How many different types of people who believe in evolution?

It seems that we have to distinguish two different terms, namely: 'understanding' and 'acceptance'.From what I have seen about your informal categorization:1) People who accept evolution (acceptance) because they have studied the evidence (understanding).2) People who accept evolution (acceptance) but have little knowledge about it (understanding).Point 2 is interesting because someone mentions also that they accepted evolution because of authority, but have little knowledge of it.3) People who don't much care (no understanding, no accpetance) one way or the other.4) People who are skeptical about science in general (problem with understanding not just with evolution, but also with science learning), but who know little about it (and this is not surprising when they have problems understanding science anyway. For example, they may not even know what's the definition of a 'theory')5) People who are rapidly opposed to evolution (no accpetance), and who knows little about it (no understanding).But I think you are missing a category of people, which is the most interesting, IMHO:6) People who knows about evolution (understanding component), but do not accept it. (No acceptance).At first thought, this would be likely the case for some (and I emphasize the word 'some' here, because I don't want to appear to generalize to everyone) religious persons. The next question is: Can we better define this group, who have a religious/spiritual belief?So, for those who have a religious/spiritual belief:1) Understand evolution, and accept it by reconciling the two ideas (namely, religion + evolution are compatible)2) Understand evolution, but reject it without reconciling the two ideas. (Typical example would be that "I believe in God and God creates everything. That's what the Bible says")3) Do not understand evolution, and accept it by either reconciling the two ideas OR because of other reasons, such as academic authority (this is espeically true for students who are in a class of biological evolution and want to get a good grade. They accept it because they are taught in school and, perhaps more importantly, have to get a good grade)4) Do not understand evolution, and reject it. People in America who strongly opposes evolution will fall into this category.Any opinion on my categorization? Can we better define them?Thanks!M

No, I deliberately left out that category because I don't believe such a person exists - i.e. I don't believe that it is possible to really understand evolution and still reject it.I understand evolution in much the same way as I understand aerodynamics. I have a general idea of how it works, but I couldn't design an airplane. On the other hand, I accept that some people can design airplanes and I have complete confidence in using their airplanes.Similarly, I accept that some people understand evolution to the extent that they can make medical advances, etc. based on evolution. As far as I'm concerned, anybody who takes advantage of modern medicine is tacitly accepting evolution.Those who claim that they understand evolution and still reject it are engaging in a form of doublethink.The equivalent would be a person who:1. Claims to understand aerodynamics, but2. Denies that man can fly, but3. Flies in airplanes anyway.(I guess that's actually "triplethink". )-------------Since I will admit to some form of "religious/spiritual belief", I will comment on your categories: "Reconciliation" between science and religion is no more necessary than reconciliation between Africa and Santa Claus.We know that Africa exists. We can study it, measure it, etc. Santa Claus... not so much.Religious people just have to accept reality. First, they are deluding themselves that they "understand" evolution. Second, they are out of touch with reality if they reject it. Again, it is not necessary to "reconcile" anything with reality.And students who "accept" evolution to get a good grade are being dishonest. How do they reconcile that with their religion?So, your category 4, people who "do not understand evolution, and reject it", is the only real category in your list. It's the same as my category 5, "people who are rabidly opposed to evolution, and who know little about it".

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

quote:

---

No, I deliberately left out that category because I don't believe such a person exists - i.e. I don't believe that it is possible to really understand evolution and still reject it.

---

What about Kurt Wise? He is a creationist at, I believe, Answers in Genesis. He earned a Ph.D. under the guidence of Stephen Jay Gould. There is a quote attributed to him where he admits that the evidence makes it appear as if the earth is very old. This would seem to indicate that he understands the theory of evolution. Yet he remains a creationist.

Yes, I suppose Kurt Wise could be an exception, but he is certainly a doublethinker.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Oh, I don't disagree with that. It is interesting how a certain set of beliefs can be so important that one can dismiss contrary evidence that one acknowledges exist. Especially when those beliefs aren't even necessary to his theology. People can be queer odd funny interesting.

quote:

---

No, I deliberately left out that category because I don't believe such a person exists - i.e. I don't believe that it is possible to really understand evolution and still reject it.

---

I tend to agree with you here, but I'm sure there are many more exceptions. But yes, I agree with you that people who reject it probably do not have a very good understanding of the theory of evolution, anyway.

quote:

---

"Reconciliation" between science and religion is no more necessary than reconciliation between Africa and Santa Claus.

​

We know that Africa exists. We can study it, measure it, etc. Santa Claus... not so much.

​

Religious people just have to accept reality.

---

I understand what you are saying, but unfortunately the 'religious people' will NOT easily accept reality. Simply asking them to 'just' accept it is too difficult. Although I appreciate your comparison of evolution and religion with Africa and Santa Claus (and yes I do see your point), evolution and religion/spiritulaity is not as easy to define as Africa/SantaClaus. It may appear obvious to some of us, but not to those who have a very strong religious/spiritual belief. There is a huge gap here.****I think the primary assumption of the classification I have added is that we have assumed them to perceive that there is a conflict between evolution and religion. (Which, obviously, you and I will not agree, as one is science and one is religion). Given that they perceive there is a conflict, then it will probably be necessarily for them to reconcile the two ideas if they were to accept both. This is where the 'reconciliation' comes into the picture. I understand your point that there is REALLY no point in reconciliation, which I agree, but to those who have a strong religious/spiritual commitment, this may not be the case.Of course, there are those who are religious or believe in sprituality and yet do not perceive that there is a conflict any conflict between evolution and religion. Good for them.

quote:

---

And students who "accept" evolution to get a good grade are being dishonest. How do they reconcile that with their religion?

---

There are, first of all, many students who are dishonest, in some ways or other, to get a good grade. I think the word 'dishonest' is a little bit too strong, so I would say many students are not interseted in the subjects they are studying, but study them anyway for a grade.Anyway, appreciate your counterpoint. Very useful. Thanks.MThis message has been edited by middkid, 07-10-2005 08:50 PM

What?Are you talking about Stephen Jay Gould?For one thing, he's dead, so he's not "actively" doing much of anything lately. And when did he ever reject evolution?added by AdminNosy
Do not discuss this here. It is not on topic!This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 07-10-2005 08:15 PM

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

At first sight an evolution may quickly dismiss the qusetion: "Why do you accept evolution as a plausible explanation of the origin of species?" by answering: "Because there are bunch of scientific evidences that support the theory of evolution".
I'm interested in reasons other than the obvious one stated above.One such explanation is that: "My academic professor taught me so. It's stated in the book and I have to accept it".Is there any other reasons that accept evolution other than scientific evidence?My second question is the equal opposite: Why do people reject the theory of evolution?One explanation is obvious: "Because we trust that GOD is real, he is the creator of the world. HE CREATES MEN AND WOMEN. That; s why evolution will never make sense here"Another plausible reasoning is that leaving their religious belief for a scientific theory invovles emotional distress; Perhaps, people believe in their religion not only because they trust in God but also they are emotionally attached to God.Are there any other reasons that people reject evolution other than religious or nonscientific beliefs?M

"It's stated in the book and I have to accept it."This is not quite as unreasonable as it seems when stated as you have stated it. We don't have to accept anything. But it is very reasonable to accept on authority what 99% of all biologists affirm, and which has been affirmed for a long time.

Remeber, too, that is it impossible to examine the actual evidence, hold the evidence in our hands, analyse it using our specialized expertise, do the actual experiments for every single discipline that people engage in. At some point, we either have to hold significant doubts concerning the majority of human knowledge, or we have to accept in the majority of subjects that the material in our textbooks and lectures of our teachers are reasonably accurate.Further, we don't even have the time to read even the beginning level textbooks in every field of study, much less the more detailed, specialized texts. At some point, we have to accept some things on authority (at least provisionally), or we have to simply doubt the majority of human knowledge.

There is another way to accept evolution: by logic with the bare minimum of evidence. The evidence being that animals do not reproduce perfectly accurately and that this might affect the degree to which the offspring reproduce themselves.It logically follows that there should be, then, some degree of evolutionary change.To go all the way to one (or a few) common ancestors for all things does require, I think, a bit more evidence. But not so much when you see that it follows logically from some simple facts.

I agree, and in fact i don't mean to discredit people who I-accept-it-because-it's-in-the-book. What I am concerned, however, is whether they have critically think about the issue, especially if the theory of evolution conflicts with their spiritual/religious belief.