This is tangential to the latest Evolution thread but I think it deserves its own thread. In the Evolution debates I frequently hear skeptics of Evolution theory say that they have a hard time accepting evolution because they see lots of gaps in the evidence (fossil record), say there is no recorded evidence of what macro-evolution and that they are upset that people present Evolution as a fact. Given that yes those are problems with Evolution but my question is why is Evolution singled out for these criticisms when there are several scientific theories that have those problems and some of those there is even less evidence and more unknowns regarding them. Continental Drift / Plate Tectonics is one with many of the same problems as Evolution. It is a theory that is almost unobservable given the amount of time scales involved, is based upon a geological record with many gaps, and is also presented as being almost fact. Quantum theory. The structure of an atom is presented as being known when under the Heisenberg principle it is impossible to observe even an atom. The basis of quantum theory is primarily based on mathematics with observations not based on direct observations but indications of the existence of the particles. Some of these subatomic particles, such as neutrinos, don't even leave indications. String theory. While there is a lot of controversy about this within physics circles there doesn't seem to be much controversy about it within wider society yet String Theory at the moment is almost a totally mathmatical theory and possibly might never be testible. There are many other scientific theories that are widely accepted with all sorts of problems yet barely any controversy outside of their immediate fields. These theories aren't esoteric theories but also are ones that are taught in schools. So why is Evolution singled out and why the clamor for teaching alternatives to Evolution or the problems with Evolution when not for something like Continental Drift? I have my own thoughts regarding the answer but as a supporter of the Evolutionary theory I'm interested what the skeptics have to say.
because we already know the earth is round. seriously, not to knock religion, but evolution directly challenges the bible. honestly, i could see some religious authority being nervous if we don't have the story of adam and eve, it is integral to pretty much the entire Bible. We are created in God's image by him, purposefully. What happens if that is no longer the accepted belief. Alot of our place as humans in the Bible is directly based on that.
I think that is the main reason but I am curious if there is more to it. For that matter if you are citing religion as the primary reason then why even bothering citing objections to it regarding things like gaps in the fossil record? Is that to justify the religious position or is it that religion is only one of many objections? [edit] That is why I am curious regarding someone like Dr. Tour (sorry forgot his first name) who is a scientist why he doesn't accept Evolutionary theory. Is it because his religion causes him to overlook science in that regard? I have a hard time believing someone like that would do that. Further outside of a literalist interpretation of the Bible or other creation stories why is Evolution so difficult to reconcile then with a faith perspective?
The state shouldn't be forcibly teaching any theory, but just like gay marriage, people feel the need for their ideas to be legitimized by a government institution. The fight is misguided.
I have concerns with the way evolution is presented. I don't see string theory presented in the same way. We're talking about evolution in that other thread because there was an issue of how it was presented in textbooks, right? Contrary to pgabriel's post, I don't see evolution as all that concerning from the viewpoint of my faith. If you read the Bible as a science text, then yeah it could be....but the concept that a Creator created can be read into evolution every bit as much as it could into the account of Genesis. Plate tectonics could be challenging to those who interpret Genesis literally, as well, I suppose....in the sense that it means the earth is older than they believe the Bible conveys it to be. It's just that none of that has to do with my understanding of God through Christ...or how I live my life in response to that.
I'm done answering for Jim Tour. If you wish to seek him out, he regularly attends West University Baptist Church, as I understand it. He can also be found at the faculty lunch room on the Rice campus. I wish I had not posted that link.
String theory having come out since I've long been out of highschool I don't know but if I recall things like plate tectonics where presented in the same way as Evolution, that it is a given the continents drift. For that matter the prevailing theory of aerodynamic lift was presented as fact, there were even simple experiments on it we did in science class, when recent findings have shown that lift doesn't work that way.
I apologize if you feel I'm putting the onus on you to answer for Dr. Tour. I actually did a google search on him and from a quick search I found the statement you had cited but couldn't find more specifics regarding what his scientific objections where. (Interesting research though on carbon nanotubes BTW). I don't see why you are sorry you posted that link. Its a good statement and he sounds like a smart guy. I have an intellectual disagreement though so I am intellectually curious to find more.
Don't you think that would handicap science education? As I mentioned there is ton of uncertainty regarding Quantum theory but that isn't stopping the development of quantum computing.
I find that a very shallow view of god. I raised this in the other thread. Is the issue that the idea that humans are descended from other animals calls into the question that there is something divine about humanity since human are created in the image of God?
I apologize if any of you are offended by this thread. I am honestly not trying to bash anyone. From having so many Evolution threads I don't think we are getting anywhere stating scientific evidence in convincing or debunking. I am very curious though about what drives the controversy regarding this issue and if possible to see it from the other side. I will admit ahead of time my own biases might be too ingrained to see it from the other side.
Well, the so called "gaps" are the result of people not understanding genetics. Changes in genotype (ie the gene sequences) don't usually correspond well with changes in phenotype (ie the traits you can observe). In reality, evolution takes place in the molecular/genotype level. Phenotype evolution is a result of genotype evolution.
Evolution is a conversation stopper. Why bother when people are intentionally ignorant, so insecure in their beliefs that they feel threatened by this, and intentionally confuse different definitions of "theory?"
My God could totally kick your God's a$$! = the beauty of religion & the answer to judoka's question. Well played rocker, well plaaayed!
