Why do people reject evolution?

[Autumnflame]

because it is a theory and not a scientific fact or law.

i would make any stupid theory.

say all serial killers have midiclorins from star wars caused them to kill.
hasnt been proven to be true or false.

but lets pretend that its true.

argument in a nut shell

 

[Therarchos]

Back to the point. The way you use that argument is like saying I have an effect and I like this cause so that's what is true. You might be right you might be wrong but not by facts. Hence the Santa-Clause analogy. I get presents. I like the stories of Santa giving presents ergo Santa gives me presents.
Bacteria becomes resistant it evolves. We have a theory called evolution. Ergo bacteria evolving equals evolution. It is not the science of the bacteria I was trying to disprove it was your use of basically guilty-by-association logic.

This I'll disagree with. Whilst yes the theory of evolution existed beforehand, its due to things like this that we have the theory.
Rather than 'Bacteria change, evolution is a theory that says things change, therefore bacteria changing is evolution', its more along the lines of 'Bacteria change. Lets write some rules based on our observations of why they change, and call it the theory of evolution'. Of course not a perfect way of describing it, as it only refers to bacteria, but hey.
Actually, it would almost be more accurate to follow say 'Bacteria change in a way that is observed to match the predictions made by the theory of evolution, thus it is likely that bacteria changing is evolution'.

Using the Santa Clause analogy, its more akin to seeing presents under your tree, watching the tree the next year and seeing your parents deliver the presents. In this case you know that Santa hasn't delivered the presents because you saw your parents do it. Some people will tell you that just because your parents delivered them this year doesn't mean it wasn't Santa in the years past, but there is little to support this claim, and the simpler explanation is just that your parents have been doing it the whole time.
Or for the second description, seeing presents appear under your tree, and recognising it as the same thing that happened on Easter where you pretended to be asleep and saw your parents place a basket of eggs on your table and tell you it was the Easter Bunny. In this case its not directly related to Christmas, and sure Christmas could be different, though you'd have to wait until next year to test it. Thanks to what you've observed, however, it is more likely that your parents are pretending to be Santa as well.

But your view is affected by the result you expect.
It is easier to find arguments for a result you want than find them against.
I do not think evolution is necessarily wrong but I'll be damned if I just accept it and ignore that for an instance the theory of evolution didn't get accepted when it did because a bunch of scientist wanted to get God out of the equation! the same bunch who apparently has convinced most of western society that the catholic church believed that the world was flat. When their argument why Columbus shouldn't have money for his trip was that the world was to wide to come across.

My point is be critical. Most of all to your own beliefs.

 

[Barciad]

For exactly the same reason that they thought the sun went around the earth, that the king was God's representative on earth, that Jews ran a secret cabal that ruled the world, and black people were inferior to white people. You tell someone some nonsense constantly and a young enough age and they will believe it. No matter how ridiculous it might seem to an educated outsider.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

Snip

I'm actually pretty sure they found the missing link years and years ago.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

because it is a theory and not a scientific fact or law.

i would make any stupid theory.

say all serial killers have midiclorins from star wars caused them to kill.
hasnt been proven to be true or false.

but lets pretend that its true.

argument in a nut shell

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

So, no, it's nothing like that.

 

[Starik20X6]

Fear. Some people just can't handle the idea that they're not a special little flower being watched over by an omnipotent daddy figure. To quote the great Carl Sagan:

"Man, in his arrogance, thinks himself a great work. Worthy of the interposition of a deity... If it takes a little myth or ritual to get us through a night that seems endless, who among us cannot sympathise, and understand? We long to be here for a purpose, although despite much self deception, none is evident... But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far, to embrace the hard truth, than a reassuring fable."​

I can of course only speak for myself, but I have to agree with Mr. Sagan. The idea that I'm not special, that my very existence and everything it is but a fleeting, barely noticed blip on the cosmic scale, does not worry me. Though, I can sympathise that the knowledge may be too much for some, I must ask that those who do find it distressing not hold us back. We must overcome fear, and embrace the truth, for the betterment of all mankind.

 

[Sunrider]

because it is a theory and not a scientific fact or law.

i would make any stupid theory.

say all serial killers have midiclorins from star wars caused them to kill.
hasnt been proven to be true or false.

but lets pretend that its true.

argument in a nut shell

May I recommend something that should be required reading for anyone and everyone discussing topics like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

My ancestors weren't monkeys ok, is that what you want to teach your kids? Bring your child to the zoo and bring them to the chimps and points to them then say' Look its your gradparents wave hello and give them a kiss."? No! That is not right we come from the bible like God says Adam and Eve not Davey and Steve and there was a snake.
So I say to you look in your heart and see that God made you and he made you very special and you are not made from monkeys.

I guess there's a good reason you're suspended. And after pausing to check that reason out, I confirmed that this is true.

And on that note:

 

[Vault101]

Snip

As I started by saying I actually don't give a crap if one or the other is right.I just dislike when what I assume is otherwise intelligent people makes themselves stupider by not even try to see the other point of view.

WHAT other veiw? god created the earth? Zeus? Pluto? Orion? the earth is on the back of a great sea turtle heald up by elephants?

the other point of veiw does NT actually clash with evolution because it is subject to interpretation...god could be behined it all you can't disporve/prove that

because it is a theory and not a scientific fact or law.

i would make any stupid theory.

say all serial killers have midiclorins from star wars caused them to kill.
hasnt been proven to be true or false.

but lets pretend that its true.

argument in a nut shell

see this^ this right here...this is what pisses me off, you obviously don't know the term "theory" in scientific context

why do people act like gods/spirits are somhow a [b/]perfectly reasonable[/b] explanation for anything in place of actual science? it does my head in

 

[Heronblade]

because it is a theory and not a scientific fact or law.

i would make any stupid theory.

say all serial killers have midiclorins from star wars caused them to kill.
hasnt been proven to be true or false.

but lets pretend that its true.

argument in a nut shell

Look up the definition of a scientific theory please, that is NOT what it means. Your midichlorian example would be an unsupported hypothesis, and is not nearly factual enough to be considered in the same league as a proper theory.

 

[Quaxar]

because it is a theory and not a scientific fact or law.

i would make any stupid theory.

say all serial killers have midiclorins from star wars caused them to kill.
hasnt been proven to be true or false.

but lets pretend that its true.

argument in a nut shell

Not sure if serious or sarcasm. To be safe, I laughed and facepalmed.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

As far as I can tell, it's just being told that "all-powerful entity did it" while you were growing up. The people who rail against evolution don't really understand the theory beyond "all-powerful entity didn't do it, therefore it must be wrong because all-powerful entity did it because my holy book says so". I want to talk to these people, get them to understand, but they'd probably just try to excorsise the demon of science from me.

 

[kenu12345]

Beats me. I believe it and I'm a Christian. Don't see how the bible even says its not true

 

[Gearhead mk2]

Beats me. I believe it and I'm a Christian. Don't see how the bible even says its not true

In chrsitianity, the people who don't belive in evolution bassically interpret the garden of Eden as completly literal. They think that the world is only 6000 years old, and that all it's countries, animal, plants, and ecosystems have stayed the same since the dawn of time. Something that just looking in ANY SCIENCE OR GEOGRAPHY BOOK EVER would disprove.

 

[Heronblade]

But your view is affected by the result you expect.
It is easier to find arguments for a result you want than find them against.
I do not think evolution is necessarily wrong but I'll be damned if I just accept it and ignore that for an instance the theory of evolution didn't get accepted when it did because a bunch of scientist wanted to get God out of the equation! the same bunch who apparently has convinced most of western society that the catholic church believed that the world was flat. When their argument why Columbus shouldn't have money for his trip was that the world was to wide to come across.

My point is be critical. Most of all to your own beliefs.

True, but I don't think you realize how heavily scientists regulate themselves in part for exactly that reason. Every researcher worth his salt will check his findings over and over and over again, while doing everything he or she can to avoid exactly that kind of confirmation bias. And then when they publish their findings, their data is checked by their peers, over, and over, and over again.

From time to time, a researcher publishes a work that does not meet the accepted standards for impartial review. Imagine for a moment a male walking into a meeting of extremely militant feminists and yelling at them to "get back in the kitchen". Said male is likely to be more kindly treated than the researcher that failed to check their work properly.

snip

Don't want to argue? thats fine, here's a few things you should know regardless.

A.) Humphrey has been passing around badly flawed hypotheses that ignore critical evidence for decades, nearly every single point on that website has been disproven. Just as an example:
http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm
http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/tag/russell-humphreys/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationist_cosmologies

B.) Biology and evolution follow the law of entropy to the letter. Entropy merely states that the energy in the universe as a whole progresses towards perfect disorder, not that any particular portion of it is incapable of going the other direction for a time. Biological creatures create and maintain their order by the use, and waste, of a great deal of energy. Using energy in this manner causes more overall disorder in a system than order. To put it in another more tangible example, think about how much death must be caused by a higher order organism in order to maintain itself.

 

[Olikar]

Biology is the only science that isn't based on the concept of entropy - that, overtime, things will degenerate and dissipate. How is it that a science with is essentially the culmination of physics and chemistry not circum to entropy?

Oh that old chestnut, Biology does follow the laws of entropy I don't get why people think it doesn't.

EDIT: Also to anyone saying evolution is a fact you're wrong, no scientific theory can ever be a fact because it goes against the core principles of the scientific method.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Here we are again with people totally misunderstanding fact and theory.

Evolution is a fact AND a theory. The fact is that creatures adapt over time to become other creatures. This is an undeniable fact. It is just true. Overwhelmingly true. You physically MUST live in a bubble to deny that this happened. Dinosaurs, bacteria, fossils (Even ONE fossil shows that evolution has more validity than creationism) and a hoard of other genetic evidence shows that creatures DO evolve over generations to become different creatures.

The THEORY of evolution attempts to explain this fact. It adds a mechanism to these facts to explain WHY they happen.

Evolution is a hard hard fact. The mechanism for WHY it happens is the theory.

I find it laughable that while scientists debate the theory some people squabble around behind trying to dispute the facts and think themselves up here with the rest of the scientific community. Sorry ALL of us moved past this ages ago and we are working on explaining the fact of evolution. If youre still tied up disputing the fact it happened at all youre literally in the dark ages. Im willing to listen to arguments of "God drove evolution". Im not willing to respect "All fossils are lies and the dinosaurs didnt exist". I find it hard not to feel sorry for people so scientifically behind the times. This was a problem we found and solved literally a hundred years ago in terms of fact finding. The theory is being discussed and if you wish to accept the facts and come up here and join us discussing the theory i welcome you even if your theory is "Vishnu and jesus worked together to guide evolution".

I try my best to be respectful in these discussions but scientific illiteracy gets my goat. If you REALLY think its false ill add you on skype and talk to you calmly and reasonably about why the facts stand up by themselves. Ive always wanted to try and explain evolution in person.