Atheist evolution doubters?

Is there anyone out there besides fundamentalists who has doubts about whether the theory of evolution is correct? Any fringe or alternate theories floating around besides “God made everything miraculously”?

i’m replying to you since no one replied to me and your zero replies looked lonely. i’m sure that there are non-fundamentalists who doubt evolution, but i’m not sure who exactly would. someone who doesn’t want to believe that his ancestor is a chimp?

while I may not be able to offer an alternate theory I do think its odd that those who believe in evolution are willing to accept it on what amounts to faith. They’re willing to believe scientists who weren’t around when it all went down instead of preists who weren’t around when it all went down. Personally I’m more of the “clockmaker” ilk. Until scientists can resolve the Big Bang and the First Cell questions I’ll hafta to rely on what I got: Faith.

I’m sure there are folks out there who believe that space aliens flew in on flying saucers and seeded the planet with life.

Something like 64% of us believe those aliens are still here.

Well there is a dispute between people like Stephen Jay Gould who say that for the most part, species remain unchanged through history and that new species only arise within rapid bursts of evolution (“sudden punctuation”), and people like Richard Dawkins who argue–as Charles Darwin did–that species change slowly but continuously over the course of time.

Scientologists believe that we are like 94 trillian year old ‘Thetans’ that created the Universe as some sort of game and have got ourselves stuck in it.

cough

The only people I’ve talked/listened to who doubt evolution are fundamentalists. They generally seem pretty shy about reading modern biology textbooks, too.

That person (or people) would be laboring under a misconception then.

Humans and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor that was neither chimp nor human according to prevailing theory. We did not come from a chimp; we both came from the same source.

As to the OP, I am pretty sure that other religions have their own versions of “creation.” I know you said fundamantalists and not “Christians” per se, but I thought that a distinction that should be made.

Also, there are “creation scientists,” who claim to be able to use science to prove their theory. While these folks are onbiosly all pandering to the fundie crowd, it is very possible that someone without any religious afiliation at all might look at the “science” they employ and believe it on face value without worrying about the spiritual ramifications. People can be silly like that…


Yer pal,
Satan

Jois states,

“Something like 64% of us believe those aliens are still here.”

And who, praytell, are “us”?

I will not feed the troll… I will not feed the troll…

Ok I’m better now.


peas on earth

I’ll feed him:

JamesCarroll: Faith is nice and all… Are you ssaying you believe in the young earth premise? Please elaborate…


Yer pal,
Satan

I don’t make the assumption that scientists know everything yet. That’s foolish, as there are plenty of currently conflicting ideas.

However, I do believe the study of everything through the sciences will provide facts.

And facts are inescapable.


-PIGEONMAN-
Hero For A New Millennium!

The Legend Of PigeonMan - updates every Wed & Sat

JamesCarroll,

you say ‘They’re willing to believe scientists who weren’t around when it all went down instead of priests who weren’t around when it all went down.’

Now if that’s all there was to it, you’d have a point.

However there is a mass of evidence in various fields (see other threads for websites, or read some textbooks) which is what the scientists used to first create, then check their theory. If any evidence comes in that refutes evolution, scientists will change the theory.

Priests have the Bible (a wonderful book - I particularly like ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’) which if you take it all literally states that creation took place about 4000 years ago. I don’t know of any physical evidence that backs this up. People tell me they have absolute faith, which is certainly a powerful reason for them.

Unfortunately, faith is, by definition, absolute belief without logical proof. Science works by examining the evidence. I don’t see how you can equate the two.

Oh god, I’m gonna regret this, but oh well:

Most people accept science on faith. Very few of us have the knowledge or equipment to truly independently verify much of anything, we take the word of the people who have specialized knowledge. The difference between joesmoe believing in Einstien and joesmoe believing in the Pope is not as big as some like to think. There are those who worship science unthinkingly, and are every bit as intolerant as the average fundie. When you get down to where the cheese binds,
at it’s best all science has ever said is “this hypothesis best describes the observed phenomena, and if a better one turns up tommorrow we’ll try that.” But people cling to an orderly universe as described by science the same way others cling to an orderly universe as described by religion. It’s not where you get your data, it’s what you do with it,
Larry

quote:…I do think its odd that those who believe in evolution are willing to accept it on what amounts to faith.

The implication here is that those who “believe in” the scientific method are in the same boat as those who believe in religion.

It’s true that most people accept most of what they believe on faith. We simply don’t have sufficient time or brainpower to independently analyze every question which occurs to us.

The critical difference, however between science and religion, is that true science is a search for the truth. Whenever science discovers that it has been in error, even if it was for centuries as when Einstein’s theory demolished Newton’s, it will correct itself. Notice that I specify “true science”. Like any other human being, a scientist can become corrupted, but that is a separate issue. Inevitably, however, over time, science brings us closer to the truth.

Religion, on the other hand, is unable to correct itself and invaribly leads it’s adherents down a host of history’s blind alleys.

Evil G., “us” should have been “people living in the ‘US of A’” … according to some poll or other - don’t ask, I choked on my wheaties and moved on.

Maybe this seems true in the short run, on the other hand there is a lot of material that might point to corrections on religion’s side, too. We either don’t know about it? Are to lazy to work on it? Or?

For example, the Essenes in Jesus’ time were working on a “correction” to Jewish thought and/or religion, there were other groups alive and well in Jewish thought as well.

The Jewish midrash and other commentaries also recorded questions, other meanings or secondary meanings to the Torah and religious questions in general -

The RC Church made dozens of corrections - and had councils, creeds, colleges of cardinals and inquisitions -

Protestants made a few corrections, too-

I think the blind alleys were created for those who refuse to learn from history and maybe science and maybe instructions on the portable camping lamp that says, “Do not operate without adequated ventilation.”

Eh, it really isn’t much of a dispute; it all depends on the timescale on which you’re viewing things. Darwin himself wrote in Origin, following his one chart which he included, that species probably remain unmodified for an extended period of time, then once again undergo modification. Pretty much what Gould and his crew say, too.


“Come on, Phonics Monkey–drum!”

lvick, are you going to regret my agreeing completely with you? I could post more, but I coudn’t say it better.

Regarding the OP (if we don’t get back to it, they’ll lock us out of this one!), there’s a whole body of evidence that things changed over time: carbon dating, stratification of the earth’s top layers, possibly plate tectonics (sp?), etc, etc (anyone want to add to the list?) In order for an alternate theory to be viable, it would have to find something in this body of evidence that could not be reconciled and offer an alternative that explains it all without arbitrarily throwing away all of the work that has been done in the various studies that support evolution.

It should be obvious from the above that I am, for the greatest part, taking evolution on faith, but it’s a cheap faith. I believe that God places the emphasis on the truths of how we live instead of on mere facts; I’m betting my life that my salvation is not dependent on whether I believe that we descended from Homo Erectus.