How can it be doubted?

Hello! I am new on the forum but for a long time now I have been intrigued with peoples doubt in evolution.With the extensive proof of evolution it seems difficult to me to believe that there can be non-believers. The countless experiments and links showing development in organisms through mutations linking with environmental change. For the sceptics then there is the bacterium example that we an see with the human over dosing on antibiotics and just the resistant bacteria still living through and now causing a lot of medical difficulty.But even with all this aside I find it impossible to think that people can deny that if an oorganism is more suited to the environment then it is more likely to breed, passing on its genes gradually creating a better adapted race. Where does the logic path break down?I cannot help believing that if Darwins theory didn't disprove the creation of man by God and that the two ideas weren't linked at all that evolution would be a commonly excepted theory on a par with say the law of gravity.[This message has been edited by samdavyson, 03-26-2004]

---

Sam Davyson - http://www.samdavyson.tk

Creationists fight against evolution not because of the lack of evidence, but because it conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible. This is the same reason that the christian church denied that the sun was the center of the solar system and that the earth was not the center of the universe. Their interpretation of the bible at that time prohibited them from believing that the earth moved. In fact, a lot of the comments made by church leaders about the falsification of the geocentric theory sound a lot like current complaints about the theory of evolution. Namely, "I believe the Bible from Genesis to Revelations," and, "If the Bible is wrong in Genesis, how can we trust the rest of the Bible." They should have learned their lesson when geocentrism was falsified. Hopefully they will learn the futility of trying to force their presuppositions onto reality.

and it is not just evolution.for the YEC (Young Earth Creationists) this denial also affects their understanding of geology, physics and astronomy as each one of these conflict with the concept of an earth less that 15,000 (upper limit YEC) years.the fact that there are actual annual layers that can be counted back to 567,700 years ago does not disuade them either.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

Hi, It is called cognitive dissonance.Brian.

We shouldn't be as hard on those from 500 years ago as we are. We have learned a lot about how to think and learn.Let's face it, if someone tries to tell you that the Bible is wrong and that the earth moves, you step outside, look around and conclude, based on that evidence, that it doesn't. Obviously the claim is both outlandish and refuted by evidence.Likewise, one person just looking around isn't going to "see" evolution in action. Those who can't see it in this simple-minded way think they do have evidence against it.In both cases those with much greater knowledge (or even just a little more knowledge) of the world around them can "see" what others can not.Then we must remember that many of the creationists have been told all their lives that to agree that evolution happens results in eternal torture. That's a pretty powerful incentive to keep your eyes screwed tightly closed.I know it is very hard to comprehend how such blindness can persist but they have problems comprehending our, to them, blindness too. They simply do not comprehend the kind of reasoning that other use. They have to believe that we are trying not to "see" for a reason analogous to their eternal torture. Usually they presume something like not wanting to follow the dictates of a god. They simply can NOT grasp both an utterly different worldview and, more, an alien way of coming to an understanding of what is real.

And let's not forget that over 500 years ago it was almost a matter of definition that the earth was immovable and that it was the center of the universe. I'm not sure how to express this idea, but it was not a simple matter of thinking the earth is stationary and then thinking the earth is moving - some extremely profound changes in one's basic conceptions had to change in order to comprehend the earth moving around the sun. No easy task for some people.

Thank you everyone for your answers. I see for thoise simple minded or even not so without the ability to see visible action it must be difficult to comprehend.Howevefr I am sure that soon ythe ideas will catch up as evolution becomes excepted and a new theory of science challenges God's existance.The beauty in Science is that it can admit it has been wrong, with religion this is significantly harder as there is supposed to be an all seeing all knowing superbeing that woiuld already habve the answers.

Im new here too, and this is my first post so here goes!I think people dont accept evolution as true mainly for two reasons. The first has already been mentioned, which is the religious people (YEC specifically) who run into obvious problems with their interpretation of the bible and the theory of evolution. The other group (many, MANY people I know are this way, as I once did) just dont know anything about it. If you ask someone walking down the street what the definition of evolution is they would probably say "animals turning into other animals, like a fish to a frog". I think the main reasons for this are from receiving a very watered down version of evolution taught to them in HS, and a very large lack of knowledge about science. Schools ussually just try and brush off the slightest thing that could create a controversy, so evolution (which is a very hot topic) is presented as one of many ideas of how things are the way they are. Also, because of a lack of scientific knowledge most people just listen to what they are told, and alot of what they hear is "the fossil record is wrong" "carbon-dating is unrealiable" or "there is no geologic column". These statements are ussually backed up by "evidence" (even though its wrong) to give the impression of knowledge, and regular folks just swallow it all down. Its quite a shame.

It is not an impression. For shell fossils concerned (I saw this "evidence" on the net), a supeficial exam will return that both fossil and our days shell are the same.
You must be a malacologist expert to see with naked eye, all the morphologic differences between these two specimens.
Such specialist doesn't walk down each road. You should admitt this.Against such "evidence", the probability to find a specialist is very low comparing with naive persons. Agree?
This is one of YEC's secret weapon.Denesha

Denesha-
"Such specialist doesn't walk down each road. You should admitt this."Wait, admit what? Im kind of confused here. I agree that the odds of finding a malacologist walking down the street are very slim. Thats why I believe a lot of average people are tricked into thinking that the YEC's have evidence, because they give the impression that they do even though they dont.
I also agree with you that it is one of the YEC's secret weapons.

Prinny,YEC theories are easy to understand because of simplicity and superficial knowlegde. It's a easiest medication to administrate.
Scientific knowledge could be boring to digest sometime. But I still believe that a normal and general scientific level is sufficient to throw away any YEC theories. Am I optimist?Denesha

Really?From A Pliocene Snail:

No Jon,It was not this one. Your example is very
elaborated.My one was here : http://www.answersingenesis.org/...is/docs/la_difference.aspDenesha

"But I still believe that a normal and general scientific level is sufficient to throw away any YEC theories. Am I optimist?"I completely agree with you about YEC's theories, but I think you are too optimistic about the average american. I might be generalizing too much, but it seems like alot of americans dont have even a general grasp on science. I didnt have a good grasp on it until recently, when I started to read what science (mostly biology) was actually about and how scientists actually did things. Maybe Im being too pessimistic, but Im amazed at how little people here know about science.

I think you guys are overlooking that Americans usually don't reject traditional opinions or theories in favor of scientific explanations. Scientists are viewed as ivory tower academics out of touch with the real world. Nobody takes the advice of a doctor over their mother, and every time that a newspaper runs a headline like "Your mother was right: chicken soup is good for colds", it only confirms in people's mind that "these so-called experts don't know what the hell they're doing."After all, it was science that brought us the nuclear bomb. In most people's minds that's more than enough to choose religious parochialism and dogma over scientific tentativity. Just read some of Buz's posts and you'll see the traditional American attitude towards smart people.