Will evolution ever become widely accepted among the public?

[Phi for All]

i think there is always a case for more education[/url'].

And there is always a place for religious education, in church. There should also be places for a secular education, in public schools.

[mattbimbo]

for all i care, it can be anywhere, even the internet.

[bjaminwood]

I think that evolution is a threat to my religion in terms of what it makes people believe are facts when in fact they are not, but I also think that Science proves my belief in God and therefore is no threat but a help.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think you've got things the wrong way around.

 

You need to read a good article on what evolution says and what its evidence is. I suggest:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

and

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[Sayonara]

It already is generally accepted.

Let's not kid ourselves. A lot of the people in the general public who "accept" evolution do so in a hand-waving "don't bother me with your magic while I'm making dinner" sort of way that suggests they know of it, but not what it does or who sells it.

[Sayonara]

I think that evolution is a threat to my religion in terms of what it makes people believe are facts when in fact they are not,

If you are stating that evolutionary science presents fiction as fact, and doing so on a science forum, then it follows that you should have a compelling body of evidence to back up your claim.

 

Where is it?

 

 

but I also think that Science proves my belief in God and therefore is no threat but a help.

It is not the aim or the job of "science" to threaten your beliefs, so any conditions of threat that you think are in effect are very much your own contrivance.

If your faith in whatever doctrine you follow is not flexible enough to accomodate other sources of information, then perhaps it's that which you should question, and not arbitrarily selected things that don't fall into its scope.

[ydoaPs]

I also think that Science proves my belief in God and therefore is no threat but a help.

really?

[silkworm]

It doesn't appear to me that evolution is accepted by scientifically illiterate people. That may, however, be just where I'm from.

 

It will though, inevitably. A few other unrelated things must happen that I refuse to talk about to keep from jinxing them first.

 

Okay okay. I'll throw one out there. When we find any form of extraterrestrial life we're going to see a huge sway to acceptance of evolution. But that's all I'm saying.

[swansont]

"God did it" is a neat and tidy explanation. Very simple, no thinking required. You can indoctrinate the kids, and as long as you take a few steps to quash their inquisitiveness and skepticism, they won't question it. And there will always be some subset of the population that wants a simple explanation, even if it is wrong.

 

Science, OTOH, does require thinking, and it can be complicated, because often enough what we can't see behaves differently than what we can, so it can run afoul of "common sense." And emotion can confound the scientific thought process.

[mattbimbo]

Sayonara: It is not the aim or the job of "science" to threaten your beliefs, so any conditions of threat that you think are in effect are very much your own contrivance.

does this make the threat any less real?

bjaminwood, could you explain why you percieve/contrive evolution as a threat to your religion? what do you think of the earlier comments in this thread that reglious beliefs are a psychological defense mechanism?

[ydoaPs]

does this make the threat any less real?

if you feel that science threatens your beliefs, then either you don't understand the science(often the case) or your beliefs are wrong.

[silkworm]

if you feel that science threatens your beliefs, then either you don't understand the science(often the case) or your beliefs are wrong.

 

Or you don't understand that the existence of God is irrelevant to science because the existence of God can not be proven or disproven with science, is not commented on in scientific journals, and can not be controlled for.

 

It is not the position of science that God does not exist, it just is not taken into consideration. Neither is the presence of any other supernatural being or force. Science can only study the universe, the natural world.

 

The entire controversy has been made by those who do not understand science or the science involved in what they're fighting. The side opposing evolution does so because they make these assumptions that it is insulting to have the ape as an ancestor, that evolution and atheism is the same, that a "belief" in either means that everyone will start raping each other, and that to acknowledge evolution requires belief.

[MM]

if you feel that science threatens your beliefs, then either you don't understand the science(often the case) or your beliefs are wrong.

 

Dawkins seem to want to speak for the whole scientific community regarding religion. With his documentary "The Root of All Evil?", well there he makes a complete fool of himself with his childish explanations of a such complicated system as the human mind.

 

We like to see science as unbiased but for what I can see its just people with different agendas.

[mattbimbo]

We like to see science as unbiased but for what I can see its just people with different agendas.

good point - let's not underestimate the public - perhaps this is what the public percieve too.

 

as a scientist, i would expect that if all the evidence, the fossils, the DNA sequences, etc, were put before the public that they would grasp evolution theory. but this hasn't happened and we have failed to understand why. many factors may be at play. if the public already have a general perception that the evidence, and perhaps all evidence, is biased then the chances of them grasping evolution theory will be less likely. if members of the public have struggled in their education would it be suprising that they are distrusting of scientists, the winners of the same education. these are just a few possible explanations which i think can illustrate why asking people to be more scientific is doomed.

[bjaminwood]

Dawkins seem to want to speak for the whole scientific community regarding religion. With his documentary "The Root of All Evil?"' date=' well there he makes a complete fool of himself with his childish explanations of a such complicated system as the human mind.

 

We like to see science as unbiased but for what I can see its just people with different agendas.[/quote']

 

Amen

[Prime-Evil]

Just as the other creation myths which preceeded it, once the "Evolution" creation myth is dumbed down enought to be wrong, it will become almost universally acceptable. I mean all except for those few remaining holdout nerds and nerdets that refuse to be wrong, even when it could get them laid.

[bascule]

I mean all except for those few remaining holdout nerds and nerdets that refuse to be wrong, even when it could get them laid.

 

By Catholic girls at the CYO when they're learning to blow?

[swansont]

We like to see science as unbiased but for what I can see its just people with different agendas.

 

That's basically ad hominem, though, along with a hasty generalization. You are dismissing science based on an assumed agenda of some individuals, and not on any factual basis.

 

The fact is that science works, despite the fact that it is carried out by humans, who are fallible. But the procedure is self-correcting, so agendas eventually tend to get neutralized.

[bjaminwood]

"God did it" is a neat and tidy explanation. Very simple' date=' no thinking required. You can indoctrinate the kids, and as long as you take a few steps to quash their inquisitiveness and skepticism, they won't question it. And there will always be some subset of the population that wants a simple explanation, even if it is wrong.

 

Science, OTOH, does require thinking, and it can be complicated, because often enough what we can't see behaves differently than what we can, so it can run afoul of "common sense." And emotion can confound the scientific thought process.[/quote']

 

If you can't prove that God didn't do it, then why say that it is wrong.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If you can't prove that God didn't do it, then why say that it is wrong.

You also can't prove that God did do it. It's just as likely that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe as it is God did. It's just that scientific theories such as evolution have plenty of evidence behind them.

[silkworm]

You also can't prove that God did do it. It's just as likely that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe as it is God did. It's just that scientific theories such as evolution have plenty of evidence behind them.

 

There's also another point that needs to be made. At the first CORR meeting my ally and I were trying to explain how science is conducted to a creationist with a PhD (in Psychology). Our point was the existence of God was irrelevent to science, because you can't control for supernatural beings (science is limited by nature). He showed us though, or so he thought, creating his own experiment (and using it as a commentary on the difficulty of waiting for something to speciate in the lab) that consisted of waiting for Jesus to return, and when he gets here he will be correct.

 

We agreed, "You would be correct that Jesus came back, but you would have done nothing to disprove evolution. Nothing at all."

 

Whatever God did or didn't do is irrelevant to the validity of evolution. Science does not consider it either way. What God does or doesn't do is commented on by religion, what is observed objectively in nature is what science comments on.

 

Neither one has anything to do with the other. I don't understand why that is so hard to comprehend.

[swansont]

If you can't prove that God didn't do it, then why say that it is wrong.

 

That's not how science works, and I'm not saying it's wrong, per se. Science doesn't address the supernatural; it's agnostic. Science is the process by which we discover how nature behaves, and there is absolutely no explanatory or predictive value to "God did it." Science, as a process, simply isn't interested. God makes the sun shine, God makes it rain. Or not. Regardless, though, the question science asks is how?

 

Don't fool yourself into thinking that there is scientific evidence that backs up your belief, though. But if it's a belief, why do you need the support of evidence?

[MM]

That's basically ad hominem' date=' though, along with a hasty generalization. You are dismissing science based on an assumed agenda of some individuals, and not on any factual basis.

 

The fact is that science works, despite the fact that it is carried out by humans, who are fallible. But the procedure is self-correcting, so agendas eventually tend to get neutralized.[/quote']

 

You are wrong. What I stated was an observation. It's you who made a hasty generalization claiming that I dismissed science though I did dismiss a scientist on a relevant issue.

 

Maybe your a hopeless romantic but what I perceive is the greater importance of funding from the industries/politicians where which science will follow certain paths.

[alt_f13]

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.

 

Perhaps, but it's usefullness is coming to a close with the advent of modern law and ethics (yes, those based on religious law and ethics.)

 

My parents are both religious (and neither of them are creationists). I'm not, and guess what? Chances are I'm going to outlive them! My children will not be religious and neither will theirs be, if I can help it, spawning an exponentially growing ammount of non-believers in my geneological succession.

 

Being religious is a choice, not a genetic trait. ('Course that means my children might become religious, but that's doubtful because of the logic and critical mindset I'm going to instill in them!!) It's very much a matter of how you were raised. Modern times began with a huge percentage of people being creationists, and those numbers have greatly dwindled in the past couple centuries, interestingly enough, as scientific knowlege and method grew and became more mainstream. The influx of logic into society will be the downfall of creationism. (Creationists seem to think they have some superior hold on logic over evolutionists, which I find funny, so I'll post a humorous little link for you. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp)

 

Lets see creationism last one more century.

[Fellbeast]

as to ur comment on the homosapien skull is it not a possiblility that it is a new species rather than an ansester?? i think also that most primate look a like well wouldnt that meen that chips will eventually "Evolve" into humans if Evolution is true or rather whose to say that we arent the "lower" race and chips are more Evolved than us?? plus they have only found a SKULL a body cannot be constructed from simply finding a skull or fragments of one. there is how ever more evidence supporting the bible and God than there is evolution. as to the comment about God "guiding" evolution i dont think so becouse its still to random for a God