I want to believe in evolution

[Lorizael]

I bet that in 100 years a lot of our current science will be proven wrong.

I bet that in 100 years a lot of our current science will be proven incomplete, but not necessarily wrong. Newtonian mechanics, despite being "wrong," is still right most of the time, yada yada.

Edit: MikeH beat me.

[Lorizael]

So she believes in a mountain of paper (the Bible was certainly never a single text) written ten thousand years ago by the leading minds of the day, and you believe in a mountain of paper written ten years ago by the leading minds of the day. Perhaps this is why your argument failed?

Evolution is supported by data, not paper. The data just happens to be stored on paper.

[MikeH]

Anyone can take the data about experiments and observations made about Evolution and recreate them for themselves. (though some will take a lot of time and money).

[loinburger]

Creationism is also supported by data, it's just that the data is "a few thousand years ago, here's what an uneducated goat herder had to say about the origins of the universe."

[MikeH]

You can't watch Jesus come back to life, but you can watch Evolution happen in front of your eyes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/science/studying-evolution-with-an-eye-on-the-future.html?pagewanted=all

[Robert]

Science is designed to have it's theorems constantly challenged and improved. That's it's strength.

I'm sure our understanding of Evolution will improve, we don't know everything. But what we know is enough to know it's not going to be fundamentally wrong. It might be that it's not the full picture, like the difference between moving between Newtonian laws and Relativity. But Newtons laws still apply for most of what we do. They aren't wrong, they just aren't the complete picture.

It's not really fair to say one "believe's in Evolution" that's not accurate. People understand that Evolution is the best theory to describe the observations of life on our world, and understand that there are many predictions that can/could be made and all that can so far be tested conclusively have supported the theorem.

For the record, I agree with all you said above and never wanted to imply the opposite. (and I think that I didn't do that either, but that's a matter of interpretation)

[Jon Miller]

I disagree. The vast majority of humans are smart enough to be able to learn more and then make up their own minds they don't have to just choose who to believe.

Anyone can go and find out more information about what is in the bible and what the science is and then make their own determination. I'm sure any scientist would want someone to learn more rather than just 'believe' the science.

And actually I'm sure most preachers would want the person to learn more about the bible and gain their own faith.

I have went to my biologist friends about a couple of points in the evolution/creationism discussion.

They didn't know, and but believed in the science.

I think that other than a few experts, almost no one takes the time to know/understand without the need of faith (and that is ignoring trusting the experimentalists to be doing good science) in the experts.

As far as YEC goes, the theology can be discussed... but the science is just pointing out possible inconsistencies within the evolution theoretical framework. I guess there is science the other way, but it is just lunacy and I don't think that anyone who really values science gives it any value.

JM
(Maybe more time should be spent on the theology, there is a reason why ~100 years ago there were very few YECs.)

[Proteus_MST]

I think only one of my relatives has given me a creationism book, and that relative doesn't attend church anymore. I think it was more to get rid of a book than to give me a book.

JM

Reminds me of one of my friends during our study of biology.
He once went out for a walk in the park and came back with a chick tract about evolution,
which was given to him by a christian fundamentalist who handed them out.
We had a good laugh after reading it

IIRC it was a german version of this one:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

[snoopy369]

Evolution is supported by data, not paper. The data just happens to be stored on paper.

Yes, yes, I'm a 100% science type. I was just pointing out that _his_ argument was comparing a stack of paper to a stack of paper. Citing scientific proof without understanding it is every bit as bad as citing religious works, as far as I'm concerned; that's how we ended up with Natural Medicine or whatever.

[Jon Miller]

Reminds me of one of my friends during our study of biology.
He once went out for a walk in the park and came back with a chick tract about evolution,
which was given to him by a christian fundamentalist who handed them out.
We had a good laugh after reading it

IIRC it was a german version of this one:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

There exist criticisms of evolution which are not answerable by myself nor by my biologist friends, so it is a bit different than that (some fairly important ones, note that just because they were not answerable by my friends does not mean they would not be answerable by any biologist).

On the other hand, that doesn't mean that evolution is not scientific nor does it mean that it isn't the best framework for natural biology.

JM

[Japher]

Evolution is stupid... throw rocks at it.

(That would make an awesome tshirt)

Anyway, I convinced myself evolution is a bunch hooey when I decided that there is no way we would ever evolve away prehensile tails.

[C0ckney]

Yes, yes, I'm a 100% science type. I was just pointing out that _his_ argument was comparing a stack of paper to a stack of paper. Citing scientific proof without understanding it is every bit as bad as citing religious works, as far as I'm concerned; that's how we ended up with Natural Medicine or whatever.

then you clearly misunderstood my argument. obviously i was paraphrasing the conversation, but i did mention one example that i used (that of bacteria evolving to become resistant to antibiotics). i also used the phrase 'scientific evidence' which is clearly 'data' which happens to written on paper, as lori has pointed out.

mike, loin and jon have said the rest.

[DaShi]

i met someone the other day who believes in 7 day creationism, believes that the bible is the literal truth etc. she was american (what a surprise). she was bemoaning the fact that academics who believe in creationism are discriminated against in the sciences and not taken seriously. i was astonished to discover that there are academics who believe in creationism. i gently pointed out that maybe scientists find it hard to take seriously people who reject the enormous amount of scientific evidence for evolution. i gave the example of bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics. she said that there is evidence on both sides. i asked what evidence, apart from the bible, is there for creationism she said the bible was evidence. i, trying hard still to be polite, asked why she preferred the christian creation story to, say, the norse one or the greek one, or perhaps the one of that west african tribe who believe that the world is entirely made out of ant excrement. she said that she respected everyone's beliefs, including my one in evolution. i tried to explain that my 'belief' does not require faith in a single text written several thousand years ago but instead relies on a mountain of scientific evidence. she repeated that she respected everyone's beliefs. i decided to change the subject.

this woman is a teacher, although thankfully not a science teacher. she spent a lot of the rest of time talking about angels and demons and about the constant battle between good and evils 'forces' in the world. this included a particularly outlandish conspiracy theory about how many record labels had shrines to the devils and that their artists gained success by selling their souls.

what is it with the US and letting religious nutters instruct children?

I hate it when they slip through the border.

[C0ckney]

i'm glad that someone got the reference.

[MrFun]

I wanna see someone find a humanoid fossil and a dinosaur fossil in the same geological strata.