Will evolution ever become widely accepted among the public?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think I might as well go and post this now to spark some interesting discussions.

 

Do you, personally, believe that evolutionary theory, as well as common descent of animals and so on, will ever become widely accepted by the general public as fact (as much as religion has been accepted as "fact")?

 

Personally, I think it's quite possible, but a long way off. We've already found the skull of yet another link in the chain of human evolution, and the evidence is mounting. Religious beliefs may be very stubborn and hard to remove, but I have a feeling that as evolution gets more and more solid evidence, and more and more solid proponents, things will start to change.

 

In fact, I think it would be reasonable to believe that the percentage of people who believe evolution rather than divine creation is growing rapidly. When Darwin proposed evolution, almost nobody believed him, but now the theory is widely accepted by the scientific community and bits of the general public. It'll only take time before more and more of the public accepts it. And, given the spread of various religions, I think it'll be decades or even a century or two before it happens, but I think it'll happen.

 

Thoughts?

[Moonquake]

It already is generally accepted.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What about the vast majority of people who would rather believe that God created the Earth?

[X facter]

If you are talking about the highly religious community, I highly doubt it. Most people are afraid of/scared of/against any form of science they don't understand. Those who know how evolution works and understand the undeniable evidence would never once think it could be completely wrong. But those who refuse to even try to understand how it works or what it actually means are never going to take it as fact. Take a... ahem... "friend" of mine for example. He is mormon (not generalizing, just giving facts). We are going over evolution in my biology class right now, and with everything we are learning, the unsurmountable evidence, etc. etc. etc., he still says, and I quote, "I don't believe in evolution." He refuses to believe that there were other species of humans and that we evolved from the same things as rats and the like. He also does not understand the concept of how life came to be in the first place. Not understanding the facts, he claims that God placed them here and that's that. My friend and I just want to kill him every time he opposes facts (which he does a lot). You can't teach people things that go against the things they have been taught since the day they were born.

[Moonquake]

Many people who believe God created the Earth still often believe in evolution/common decent. The pope declared evolution real, my late mum was religious but still didnt see anything wrong with the concept. Here at my uni the christian societies debate meeting topics dont have titles like "is evolution is real", instead "does evolution disprove God". Albeit they believe evolution is guided unlike an atheist would claim.

Religeous people who deny evolution are often highly outpoken.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

45% of people told Gallup that God created the Earth 10,000 years ago, while 37% said that humans have developed from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process.

 

So evolution isn't quite dominant.

 

You can't teach people things that go against the things they have been taught since the day they were born.

That's the problem here. Nobody questions religion; they've been taught it since day 1 (most of the time) and they have never thought about it to realize the problems with accepting something without any evidence at all.

[Moonquake]

45% of people told Gallup that God created the Earth 10' date='000 years ago, while 37% said that humans have developed from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process.

 

So evolution isn't quite dominant.

 

 

That's the problem here. Nobody questions religion; they've been taught it since day 1 (most of the time) and they have never thought about it to realize the problems with accepting something without any evidence at all.[/quote']

-Many people wont have concidered the time scales involved so irrelivant.

 

-How many said "humans have developed from less advanced forms of life, but God didn't guid the process."?

 

-"Isnt quite dominant" is still more widespred than you were implying.

 

-Plenty of people question their religion.

[Steph]

saying god guides the process is irrelevent... if god is infinite, then god is chaos then... for most people, saying god did something doesn't add mysticism to anything... its just means its random.

[ashennell]

here is another poll:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm

 

48% percent said that evolution provided the best explanation for the origin of species.

 

That is quite a chunk of the population but I'm suprised that it isn't higher. Data that would be useful to answer this question would be a poll that is subdivided into different age groups. It would interesting to see if the general trend is for a higher percentage of younger people to believe in evolution.

[john5746]

Maybe it is higher in China and Japan? I did see somewhere that many Japanese still think their race was created from a Sun god, but I haven't seen any polls.

 

You would think better science education might correlate to more acceptance of evolution.

[RyanJ]

You would think better science education might correlate to more acceptance of evolution.

 

Yes you would but then again you'd think with our level of technology just about everyone should have accepted it already. Yet more proof religion does bad things and creates stupid ideas.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Phi for All]

I think the best direction to take is to emphasize in all evolution education that evolution makes no predictions about how the earth was created. Allowing the various religions their own creation story doesn't affect evolution in the least, as long as the stories give evolution the time necessary for the process. It's really only the young earth creationists who are at odds with evolution theory.

 

If the public can realize that science doesn't kick the props out from under their beliefs, they'll be much more accepting. I think the majority view is that science and religion are at odds.

[CharonY]

Maybe it is higher in China and Japan? I did see somewhere that many Japanese still think their race was created from a Sun god, but I haven't seen any polls.

I suppose you are refering to WWII. As far as I know the belief that the Japanese were some kind of chosen or descendents of some divinity were used to justify slaughters on "lesser races", like e.g. the Chinese.

But actually I cannot find any current polls either.

[gcol]

If and when they do visit, care to bet, judged by our own standards, they won't zap us because we dont believe in their God? Or If they get to us first, which would indicate they are smarter than us, they may fall about laughing saying "You dont still believe in that old God mumbojumbo, do you?"

 

Only time will tell.

[the tree]

Back OT, I don't think I've met anyone who doesn't belive the theory of evolution to be correct.

[MM]

I think the question could be reversed. When will religion be accepted by science. My personal opinion is that a belief in god or a higher entity is an evolved phenomena (not a social one) acting primarily as a psychological defense mechanism. Studies have shown that there are advantages from believing in god and I would like to se more that could possible confirm its imprint in our genes.

[RyanJ]

I think the question could be reversed. When will religion be accepted by science. My personal opinion is that a belief in god or a higher entity is an evolved phenomena (not a social one) acting primarily as a psychological defense mechanism. Studies have shown that there are advantages from believing in god and I would like to se more that could possible confirm its imprint in our genes.

 

It never will - the main reason being science contains stuff that can be potentially proven. It seems designed that the whole religion thing can't be dissproven or proven so it will never be accepted. Just remember this debate is about the acceptance of evolution and nothing about the scienctific acceptance of religion which will never happen.

 

Apparently the advantage of a god(s) is far outweighed by the negative effects.

 

Cheers,

Ryan Jones

[MM]

It never will - the main reason being science contains stuff that can be potentially proven. It seems designed that the whole religion thing can't be dissproven or proven so it will never be accepted. Just remember this debate is about the acceptance of evolution and nothing about the scienctific acceptance of religion which will never happen.

 

Apparently the advantage of a god(s) is far outweighed by the negative effects.

 

Cheers' date='

Ryan Jones[/quote']

 

I think its quite relevant since you have to understand the people involved. Though I brought in the evolutionary aspect perhaps the topic belongs more so in the psychology section.If you don't understand the logic behind some irrational thoughts and how they are dealt with this might be an indication to move this thread.

[mattbimbo]

MM

My personal opinion is that a belief in god or a higher entity is an evolved phenomena (not a social one) acting primarily as a psychological defense mechanism.

 

people will believe anything. so is all belief a psychological defense mechanism?

 

MM

Studies have shown that there are advantages from believing in god and I would like to se more that could possible confirm its imprint in our genes.

 

what about genes for psychologoical defense mechanisms? what about a gene for free thought? why stick with that old slapper, the big G?

[john5746]

people will believe anything. so is all belief a psychological defense mechanism?

 

I think probably so. When you hear something in the woods and you wonder, "Who's there?" You believe there is a threat. You can investigate and confirm, or just bolt on the belief.

 

I believe it is probably something basic like that, not a specific belief in something.

[FreeThinker]

I can see how believing in god, or gods, would be naturally selected. It provides comfort and, for most people, a sense of purpose. Placebo effect can play an important role in cure of diseases, and religion can be classified as a form of Placebo.

 

The problem with evolution is that its products DO appear designed. The pencil, most likely, started of as a rock that could be used to make imprints. Rocks that were better at making imprints were “selected” by humans until the rock evolved into the pencil (it could have been something else other than a rock, but that not the point). Natural selection works the same and it is easy to mix up design and evolution, especially for those who are not prepared to look at the evidence properly.

[Milken]

I believe we need a "big bang" between the two sides so one can discredit the other so badly one will become widley accepted publicly. Teaching both in school is a start and maybe an end. Evolution being so superior should completely refute and become widely accepted. Currently, C and ID are hidden from laymen view.

[FreeThinker]

I believe we need a "big bang" between the two sides so one can discredit the other so badly one will become widley accepted publicly. Teaching both in school is a start and maybe an end. Evolution being so superior should completely refute and become widely accepted. Currently, C and ID are hidden from laymen view.

 

You can not teach ID in a science classroom. Why? Because it is not science.

[Phi for All]

I believe we need a "big bang" between the two sides so one can discredit the other so badly one will become widley accepted publicly. Teaching both in school is a start and maybe an end. Evolution being so superior should completely refute and become widely accepted. Currently, C and ID are hidden from laymen view.

Bad, bad, BAD idea. This is exactly what creationists want and why they've repackaged their religious beliefs into ID "science". They have called it science and when science refutes it they now say there is a controversy and that both sides should be taught, IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOMS. How much time will this detract from teaching, oh say, SCIENCE?!? How much validity will be lent to ID by raising it to the same level?

 

Science is about the observable and testable and religion is about the unobservable and faith. They shouldn't cancel each other out and they should not be used to support or negate one another.

[mattbimbo]

i think there is always a case for more education.