Do You Believe in Evolution?
Amit Kumar Singh
Sunday, 15 July 2007 23:26 UTC
A Very Simple Question..
Do you believe in Evolution?
If Yes, then does it mean that you do not believe in God?
But how can you not believe in God?
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
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. -
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?
-
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,
Gianlucawww.themudskipper.org
O___!||||/////
{__)_\ -
Evolution in darwinian competitive terms is a lie and a very subtle one, since it is close to reality.. that darwinian evolution is in place as we speak it is true, but that it is evolution in a positive sense is clearly and blatantly false!!! Demonstration of that is the carcinogenesis process, evolution of cancer clones. Destructive industrialisation of the world is another example. We are starting to face the effects of believing in this lie, and it is time to open our eyes!!! Now I beg your pardon if a mention a book of mine: the selfish cell, but it is exactly about these topics.. I don’t want to sell, it is available at free at NLM if someone would like to read it… Take care
-
I cannot understand what do you mean by “positive evolution”, but it seems that you you’re NOT talking of biological evolution.
Biological evolution is simply “modification by descent”. It is a change involving populations, not individuals (organisms or cells). After the new synthesis, it implies a vertical transmission of genetic material, a source of variation and different mechanisms which act on this source material.
Darwin based his model of modification by descent on “natural selection”, which is only one of several evolutionary mechanisms and processes (e.g. drift, migration, mutation) that are now known to act on populations.
Darwin’s general principles are perfectly valid today: this does not mean that evolutionary biologists made nothing in the last 150 years.Incidentally, biological evolution is a historical, not a teleonomic process. Populations “come from” a certain biological state: they DO NOT “go to” any state, from an evolutionary perspective.
When you refer to Darwinian evolution, you usually mean that evolutionary change is gradual and mediated by very small steps, contrary to the “punctuated equilibria” proposed by Gould and Eldridge… Are you talking about this?
Gianluca Polgar -
Anonymous
I would ask, then, do you “believe” in gravity, and if so, does that make it so you don’t believe in God?
The point is that evolutionary theory, as a scientific basis for experimentation and understanding of how life changes over time, has nothing to do with God. The only thing that ‘evolution’ might ‘disprove’ as far as beliefs is the biblical account of creation, and by that I mean the literal translation of Genesis to mean 7 days, all animals at once, 6000 years ago, which all scientific evidence to date contradicts anyhow.
But many religions, including much of Christianity, already agrees that the biblical account of creation is more metaphorical or human interpretation at that time, not a detailed account of how, when, and why. So the belief in God is more of a personal one – whether you believe there is a, for the lack of a better word, ‘greater’ reason for how life is, or there isn’t. And that’s up to each person, not science, to decide. So your ‘simple questions’ don’t have to contradict, depending on how you choose to view the universe.
Now, many scientists do choose to ‘believe’ there is no God. But this does not mean, as the replies here have clearly shown, that all scientists don’t have faith. It just means, in general, that they separate “how” and “why” when it comes to the existence of life. To say “how can you not believe in God” is clearly condescending, and clearly an attempt to rouse emotion from people who you personally disagree with. How can you not believe in Santa? Buddha? Or how can you believe in Jesus?
-
I agree with the previously posted msg.
Science and religious belief are not mutually exclusive.Yet I should say that it is more often the case that religious representatives want to say something which is not scientific about scientific issue, than viceversa.
I must also specify that this is almost exclusively true for proselytistic religions.
This can be irritating.Oh, by the way, buddhism is not a religion in its original sense, but a phylosophy: Buddha always told he was NOT a god.
Gianluca
Results
-
