Our shared 'belief in evolution'

[thereaderrabbit]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit

Originally posted by: piasabird
First Define Evolution!

On the same train of thought- perhaps I should define belief too?

I know I left some wiggle room, but if I define everything in detail nobody will read it. What are the differences in understanding you wish to illuminate as far as the term 'evolution' goes?

-Reader

This is something I've asked on a couple evolution threads. If you don't buy god creating man in his current form, and you don't buy that we evolved from a lower species, what's left? Man just appeared one day tens of thousands of years ago? What middle ground or other hypothesis can be posed? And what's my appendix for?

There are so many ways to think about this... perhaps you accept evolution, but only in a recent historical context. Evolution was and is only in play after God/aliens or whatever delivered man, apes and everything else to Earth, say 6000 years ago? I almost wrote 'evolution of man' in the poll, but decided to let people think less- so they might be more candid. I'll admit now that things might not be that simple.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit

Originally posted by: piasabird
First Define Evolution!

On the same train of thought- perhaps I should define belief too?

I know I left some wiggle room, but if I define everything in detail nobody will read it. What are the differences in understanding you wish to illuminate as far as the term 'evolution' goes?

-Reader

This is something I've asked on a couple evolution threads. If you don't buy god creating man in his current form, and you don't buy that we evolved from a lower species, what's left? Man just appeared one day tens of thousands of years ago? What middle ground or other hypothesis can be posed? And what's my appendix for?

There are so many ways to think about this... perhaps you accept evolution, but only in a recent historical context. Evolution was and is only in play after God/aliens or whatever delivered man, apes and everything else to Earth, say 6000 years ago? I almost wrote 'evolution of man' in the poll, but decided to let people think less- so they might be more candid. I'll admit now that things might not be that simple.

Evolution, fine, it's a theory. Carbon dating? Fact (well, for the last 50,000 years anyway). Proven. Scientific. Undispusted (well, there's the Young Earth people dispute it, but do they count?) Dinosaurs were here 60 million years ago. Man, for over the past hundred thousand years. Why can't we dispense with the 6000 year number as fantasy?

 

[mercanucaribe]

"Believe" is the wrong word, and it always annoy me when people say "believe in evolution" like it's the Easter Bunny. Evolution is fact, and there's no belief involved.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
"Believe" is the wrong word, and it always annoy me when people say "believe in evolution" like it's the Easter Bunny. Evolution is fact, and there's no belief involved.

I believe it is a fact.

 

[Vic]

Evolution is a theory that science uses to describe certain observations in the world around us. No more no less. Yes, just like gravity (which incidentally, we know even less about). Theories are modifiable arguments. They are right until new evidence proves them wrong. I've read "the good book(s)" from several religions. There's some wisdom in all of them, but in a way are a lot like old science, i.e. the foundation of modern thinking but contain many old theories that people thought were right at the time but have since been proven wrong. And that's really the biggest difference between religion and science. As belief in these old theories became rigidly institutionalized in the authority structure, any attempts to prove them wrong with new evidence became a crime. I shudder at the idea of the same thing happening to science, but am starting to think that it is inevitable.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
"Believe" is the wrong word, and it always annoy me when people say "believe in evolution" like it's the Easter Bunny. Evolution is fact, and there's no belief involved.

I believe it is a fact.

And (hypothetically) what if new evidence, new facts, were discovered to challenge that belief?

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Skewed questions.

Especially no. 3... where's "I read the Bible just like any piece of literature, and that doesn't have to make me a believer" option? the way you made it right now, you imply that people who don't read it and/or don't believe in it are idiots...

As for No. 2, you really need to look up the definition of a scientific theory.

Based on these perceptions, my guess is that you (the OP) are somewhere between a Jesus freak and a lawnchair Bible thumper

 

[RESmonkey]

Dude, those choices make you sound pro-religion. C'mon...

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Skewed questions.

Especially no. 3... where's "I read the Bible just like any piece of literature, and that doesn't have to make me a believer" option? the way you made it right now, you imply that people who don't read it and/or don't believe in it are idiots...

As for No. 2, you really need to look up the definition of a scientific theory.

Based on these perceptions, my guess is that you (the OP) are somewhere between a Jesus freak and a lawnchair Bible thumper

Seriously- what are you talking about? I was not meaning to imply that non-believers can't read or just don't trust books. I was just lumping a few options together. If I wanted to be this Jesus freak you speak of I would have said something like, "I'm not a believer, I can't read, I don't trust books, and I molest pets"

FYI- I fit in under "I believe int he parts I choose to".

And what's wrong with option #2 for the definition of a scientific theory? Should I mail my doctorate back to the university from which I received it?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit
I'm a scientist, and the only theories I would say I 'believe' in are the ones I'm pitching to the community (ie. you have to believe in an idea, even if you're about to disprove it, because that spark of belief drives you to investigation)

If that's your best understanding of a "theory," you should consdier going hitting the books to refresh your understanding of the word. Here's the scientific definition of a theory

the·o·ry (the'?-re, thîr'e) pronunciation
n., pl. -ries.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

1. 
   If you don't believe in the ideas you're "pitching" to a community, it says little about your qualifications as a scientist, let alone your integrity.
   

   What I believe is that evolution is the best explanation I know of for how man and many other creatures came to be in their present forms. I do not believe in evolution itself. Beliefs are fixed and should not be easily swayed. I will accept any theory over evolution when it presents a better case. Does this make me nuts?

   It makes you sound pretty conflicted if you don't believe in the name of the phenomena you accept as "the best explanation" for how man and many other creatures came to be in their present forms.
   

   Do you believe the the theory of gravity or do you just accept it? I would think most people cannot explain the theory of gravity in any real detail, so believing in it seems dangerous.

   Dangerous??? Does that mean, if you don't understand how yeast makes bread rise, it's also dangerous?
   
   Gravity is name given to the observed and measured attraction between masses.
   

   grav·i·ty (grav'i-te) pronunciation
   n.

   1. Physics.
      • a. The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.
        
        b. The natural force of attraction between any two massive bodies, which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
        
        c. Gravitation.
   2. 2. Grave consequence; seriousness or importance: They are still quite unaware of the gravity of their problems.
      
   3. 3. Solemnity or dignity of manner.

   [French gravité, heaviness, from Old French, from Latin gravitas, from gravis, heavy.

   Gravity is seldom dangerous unless you ignore its consequenses. Jumping off a building or failing to notice an object falling from above you would make the point. :shocked:
   

   I guess this is a two way street. Do you believe in what's written in a holy book without having read it from cover to cover? If you haven't read it how can you say you really know what you believe?

   The Judeo-Christian bible was written over time. It was written in ignorance of newer scientific information, and it's been re-written to suit various political whims and directions as those running their respective religions.
   
   It may be entertaining as literature, and it may provide some insight into history, but it fails dismally as an ultimate definition of any scientific truth. Depending on the bible, literally, for all your scientific answers only results in contined ignorance.

 

[palehorse]

the third question needs another option:

I do NOT believe that "The Good Book" is factual, but I HAVE read it cover-to-cover.

 

[huggiebear]

I believe we need to consume more resources to figure out the answer.

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit
I'm a scientist, and the only theories I would say I 'believe' in are the ones I'm pitching to the community (ie. you have to believe in an idea, even if you're about to disprove it, because that spark of belief drives you to investigation)

If that's your best understanding of a "theory," you should consdier going hitting the books to refresh your understanding of the word. Here's the scientific definition of a theory

the·o·ry (the'?-re, thîr'e) pronunciation
n., pl. -ries.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

1. 
   If you don't believe in the ideas you're "pitching" to a community, it says little about your qualifications as a scientist, let alone your integrity.
   

   What I believe is that evolution is the best explanation I know of for how man and many other creatures came to be in their present forms. I do not believe in evolution itself. Beliefs are fixed and should not be easily swayed. I will accept any theory over evolution when it presents a better case. Does this make me nuts?

   It makes you sound pretty conflicted if you don't believe in the name of the phenomena you accept as "the best explanation" for how man and many other creatures came to be in their present forms.
   

   Do you believe the the theory of gravity or do you just accept it? I would think most people cannot explain the theory of gravity in any real detail, so believing in it seems dangerous.

   Dangerous??? Does that mean, if you don't understand how yeast makes bread rise, it's also dangerous?
   
   Gravity is name given to the observed and measured attraction between masses.
   

   grav·i·ty (grav'i-te) pronunciation
   n.

   1. Physics.
      • a. The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.
        
        b. The natural force of attraction between any two massive bodies, which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
        
        c. Gravitation.
   2. 2. Grave consequence; seriousness or importance: They are still quite unaware of the gravity of their problems.
      
   3. 3. Solemnity or dignity of manner.

   [French gravité, heaviness, from Old French, from Latin gravitas, from gravis, heavy.

   Gravity is seldom dangerous unless you ignore its consequenses. Jumping off a building or failing to notice an object falling from above you would make the point. :shocked:
   

   I guess this is a two way street. Do you believe in what's written in a holy book without having read it from cover to cover? If you haven't read it how can you say you really know what you believe?

   The Judeo-Christian bible was written over time. It was written in ignorance of newer scientific information, and it's been re-written to suit various political whims and directions as those running their respective religions.
   
   It may be entertaining as literature, and it may provide some insight into history, but it fails dismally as an ultimate definition of any scientific truth. Depending on the bible, literally, for all your scientific answers only results in contined ignorance.

1. 
   Um, okay...
   
   I'm not going to reply to most of what you said (it's all just a little much), but as for questioning my integrity- what's up with that?
   
   

   If you don't believe in the ideas you're "pitching" to a community, it says little about your qualifications as a scientist, let alone your integrity.

   
   When I wrote up a series of peer reviewed papers from the material in my doctoral thesis and defended and in front of peers, professors, at invited talks, public meetings and at invited conferences I learned a great deal about how some of my ideas could be criticized. I'm not sure if all of the ideas I've proposed are indeed fact. The theories explain so many interesting things, but I acknowledge that some things remain unproven and others lack the detail to be proven past the point of mere conjecture just yet. Simply put I could be right, but there are still those other theories that mine must compete against. I could be wrong, and they all could be wrong. But WTF?- my qualifications as a scientist are intact. I read the literature, develop theories, test the theories the best I can, and seek direction from within and others.
   
   So what gives you right to question my qualifications and integrity?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: huggiebear
I believe we need to consume more resources to figure out the answer.

:thumbsup:

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit
So what gives you right to question my qualifications and integrity?

The manner in which you speak, more specifically, the way you use casual/lay terms when discussing technical scientific topics. That and engineers aren't scientists.

Originally posted by: piasabird
First Define Evolution!

When gene frequencies in a population of potentially interbreeding organisms change from generation to generation.

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit
So what gives you right to question my qualifications and integrity?

The manner in which you speak, more specifically, the way you use casual/lay terms when discussing technical scientific topics. That and engineers aren't scientists.

Originally posted by: piasabird
First Define Evolution!

When gene frequencies in a population of potentially interbreeding organisms change from generation to generation.

Ouch, rough crowd in the evening.

These terms were mixed before I started- that was the impetus for the thread. I just wanted to examine the mixture.

And yes, engineers can be scientists Perhaps it's not true for all of engineering, but in Biological and Chemical Engineering it can defiantly be true.

 

[Matt1970]

I don't see why a lot of people think if you believe in God you cannot believe in evolution and vise-versa.

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Originally posted by: Matt1970
I don't see why a lot of people think if you believe in God you cannot believe in evolution and vise-versa.

My understanding of things is that you will not find too many people who say you can accept evolution as fact, but not maintain a belief in God.

However you might find some religious fanatics that will say that if you believe in God you cannot accept evolution. This is not representative of most religious believers.

My point was more the acceptance of evolutionary theory versus 'belief' in the evolutionary theory.

 

[jackschmittusa]

well, I have never even tried to duplicate Michaelson's simple experiments myself, but I would feel honest telling my grandkids that the speed of light is approx. 186k miles/sec. I think Newtonian physics will serve me well in the macro world I live in, even though I am aware of the different conditions in the quantum world. Evolution, defined as "origin of species" works for me as well.

For all of the above, I feel comfortable saying that I believe them. Not because I have personally performed the necessary experiments, but because so many others have whose expertise and credentials have been upheld and verified.

Since there is a mountain of evidence pointing to the Earth being 4 billion years old, and absolutely none to suggest that it is 6k years old, I find it ludicrous to "believe" in the 6k figure. Even the method used to calculate the 6k number was based on folklore. So, I have no problem thinking of the 6k number as wrong. And as long as no valid evidence is is presented to support it, the figure is not even worth considering.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit
Please try out the poll!

After reading both sides of the debate on "The First Republican Debate: Three Of Them Don't Believe In Evolution!" I'm as confused as ever. It seems like most people here 'believe' in evolution. This freaks me out.

I'm a scientist, and the only theories I would say I 'believe' in are the ones I'm pitching to the community (ie. you have to believe in an idea, even if you're about to disprove it, because that spark of belief drives you to investigation).

What I believe is that evolution is the best explanation I know of for how man and many other creatures came to be in their present forms. I do not believe in evolution itself. Beliefs are fixed and should not be easily swayed. I will accept any theory over evolution when it presents a better case. Does this make me nuts?

Do you believe the the theory of gravity or do you just accept it? I would think most people cannot explain the theory of gravity in any real detail, so believing in it seems dangerous.

I guess this is a two way street. Do you believe in what's written in a holy book without having read it from cover to cover? If you haven't read it how can you say you really know what you believe?

-Reader

People confuse science with religion. Because they BELIEVE in religion they assume that people BELIEVE in science. This is not the case. What makes science vailid is that it is looking for the best explanation for observed phenomenona. If a better explanation comes alone, after a lot of evaluation it is given as the best explanation for the observed world.

Please add "Evolution provides the best explanation for what we see around us but I would not have a problem if someone came up with a better explanation"

What is the difference between saying that Neptune causes earthquakes and sea storms and GOD created life?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit
Please try out the poll!

After reading both sides of the debate on "The First Republican Debate: Three Of Them Don't Believe In Evolution!" I'm as confused as ever. It seems like most people here 'believe' in evolution. This freaks me out.

I'm a scientist, and the only theories I would say I 'believe' in are the ones I'm pitching to the community (ie. you have to believe in an idea, even if you're about to disprove it, because that spark of belief drives you to investigation).

What I believe is that evolution is the best explanation I know of for how man and many other creatures came to be in their present forms. I do not believe in evolution itself. Beliefs are fixed and should not be easily swayed. I will accept any theory over evolution when it presents a better case. Does this make me nuts?

Do you believe the the theory of gravity or do you just accept it? I would think most people cannot explain the theory of gravity in any real detail, so believing in it seems dangerous.

I guess this is a two way street. Do you believe in what's written in a holy book without having read it from cover to cover? If you haven't read it how can you say you really know what you believe?

-Reader

People confuse science with religion. Because they BELIEVE in religion they assume that people BELIEVE in science. This is not the case. What makes science vailid is that it is looking for the best explanation for observed phenomenona. If a better explanation comes alone, after a lot of evaluation it is given as the best explanation for the observed world.

Please add "Evolution provides the best explanation for what we see around us but I would not have a problem if someone came up with a better explanation"

What is the difference between saying that Neptune causes earthquakes and sea storms and GOD created life?

It really all boils down to what meaning a person pours into the word "Evolution". Many, many people...both Christians and secularists...falsely believe that evolution precludes the existence of God.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit

Originally posted by: Harvey
If you don't believe in the ideas you're "pitching" to a community, it says little about your qualifications as a scientist, let alone your integrity.

When I wrote up a series of peer reviewed papers from the material in my doctoral thesis and defended and in front of peers, professors, at invited talks, public meetings and at invited conferences I learned a great deal about how some of my ideas could be criticized. I'm not sure if all of the ideas I've proposed are indeed fact. The theories explain so many interesting things, but I acknowledge that some things remain unproven and others lack the detail to be proven past the point of mere conjecture just yet. Simply put I could be right, but there are still those other theories that mine must compete against. I could be wrong, and they all could be wrong. But WTF?- my qualifications as a scientist are intact. I read the literature, develop theories, test the theories the best I can, and seek direction from within and others.

So what gives you right to question my qualifications and integrity?

That sounds as if you may engage "pitching" ideas which you don't necessarily believe. My reply was a conditional statement that questioned your integrity, IF you don't believe in the ideas you're "pitching."

You said you're a "scientist," which doesn't tell us much about your field of expertise or your qualifications in that field. However, you said:

What I believe is that evolution is the best explanation I know of for how man and many other creatures came to be in their present forms. I do not believe in evolution itself.

I questioned your qualifications because I questioned your understanding of the scientific definition of a "theory," which is why I posted it. It made no sense to me that you could accept "evolution" as an explanation for observed phenomena while simultaneously rejecting "evolution, itself."

"Evolution" is just the name for the theory. A scientific theory is only valid until it is disproven, and it takes only one exception to disprove a theory. As a scientist, if you accept/believe that a theory is a valid explanation for anything, then you believe it exists.

It may be that you didn't choose the best words to describe what was behind your opinions. Nothing personal or hostile intended, but I'm an engineer and inventor, and I thought enough was missing from your OP that raised questions for me.

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit

Originally posted by: Harvey
If you don't believe in the ideas you're "pitching" to a community, it says little about your qualifications as a scientist, let alone your integrity.

When I wrote up a series of peer reviewed papers from the material in my doctoral thesis and defended and in front of peers, professors, at invited talks, public meetings and at invited conferences I learned a great deal about how some of my ideas could be criticized. I'm not sure if all of the ideas I've proposed are indeed fact. The theories explain so many interesting things, but I acknowledge that some things remain unproven and others lack the detail to be proven past the point of mere conjecture just yet. Simply put I could be right, but there are still those other theories that mine must compete against. I could be wrong, and they all could be wrong. But WTF?- my qualifications as a scientist are intact. I read the literature, develop theories, test the theories the best I can, and seek direction from within and others.

So what gives you right to question my qualifications and integrity?

That sounds as if you may engage "pitching" ideas which you don't necessarily believe. My reply was a conditional statement that questioned your integrity, IF you don't believe in the ideas you're "pitching."

Sometime when you're looking at a complex system you are struck by an idea that might help explain how it works. Due to testing and/or time constraints you do not have time to prove your theory. Since you think your idea could prove useful you present it as best you can (possibly wrong or imperfect). So yes, I pitch ideas that I don't necessarily believe, but I do want to share them and possibly I'll warm up to them further. Just because you don't like every new idea you have doesn't mean they should be quickly discarded.

Originally posted by: Harvey
You said you're a "scientist," which doesn't tell us much about your field of expertise or your qualifications in that field. However, you said:

What I believe is that evolution is the best explanation I know of for how man and many other creatures came to be in their present forms. I do not believe in evolution itself.

I questioned your qualifications because I questioned your understanding of the scientific definition of a "theory," which is why I posted it. It made no sense to me that you could accept "evolution" as an explanation for observed phenomena while simultaneously rejecting "evolution, itself."

"Evolution" is just the name for the theory. A scientific theory is only valid until it is disproven, and it takes only one exception to disprove a theory. As a scientist, if you accept/believe that a theory is a valid explanation for anything, then you believe it exists.

It may be that you didn't choose the best words to describe what was behind your opinions. Nothing personal or hostile intended, but I'm an engineer and inventor, and I thought enough was missing from your OP that raised questions for me.

Okay, it's a semantics issue. I don't reject the Theory of Evolution. I accept it as true. I have no problem accepting it as true. If science comes up with something better I'll give it a listen with an open mind. If I were a believer I doubt I would have the open mind when hearing contradicting evidence.

I was treating accepting and believing as two different things (although this is not always clear- thus the thread). I've viewed beliefs as strong enough to stand against wave after wave of contradictory evidence, where as acceptance is a acknowledgment that can be updated as need be.

 

[1prophet]

I would be more concerned if they worship the Almighty Dollar and hold it sacrosanct above all else.

 

[CaptnKirk]

I choose to believe that Biblical History is bits and fragments of tales and stories, passed down and repeted for generations
from long before there was a written language to record the legend as it had itself evolved to explain away the fears and perceptions of
a developing primative society, as they themselves learned to do things for their self preservation and each subsequent generation attempted
to brag up their memories of their own ancesters as the culture grew and expanded.

Regional variations related to climate and terrain further perterbated these memories as they, as legends were in turn selectively edited for impact and effect on the listeners.

Fear begot superstition, legend begot religion.