Do you believe in Evolution?

[Qenan]

Another thread made me wonder...

Fair background: I have a doctorate in Anthropology, so of course I believe in evolution. (And my undergrad was in math, which probably also contributes.)

[CindySue22]

Yes, not quite sure "believe" is the right word (religious context, you see), but evidence is, IMHO, overwhelming.

[TimElhajj]

Yes, that's an odd way of putting what's in the header. Believe in evolution; evolution will set you free!

[Jason McCullough]

I think it's true; I don't believe or disbelieve scientific theories.

[Qenan]

You guys are silly. Here are some definitions of believe (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=believe):


1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.

[Jason McCullough]

Come on, when you're talking about evolution, which is always framed as "why, that's a religion too!"

[Andrew Mayer]

I think it's true; I don't believe or disbelieve scientific theories.

Ditto. Science is a tool to let humanity move forward as a species through common understanding, community, understanding, and discussion, imperfect though we may be.

Organized religion is a tool to let a few control the masses through the powerful filter of belief.

[Tim Partlett]

I think you guys are overreacting ;). I believe I exist. Is that a faith based issue? Of course not, it's the only thing I can be absolutely certain of in this existence. How else is he expected to frame the question? "Do you credit evolution with a high degree of certitude?" :)

[JeffL]

Agreed on worrying about using the word "belief" - as a practicing scientist of about 30 year years (if you count time in school plus work) we use the word believe a lot - including disbelief of proposed theories and hypotheses. The best scientists constantly question the "known." Much of what I was taught was the truth years ago in my science classes, papers, etc. is now known to be untrue. That includes physics, chemistry, bio, etc.

[Jason McCullough]

In reasonable science-person land, yes, I agree with you. But I've had multiple people do the "hurr you said belief evolution is your religion" thing on me.

[Andrew Mayer]

I think you guys are overreacting ;). I believe I exist. Is that a faith based issue? Of course not, it's the only thing I can be absolutely certain of in this existence. How else is he expected to frame the question? "Do you credit evolution with a high degree of certitude?" :)

I don't think you "believe" that you exist. I think you "know" it.

Belief is usually reserved for things that you cannot prove to yourself. I believe that my computer is made up of microscopic circuitry. I'm not going to bother to prove it to myself, but I may be comepletely wrong about that. Those chips may be full of tiny little counting demons and I've been sold a big fat bill of goods. The fact that it's unlikely and "unbelievable" doesn't mean that I can't be wrong about it.

Belief is an important tool. It makes our lives easier because it allows us to have a set of assumptions without having to prove them.

But it's a double edged sword. Belief is also a filter that colors your perceptions before you experience them consciously. If you believe that sex is sinful you will have a negative reaction to every breast you see.

And that's the final stage. Believing in things that can't be proven. You can read a book and become convinced that, beyond all reason and experience, a man who died 2000 years ago will one day return to life and take humans off to a magical land that exists beyond the world that you live in. Oh, and by the way, he's the son of this other being you've never seen, and has a bunch of rules he wants you to follow.

Is it useful to believe in things that may not exist? I have chosen to do so. Imagination is important, and spirituality is a powerful tool for change. But without a doubt it is something that can be installed in people, controls them, and overpowers their own will.

The tonic to the dangerous side of belief is to pay attention to results. Is your belief something that has improved your life and increased your happiness? Then keep doing it. If a belief makes you miserable and unhappy throw it away and try something else. But as people defend their beliefs they become more and more invested in them, and it becomes harder and hard to change.

[JeffL]

I suppose as a long time scientist my only caveat to those here who haven't spent a lifetime in high level science R&D is that there is much in science today that most non-scientists believe is absolutely the truth because they hear scientists say it a lot, but there is much of that which is based on best guesses. The truth is a very dynamic animal in science and we argue a LOT about what we believe and don't believe. Much of what we preached as "truth" in evolution years ago was proven to be wrong. Much of what I learned about quantum physics many years ago was not the immutable truth we thought it to be. We are so incredibly egotistical, not just scientists but as a species, that we feel we have to understand everything. And anything we don't understand - well, there can't be anything that we can't explain. In many ways we're as naive as the scientists we chuckle at from hundreds of years ago, and I'm sure if we survive a few hundred years more they'll look back at us as primitive and clueless as we do those who came before us.

After almost 30 years as a hardcore scientist, working with some of the best in the world, I'm very comfortable that there are still a lot of things we just can't comprehend nor explain. Our minds have some very real limits.

[Tyjenks]

Jeff, you are kidding?!?! The way I hear it, science is logical fact with a 0% chance of fallacy. Furthermore, anything that may run counter to commonly held scientific belief/fact/theory (people seem to use these interchangeably when talking about science) is being presented by morons or devils with ulterior motives that should be blatantly obvious to one even as dim as me. Being from the Southern U.S., I am, of course, genetically pre-disposed to being simple, so you can see how your crazy, outside-the-box thoughts have me puzzled.

Wait! You must not be a real scientist. Like one who studies shit and knows shit and shit because that is the only thing that would make sense. Whew, for a second there I doubted that people here at this board knew everything there was to know. Close one.

[Qenan]

From my POV, the details of evolution will always be in doubt. You are talking about fitting models to available historical evidence, and there is a lot of room there for disagreement. It's somewhat like curve-fitting: there are an infinite number of curves that will pass through a finite set of points, so you have to rely on other, more philosophical, criteria -- like "simplicity". But for complex phenomena, it is often unclear which model is "simpler".

But the general idea of evolution -- that it has occurred (and mathematically must occur) -- is not in doubt, and there is truly an overwhelming amount of data supporting it.

In a similar way, it might turn out that general relativity is not the last word. But it is sufficiently well supported that I'm betting it would at least turn out to be a "special case" or a valid approximation under some range of parameters...

[JeffL]

But the general idea of evolution -- that it has occurred (and mathematically must occur) -- is not in doubt, and there is truly an overwhelming amount of data supporting it.


Natural selection of a population is fairly easy to describe and show proof of. We still get it wrong constantly, of course: some species that were shown as "no doubt" ancestors of humans even when I was in my teens were found to be parallel paths and coexistent. Giraffes are easy to describe and understand from an evolutionary point of view. What are harder are why and how some creature without wings would eventually grow wings and evolve into a flight species, for example. There are many examples of evolutionary change that are problematic, with no real identified drivers. I've read all the papers, make a point of skipping some of my meetings to go to the sessions that deal with such issues at conferences, so this isn't the head scratching of an ignoramus. All I'm saying is that there are many questions in evolution that have answers that are less than satisfactory. Just as there are in physics, astrophysics, etc.

Honestly - it's what makes science so fascinating for me. Scientists are just people, like everyone here. There are scientists who are idiots, scientists who as biased to their beliefs as any hard core Democrat or Republican or atheist or Southern Baptist, etc.

[Andrew Mayer]

But the beautiful part, to me at least, about the scientific method is that every thing we now know will one day be proven wrong.

[Tim Partlett]

I think you guys are overreacting ;). I believe I exist. Is that a faith based issue? Of course not, it's the only thing I can be absolutely certain of in this existence. How else is he expected to frame the question? "Do you credit evolution with a high degree of certitude?" :)

I don't think you "believe" that you exist. I think you "know" it.

You only think I know it? Don't you mean you know I know it? After all if I am in such a position that I must know it, rather than believe it, then surely you must know it also? ;)

Like most people I use believe, know and think almost interchangeably, and thus whether or not people are trying to make a political point depends entirely on the context. I can't see how Qenan was doing anything but asking a simple question, which is why I think there was a little bit of an overreaction :).

Of course you have a point about the difference between a belief and accepting something as the most plausible theory out of all possibilities, but do we really need to chastise people (especially those who admit to being pro-Evolution themselves) for using less exact layman's English? I am still wondering how Qenan could have worded his quetion his question without sounding politically correct or really stuffy.

[quatoria]

I think think I know know that this is a pointless thread. The other evolution thread has mostly died off, let's not spark the pointlessness again.

[Qenan]

Why pointless? I was curious to see how many folks didn't believe in evolution here. Seems like Q23 diverges rather sharply from the population of the U.S. as a whole...

[Midnight Son]

Seems like Q23 diverges rather sharply from the population of the U.S. as a whole...

Yeah, many of us are intelligent. (With some MAJOR exceptions.) :lol:

[Octonoo]

Only on "faith" do I believe in it and even then I'm not so sure. For me to accept it as complete fact based on miniscule changes in bugs and bacteria would be submoronic. For all I know, it could be in their DNA nature to be able to mutate as such. When I see chimps collectively start carrying spears around, dogs really playing poker, and human eyesight getting better as a symptom of age, then I'll move from the faith camp to the fact camp. :?

[Midnight Son]

Only on "faith" do I believe in it and even then I'm not so sure. For me to accept it as complete fact based on miniscule changes in bugs and bacteria would be submoronic. For all I know, it could be in their DNA nature to be able to mutate as such. When I see chimps collectively start carrying spears around, dogs really playing poker, and human eyesight getting better as a symptom of age, then I'll move from the faith camp to the fact camp. :?

Ah do believe we've found another MAJOR exception! Welcome!

[Octonoo]

Ah do believe we've found another MAJOR exception!

:lol:


Welcome!

Thank you!

[Jason McCullough]

Huh?

[Jakub]

Only on "faith" do I believe in it and even then I'm not so sure. For me to accept it as complete fact based on miniscule changes in bugs and bacteria would be submoronic. For all I know, it could be in their DNA nature to be able to mutate as such. When I see chimps collectively start carrying spears around, dogs really playing poker, and human eyesight getting better as a symptom of age, then I'll move from the faith camp to the fact camp. :?
That wouldn't be evolution though.

[quatoria]

Perhaps the problem is that he doesn't actually know what evolution is. I could make some quip here about the link between ignorance and faith, but that wouldn't help anyone. So why did I just do it? Whoops!

[Sparky2003]

Did we really need two "SH1T B0NERZ!!!" options?

[Tom McNamara]

The way I hear it, science is logical fact with a 0% chance of fallacy.


It's really more about organized scrutiny of the natural world, postulating theories based on that data, and testing the postulations to see if there's an underlying law. It's not a monolithic database of facts. Of course, you might have been sarcastic here--I haven't had enough coffee to be fully alert yet.

[shift6]

It doesn't help that both "sides" (a gross generalization itself, I may add) have a few idiotic retarded screaming morons who spend time insulting and flinging metapoo instead of actually understanding the issues at hand. Kinda like politics; why attack liberals views in general when I can call Clinton a draft dodging tool of the Kennedy-led Northeast, or why attack conservative views when I can point out the specifically stupid NeoCons who currently hold the reigns in that party?

Instead of considering and debating the opposing views, it's much easier to attack the nature of the most obsequious group that holds those views. When people bash QT3, they quote Koontz and Chet (or rather Koontz-like and Chet-like posts). Same damn thing.

[Tyjenks]

The way I hear it, science is logical fact with a 0% chance of fallacy.
Of course, you might have been sarcastic here--I haven't had enough coffee to be fully alert yet.
yes.

[Tim Partlett]

People bash q23? Where?

[shift6]

Perhaps "bash" was too strong of a word, although there were a few from that Octopus forum and Gone Gold. But a better example would be people here on QT3 who occasionally bemoan what the forum has become and "how it used to be, back in the day". Nostlagia mixed with cynicism I suppose.

[Tyjenks]

Yeah, I liked it better in the old days when voltaic was here and when McCullough was the second place poster. Good times.

[Brad Grenz]

Yeah, and the supermodels came by to sleep with us every thursday... Good times.