Recent replies to "Do You Believe in Evolution?"

Reply from Gianluca Polgar

Gianluca Polgar — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:10:46 -0000

Biological evolution, namely “modification by descent” is merely a scientific observation, an empirical fact. To be more precise, is the synthesis of a huge quantity of observations, accumulated in 150 years of science.

If you think that the empirical observational method (as a fundamental part of the scientific method) is valid, you only have to cope with this fundamental fact.

Then, there are several theories (not hypotheses), that support biological mechanisms and processes that cause this fact.

They are theories, and not hypotheses, since they are supported by experimental empirical evidence. Experiments are methodologically meant to falsify hypotheses. If hypotheses cannot be falsified by experimental manipulation of empirical data, hypotheses are accepted as valid theories for the whole scientific community, until falsified by new and more inclusive theories supported by more empirical evidence.

This is simply how the scientific method works since 1500’s. No less, no more.
Bachelard said: “the history of science is a precious graveyard of false theories”.

Frequently people use the word “theory” in a non scientific way. A scientific theory is not an “opinion” based on “scientific reasoning”; it is a methodological construct that 1) must be inherently falsifiable, and 2) was not falsified up to the present.
Most importantly, no scientific theory can be supported if its assertions cannot be falsified through experimental protocols (contrary to metaphysical concepts…).
ALL scientific theories are “false” in perspective, like in Bachelard’s graveyard.

Science is not dealing with “truth or false”, but with knowledge: descriptions of the empirical reality (theories) that stand against empirical and methodological evidence, notwithstanding the continuous and fervent attempt to falsify them made by the whole scientific community.

I really cannot justify this noise about biological evolutionary science. I can understand that it may concerns ourselves and our role more than, say, the theory of universal gravitation, but anthropocentrism should not bias our scientific attitude.

The theory of universal gravitation, as all scientific theories, is “false” in perspective; new more inclusive theories will hopefully arise that will explain the traditional set of observations and some other new ones (such as the theory of relativity)... this is not a good reason to jump from the window and expect that an exception to the predictions made by this scientific theory will not be realised.

Science is guiding our everyday lives in a pervasive way. Maybe for this reason, people without a scientific formation think that science can be a sort of window open on the truth. It is not. Nonetheless, science elevated human destiny to previously unconceivable highness in the last 500 years. It gave us a power to control nature and ourselves that is now so strong that we even can discuss about the ethical implications of its use… it ultimately frees our will, gave us the choice, and potentially make us ethical beings.

God is another thing. As a concept, is inherently NOT falsifiable. It is a metaphysical entity. For those who believe, it cannot and should not be demonstrated (as Kirkegaard said), it can only be witnessed.

To reply to a recent post: there are MANY cases of documented speciation around there. You just not got sufficiently deep into this issue. See for instance the case of Rhagoletis pomonella in historical times.

From a more general standpoint, I suggest an interesting reading dealing with the subject of this forum: D.R. Prothero (2008): Evolution. What Fossils Say and Why it Matters.

It also includes a very interesting historical and sociological analysis of creationism and intelligent desing.

Cheers,
Gianluca

www.themudskipper.org
O!||||/////
{)\

Reply from Andrew Laycock

Andrew Laycock — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:53:16 -0000

I have read with interest a number of the comments in this forum and am curious that arguments from both sides use the word “believe”, ie in God or in Evolution or both.

Wanting to maintain a scientific view, at least on the front of evolution, I would ask the question, why do you need to “believe” in evolution?

Evolution, to my way of thinking is a scientific hypothesis, and a number of observations from the world around us seem to support this hypothesis. Observation of the same things also reinforce belief in God, for those who already believe in his existence too.

Is it a function of the scientific method that we need to believe something might be true, in order to lead to observation and experimentation to support the hypothesis. In the case of evolution (or any other hypothesis for that matter) it is easier to disprove, than to prove beyond doubt, thus elevating the hypothesis to incontrovertible fact. It could be argued that the initiating belief introduces a bias, that will prevent us us from disproving our hypothesis too readily.

It seems to me that the statement “I believe in evolution” suggests that whilst there is evidence in favour of this theory, there remains some doubt, and that the observations to date have not elevated the theory to fact status.

It seems unlikely to me that by a process of experimentation and observation that this theory will ever elevate to the heights of incontrovertible fact. For example I have searched, (and not been successful) for a prospective randomised and controlled trial in which we have been able to demonstrate that by exposure to natural elements it is possible for one species to change into another either by mutation and natural selection, or any other mechanism. If anyone knows of such a work could you let me know?

Reply from Cynthia Harper

Cynthia Harper — Fri, 23 May 2008 03:59:21 -0000

Evolution and God are Different from each other.
we can believe in Evolution,and we can believe in God
because everyone knows that God has the power to rules us in anyway..
it depends on a person,which they will trust and give faith…
but for me, I’ll always trust God.. and I have faith in him..
the Evolution is only a Theory,but the God is Real.

Reply from Mico Tatalovic

Mico Tatalovic — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:18:12 -0000

I believe in evolution beacuse there is evidence for it and it makes sense. God? How do you define God? People who say they do believe in God mostly seem to believe in different things altogether that don’t seem to have much with evolution or mainstream religions.

Reply from Haydon Mort

Haydon Mort — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:32:53 -0000

Hello again Anonymous. Some good points there. However, I would still resist any parallels before science and religion. Science creates theories of a non-metaphysical nature and thus can be tested. That the Bible contains historically accurate (and inaccurate) information does in way warrant a belief that, for example, Jesus was born of a virgin (a not an uncommon historical claim for famous people 1000s of years ago). Believing in God is just as logical as believing a cracker turns into the body of Christ.

Religion doesn’t technically have any theories, because that would mean it was testable. In religion, theories are called dogmas and revealed truths. Testing dogmas is heretical. Check out the Catholic Encyclopaedia for more info.

You may say that a scientist who formulates a theory has faith in this/her theory in so far as it has not yet been disproved and that the weight of evidence points to it being right. As soon as the theory has been found wanting, the scientist happily revises or rejects the original theory for a one that conforms to the new evidence. There is literally nothing like this process in any field of religious discourse. Scientist are also often sceptical of their own theories.

If we are going to use the word faith this we need to define it very clearly as the a ‘scientific faith’ is the polar opposite of ‘religion faith’.

Reply from Radek Šimík

Radek Šimík — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:09:42 -0000

I have the impression that the group of people who believe in God match those who use him for something in their lives. God means something for them; the thought of God pleases them in hard life situations, or helps them escape the unanswerable questions. On the other hand, people who do not believe in God usually match those who lack any kind of (internal) understanding of what God is. It is a bit like asking a contemporary hunter-gatherer how he likes computers when he never actually saw any.
I belong to the latter category of people. I have no understanding of God, I have no idea what I should use him for (he does not exist FOR ME).
I know a lot of people who belong to the former category of people. They have intimate relationships with what they call God. I fully respect their relationship. They have never been able to tell me how their experience is. No wonder. Try to describe a hunter-gatherer what a computer is good for.

Reply from Wayne Thogmartin

Wayne Thogmartin — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:08:00 -0000

“A Very Simple Question..
Do you believe in Evolution?”

Yes.

“If Yes, then does it mean that you do not believe in God?”

No.

Remember, ‘God’ works in mysterious ways…

Reply from anonymous

anonymous — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:05:01 -0000

“Would you agree that a fraction of science is based on theory? By definition, theory is “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.” I’m arguing that to believe in a scientific theory, which contains conjectural evidence, one would have to have a bit of Faith. Otherwise, scientists would have no justification for investigating further.”

Let’s not confuse the facts of evolution with the theory explaining those facts. Evolution is every bit a fact as gravity is. Gravity is no less real because Newton or Einstein propose varying theories of how it works.

Reply from anonymous

anonymous — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:43:53 -0000

Haydon: You’re argument is logical; however, this dissonance we are having is, arguably, a result of operational definitions.

Here’s my justification: Would you agree that a fraction of science is based on theory? By definition, theory is “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.” I’m arguing that to believe in a scientific theory, which contains conjectural evidence, one would have to have a bit of Faith. Otherwise, scientists would have no justification for investigating further.

There is evidence for religion. For example, the historical account of Christianity is contained in the bible; this is where the basic tenets of the church are derived. On the other hand, I of course agree that one believes in God based on Faith.

From a more superficial perspective, science can be paralleled to religion. If you buy that religion is “Something one believes in and follows devotedly.” An example from culture would be the expression, “Money is his God,” meaning the person worships money.

Reply from Haydon Mort

Haydon Mort — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:48:48 -0000

Hello Anonymous. I would argue that science cannot be rationally be called a religion. This is because relgion by definition requires an element of faith. Whereas a big (or biggest) tenant of science states that nothing should be believed on insufficient evidence. The moment sufficient evidence surfaces for a religion, it would stop being a religion and become fact. Religion requires faith to be called religion. Science does not and therefore cannot be called a religion.

Reply from anonymous

anonymous — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:39:27 -0000

I see that there is evidence for Evolution; and I use the term while in an academic setting because that would cause a ruckus and I don’t feel compelled to change people’s minds on this heated issue. When outside academia, I may slip and talk in terms of Evolution because it’s what I do in academics, and most people I correspond with believe in Evolution. However, I believe in Creationism.

But to address your question more directly: If I did believe in Evolution, it would be reasonable to still believe in God. God still may have influenced the origins of life; maybe he produced the very first life form (instead of Adam and Eve), and evolution took off from there.

In terms of not believing in God, I know plenty of people who do not. Science is their religion, and they believe in a larger universal force they would not define as God.

Reply from Haydon Mort

Haydon Mort — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:52:00 -0000

As Noah said previously, creationism (or any religious construct) requires faith and evolution doesn’t. The question would be more usefully phrased as “which philosophy is better in order to live a more happy fulfilled life? Faith or non-faith?” The answer will depend on the person genetic and social predispositions. The words of Einstein should reverberate here.

“Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinion.”

Personally, I think elucidating truth is far more important than belief. Therefore non-faith is better. That is why I don’t believe in God and why I would assert that belief in God is ultimately damaging to society. Nobody should believe anything based on insufficient evidence and when they do, this inexorably brings them into conflict with people(s).

Reply from Krushna Mavani

Krushna Mavani — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:41:51 -0000

I am convinced about Evolution and enough number of proofs, so I agree with this concept.

However, I do not exactly believe in RELIGIOUS concept of God BUT I always wonder about few amazing things and also wonder whether something/one unknown really working behind the whole scene?!

Somehow I feel curious, if really nothing or who/what is working to do the following things?

Life, for generations, evolves to survive and to exist in future, creates brain and body, creates another life and it goes on. Some said that finally gene ‘WANTS’ to survive! Well, again genetic expressions modifies or change to survive and to fit in and exist. WHY? WHO/WHAT makes us work to survive and WHO/WHAT does untimately exist for generations of life? Why would it WANT to survive here?

All the Humans, Animals, and plants and tress, work TOGETHER to survive here—which we did not actually PLANNED TOGETHER ever to coexist.

Mostly unknowingly and unplanned way, we contribute to many circles on the planet.

Our all cells, chemicals and atoms of carbon in our body work as single system, controlled well by brain, works together so nicely to survive. Finally, life makes another life to move on. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE of this unplanned long mission all the way up to this stage of life and beyound?

There may be more such questions about universe, etc. but I stop here. So, such facts makes me think over this issue of ‘God’ (not religious god as I mentioned earlier).

Reply from Amit Kumar Singh

Amit Kumar Singh — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:31:59 -0000

Famous science blog Pharyngula posted this today..

“It’s so hard to satirize creationism..”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swlsqkAyxqY

Reply from Lee Turnpenny

Lee Turnpenny — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:55:52 -0000

All the ‘levels’ in your example could be addressed scientifically, could they not? As an analogy to creation myths, that’s some extrapolation; and it assumes that there was (must have been) intentional behaviour behind it.

Scriptural accounts of creation are not scientific explanations, which gives free range to allegorization. The ‘possibilities’ are endless, if one is referring to the human imagination. Scientific theories are also imaginative constructs, but they have to stand up independently – and that requires evidence. The fact that creation myths might be ‘unfalsifiable’ does not make them plausible or worthy of attention – unless, of course, one wants (or needs) to believe them.

Reply from Pete Jordan

Pete Jordan — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:07:59 -0000

To many, there seems to be an inherent need to choose between scientific accounts of the origins of the universe and the appearance of Homo sapiens, and so-called faith-based accounts of the same. But the all-important question here is: are these accounts operating on the same explanatory level?

Take the following example. The kettle is boiling on the stove. Why is the water boiling? One could provide explanations on at least three levels:

a) The scientific level (the physics of H2O)
b) The intentional level (because I intend to have a cup of tea)
c) The behavioral level (because I turned the stove on).

If we extrapolate this rather simplistic scenario to religious creation myths, one must ask whether such myths are attempting to offer competing explanations at the same level as scientific accounts, or whether they provide different types of explanation. (Which of these would constitute the “evidence-based explanation”, by the way?) Perhaps one only needs an explanation at one of these levels, but that doesn’t mean that it’s the only possible one.

As to the question, therefore, of whether multiple myths could be “right”, it seems to me that multiple creation (or other) myths could indeed simultaneously be “right”, as it is unlikely that any one of these will be truly universal (whatever this might mean); nor are all such myths likely to be operating at the same level of explanation.

The alternatives to literal creationism offered here – a theistic god, or a deist god – are not, as far as I can tell, the only alternatives. This is the reason why it is important to explore one’s pre-conceived notions and assumptions about the deity one is talking about – what one believes to be the only alternatives may not, in fact, exhaust the possibilities.

Reply from Lee Turnpenny

Lee Turnpenny — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:10:40 -0000

It is content we are discussing, isn’t it? But isn’t consideration of why, how and when religion(s) arose – and why they persist – relevant? I would argue that it is (although I’m afraid, Noah, that I can’t comment on Jared Diamond; and you read as though discussing origins rather than need). But that word ‘truth’ has come to mean many things: I believe such and such, so I consider it true; whereas, you, unbeliever, do not and so invest in a falsehood. It intrigues me how religious people talk about what their faith means to them; and how that differs from the next person. Religious understanding differs between different people of the same faith (excepting fundamentalists, but its impossible to communicate with them). So, of course my understanding of religion is different from theirs, and vice-versa – because theirs is different from each other (otherwise, there would be no need for, or impetus to discussions such as this). But, that is not why I disagree with them on evolution. I don’t ‘privilege’ Dawkins because he’s a scientist; but I do consider many of his opinions valid, relevant – and important. I’m an admirer of John Polkinghorne, and find his views on this matter very interesting – but I don’t agree with them. I disagree because, as an atheist, I don’t accept, or feel the need for, a faith-based explanation for how Homo sapiens evolved, because I am satisfied with the evidence-based explanation.

The question, as put, implied (correct me, Amit, if I’m mistaken) God singular, not gods plural. As such, it is not unreasonable to assume that it referred to the god of the three great monotheistic Abrahamic religions. Thus, esoterically citing other religions and their various gods or idols could be deemed quibbling. (And it can be argued that Buddhism is not a religion.) Inter- and intra-religious attitudes differ, and exceptions can always be found. But isn’t it interesting how virtually all faiths have their own (although often unoriginal) creation myth? Each will be ‘true’ to their respective believers. But they can’t all be right! (Amit may have meant it to be taken as referring to the reader’s own particular god. Well, I don’t have one. But I confess to venerating Darwin.) Evolution provides an areligious, universal account of our origins. Consequently, objections to evolution are predominantly faith- based (whether or not all faiths, or all members of particular faiths agree), because religious worldviews and institutional authorities are threatened.

If we move off topic to human embryonic stem cell and cloning research, positions vary again. Most dissent here is from Christianity, with Islam and Judaism relatively accepting. But Christianity has many different denominations, each with its own position on this issue. There’s an element of competition at work here. However, not all followers of a particular denomination necessarily concur with all its doctrines (differing understandings of the same religion). But, where opposition arises, it is again predominantly faith-based. And the stronger the faith, the less likely one is to accept, or be persuaded by the science.

If you reject literal creationism due to the compelling evolutionary evidence, but can’t let go of your god, then you either believe that a god retains input, guiding it as a process, and you remain theistic; or you advocate that some supernatural entity set the ball rolling, and left it to evolve without care or intervention, and you become deistic – a state of conflict because you can’t believe in this god – he ain’t gonna do a thing for you. So, which way to go?

Religion is a fundamental part of the human story. But that doesn’t make its teachings ‘true’ (i.e., correct). Evolution and science have exposed so much of the content of religious teachings as erroneous. Even though they won’t explain everything before our species becomes extinct does not argue against researching religiosity… or art, or music. Investigating these aspects of being human in no way diminishes wonder or mystery or pleasure. The more we learn, the more there is to learn; problems arise when people don’t want to learn or won’t co-operate with research that potentially undermines a religious worldview.

Reply from Alexis Lowne

Alexis Lowne — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:18:30 -0000

Yes I do “believe” in evolution, I think it is a beautiful elegant theory backed up by masses of fossilised evidence not to mention the evolutionary mutations we note in fruitflies and virusses.(these obviously are good research subjects as you can observe many, many generations in a relative short timespan).

The reason for placing the word “believe” as I did
is because I have a terribly difficult time in believing anything. I tend to think of my convictions as somthing in a state of flux and,(big grin) evolution, thus new evidence will make me adjust.
As a result I tend to be agnostic on religious matters, relegating spiritual judgement to small children and God.

I, However, do tend to agree with the first post that a religiuos belief does not have to conflict with the theory of evolution. One must never forget that science tries to explain HOW, and in my opinion religion tries to explain WHY. Even if you believe in the most exotic of scientific theories, one can always personally and spiritually search for the reason why it be so.

Reply from Pete Jordan

Pete Jordan — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:09:59 -0000

Noah, I’m certainly not in support of an anthropological perspective other than one that sees us humans as the embodied, fleshy beings that we are. I agree that biology and science can tell us something about everything that we do and every thought that we have.

What I think you’re getting at when you bring up the Tibetan monks (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that, given all that we have learned about the natural world, we shouldn’t prematurely invoke “religious miracle” (if indeed we should ever do so) when we discuss these events, as though there are aspects of human experience that we can cordon off as “religious” or “miraculous” that must be kept free from scientific investigation. I completely agree that if we are to understand ourselves and the natural world in which we are embedded as fully as we can, we should use whatever means we have at our disposal to explore every phenomenon, including ones like this, to whatever extent we can.

From what I can tell from your posts, you’re particularly interested in explanations for (evolutionary or otherwise) and physical manifestations of (e.g. slowed metabolism during meditation) religious beliefs and practices. While I would agree that these are interesting questions, I’m more interested in the content of the claims that various manifestations of religion make, and the notion of testability of these claims. What are the religious reasons that Tibetan monks meditate – is there anything more to it than a survival mechanism against bitterly cold weather? What are the sources of authority within Tibetan Buddhism? What is the goal of all living beings according to the Tibetan Buddhist understanding? These questions seem somewhat difficult to answer using tools we would typically recognize as scientific.

It sounds like we agree that there may be aspects of knowledge and belief that are beyond scientific exploration. However, many scientists – Richard Dawkins included – think that there is nothing that is beyond scientific exploration and explanation, including both what we might call the external manifestations of religious belief and the internal content of these beliefs. It is this position that I have a problem with. It seems to me that such a stance suggests a misunderstanding both of the limits of scientific inquiry, and of the nature of religious language and belief.

Reply from Noah Gray

Noah Gray — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:59:01 -0000

Biological markers such as heart rate/blood pressure changes, stress hormone release, pupil dilation, respiratory changes, and parasympathetic/sympathetic nervous system balance(amongst many others) all go a long way toward predicting emotion and feelings in all animals, including humans. These changes occur in response to love, fear, anxiety, anger, and of course, charismatic religious fervor.

We are biological creatures, not magical beings. We betray our emotions and feelings in biological and quantifiable ways. Our conversation has caused changes in your body that were practically broadcast to anyone watching you type your response. If asked, s/he would say “I had a feeling that Pete was intimately engaged in thought.” What the observer really meant to say was that s/he detected quantifiable changes from baseline in a number of your physiological parameters. When meditating monks lower their metabolism and heart rates to astounding levels, or mysteriously produce extraordinary amounts of body heat under unbelievable conditions, is it a “miracle”, or simply biologically possible? In this case, although we currently do not have the full explanation, we can use science to determine how the monks achieve such feats, proving the physical capacities of the human body. In my opinion, when completing these physical escapades, the monks are not “showing off”, but rather ensuring that they are deeply-engaged in their meditation and focus, with the outward biological sign being increased heat production and reduced metabolism (sounds a lot like hibernation to me, rarely considered a miracle). So the monks enter a well-known biological state, and there they achieve fulfillment and enlightenment. I am fine with all of that and think that this topic is very interesting. But let’s not pretend that a religious miracle allowed them to accomplish what bears and muskrats do each winter.

The truth to which you refer does have aspects that are beyond our scientific abilities to test. That was the point of my previous post. If we can’t test for the presence of God, then religion is not a theory. Believe or don’t believe, that is your choice. But being mortal beings ourselves, let’s not pretend that biology and science doesn’t play a role in everything that we do and with every thought that we have, including believing in God.