.'. They weren't joking. I just sat there opening and shutting my mouth. This is of course a HUGE problem as it means people are vulnerable to signing up to extreme ideologies. If people aren't properly educated they'll believe any old rubbish. One of those same colleagues was going on about the 'One World' conspiracy to me the other day. And she doesn't believe in evolution. She has a Masters degree... But clearly her supervising tutors failed to educate her.

I think all we can do (and being Mumsnet we're in a good position to do this) is try to ensure that our own children are well-educated - which clearly doesn't come just from schools/universities.

crosspost snorbs

Yes I find it shocking, as you can see evolution all around you.

I was aghast when my mother turned to me last year when we were standing in an earth sciences museum and said, "So...do you believe in this evolution stuff?"

She was raised Catholic and I think her education was a bit dubious. I was very tempted to ask her if she thought the earth was flat.

becstarsky, I can sort-of understand why someone might think the Jews killed Jesus. But muslims?

I know the Islamic empire was reportedly very good at science but I don't think they ever managed to build a time machine.

I was wondering at that too, Snorbs. Isn't Islam a younger religion than Christianity?

spero - unless you've found a way to either time travel or create multiple virtual universes which exactly replicate the state of ours at a particular point in time, I'm pretty sure you can't prove what happened in the case you're trying.

I hope that you'll instead make a couple of theories about what might have happened, look at the evidence, and try to decide which is most probable. Defo won't be proved though - which is why you'll presumably say that someone has been 'found' guilty/not-guilty, rather than 'proved' guilty/not-guilty.

We can prove that evolution still happens now, and fits with the theory of evolution. And we can assess that given the evidence we currently have, it seems overwhelmingly likely that it describes how we evolved too. But we can't prove it .

Actually, the point I was trying to make was that I don't really care whether or not there was a person called Jesus living a couple of thousand years ago, and whether he was documented or not. It doesn't really change my understanding of the world. What would change my understanding of the world would be if there was some evidence that meant that the 'most likely to be true' turn of events included some non-natural things (God, or aliens, say). Haven't seen any of that.

And to add to snorbs ..

Tacitus was writing about 20 years after the death of Jesus. That's about the same amount of time that has passed sine L Ron Hubbard's death and there are many that would proclaim him the saver of humanity.

Tacitus was writing 80 years after the death of Jesus

Yes, I started arguing at the 'the Jews killed Jesus' person but when the other person chimed in with 'no, the Muslims killed Jesus' I was too shocked to speak. I just sat there wondering exactly where to start. And this same colleague makes quite a few borderline-racist comments about Muslims. Maybe it's because they killed Jesus. With their Terminator that they sent back in time.

I suppose the outcome is that there are a lot of people who have beliefs that don't accord with evidence, more than one would naively hope.

I think one of the reasons this sort of thing bothers me is that, if people are willing to totally disregard evidence in one field, they may be similarly inclined to do so in others. It may not matter too much to everyday life whether evolution happened or not but global warming does and - guess what? There seems to be an overlap between creationists and global warming deniers.

Deciding you can ignore actual truth if it conflicts with some unverifiable 'truth' you happen believe in, or merely if its inconvenient to you, is a serious problem.

When it comes to evolution there are four types of people:

1. People who haven't thought about it too much and don't have a strong opinion either way. That's no crime.
2. People who haven't thought about it too much, yet push strong beliefs about it. Idiots.
3. People who have thought about it and believe it.
4. People who have thought about it and find it more convenient to deceive themselves about it.

There is no fifth category of 'people who have thought about and honestly concluded the theory is false'. People who think they go in that bucket actualy go in bucket 4 - and everyone knows it but them. By definition, bucket 4 residents cannot admit that to themselves.

you don't "believe in" evolution, it's just a useful scientific theory that should always be approached with healthy skepticism. it's not something you "believe in", it's something you appraise and judge as likely to be a true or untrue representation of what happened in the past.

but it's always going to be theoretical. when it becomes something you "believe in" it's just an article of faith, rather than an outcome of scientific method

muddying the waters between science and faith is silly, science is for the natural world, faith is for things that can't be reliably measured

Fizz whirl - then what on earth is the point of concept of 'proof' if nothing can be 'proved' ??

If my client says, I did not meet my ex boyfriend at the pub last week and we have a bus ticket in her pocket to the general are of the pub, we have CCTV footage of her walking down the road that leads to the pub, we have an eye witness account of the bar man who served her and DNA confirming her blood on the pub floor???

That's proof enough for me she was there.

So what do you say is capable of being proved?

Evolution is a fact, it's indisputable. It happens. The theory of evolution is currently the best, testable, framework that explains that fact.

There is no evidence that jesus existed. None. Not even as a freedom fighter/rebel ala Wat Tyler.

Anyone who disputes the fact of evolution as a process is an idiot.

Why has this become an evolution vs Jesus thread?

Ah see, I see the evolution as a creation story, as exists in any other belief system.

It's just that this collection of Just So stories is the true one.

Yanbu, I always find it weird that some really intelligent people are religious. It's like they don't use their intelligent, rational brain when it comes to religion.